Large animals should have higher lifetime probabilities of cancer than small animals because each cell division carries a risk of mutating towards a tumor lineage, and large animals have many

more cells. However, this is not observed-a paradox that suggests large and/or long-lived species tend to evolve effective cancer suppression mechanisms. Based on the principle of allocation, the evolutionary value of cancer suppression should be determined by the 'cost' of suppression (decreased fecundity) vs. the 'cost' of cancer (reduced survivorship). Should effective cancer suppression be more common in more r-selected (fast life history) or K-selected (slow life history) species? Explain your reasoning.