(Fitness of a genotype)= (Average Fecundity)X(Fitness of offspring's genotypes)
Using fecundity as parameter of fitness is very misleading one. I suppose it to be another striking darwinistic "invention". According such an idea genotyope of Leonardo da Vinci was less fit as genotype of Giacomo Dindi who had 15 children 10 of which survived and each of them have another 15 children.
Also lions having just two offsprings have their genotype less fit as rats with 14 offsprings. Yet the lions sleeps 16 hours a day. If lions were sleeping less they would feed more progeny. Consequently they would be more "fit" in eyes of a Darwinian.
Such measuring of fitness is very curious one indeed. It did not take into consideration the fact that there are qualitative differences between species, their structures, their complexity, hierarchy.
No one medieval king would have given rat into coat-of-arms even if he had heard that rats are more fit as lions or eagles.
Survival of progeny is only one parameter of "fitness" and I am afraid one of the unimportant.
It is also important what "freedom" a species have, if it is occupied with forage all day or if it has also time for singing like song-birds etc... quality of life...
---
No wonder there are under "Papilio Dardanus" 20.000 Google registerd items and under "Biston betularia" 40.000. Darwinists like to study and discuss more black peppered moth as colorfull and polymorphyc Mocker swallowtail. They suppose to observe on this uninteresting moth "average fecundity".
™ Version 4.2
