[Sharing Lights]

Egalitarianism (see the next post) is common in animals but usually only occurs when the cooperative group is despotic.

ion prides do not have one dominant female in charge of reproduction but rather all females are capable of reproducing.

The non-despotic cooperative lion pride is very unusual for this reason. Experts have determined that egalitarian lion prides are exemplified by two distinct concepts:

(1) symmetrical relationships amongst lionesses and

(2) the voluntary communal cub rearing system and shared mating/reproduction (Roach 2001).

Packer emphasizes that egalitarianism occurs more often in animals where a female is unable to control the mating and reproduction of other females.

This idea suits lionesses, because it would be nearly impossible to establish reproductive control within a pride (Packer 2001).





Communal Cub Rearing



Reproductive female lionesses and the offspring they produce form what is known as a crèche within a pride. A crèche is where the egalitarianism primarily takes place.

The lionesses within the pride communally raise the cubs by helping out with rearing, suckling, babysitting, and defending every cub within the crèche (Viljoen 2003).

The synchronizing of estrous/mating/birthing are important in the maximization of cooperative cub rearing that occurs within the pride.

If all the females are able to birth their cubs at the same time, then all the females will be able to lend a hand and help out with the rearing of the cubs.

The symmetry of the female relationships and the volunteerism on the part of the lionesses to engage in communal care is amazing (Packer 2001).

The pride system is held together strongly by the importance of cooperative cub defense.

An experiment showed that non-resident males were less likely to approach a pride when multi-female roars were heard rather than solitary female roars.

This shows that the cooperation amongst lionesses in defense discourages infanticidal males from threatening the lives of the cubs (Grinnell 1996).





Kin Selection/Altruism?



Grinnell and Packer were determined to figure out whether the cooperative nature in lions is caused by kinship or mutualism.

Mutualism involves individuals that have no urge to defect from the group and those that are expected to cooperate within the group without any understanding of the kinship or cooperation with their companion.

Cooperation within a group will yield the highest payoffs which makes this type of behavior advantageous (Grinnell 1995).

So according to this idea of mutualism, lions would not fit into this category. Since the female lionesses remain within their natal pride and the male coalitions are typically from the same crèche, then there is a good deal of kinship within a pride.

Females within a pride are 1/8 related to each other whereas males are 1/4 related to each other.

Cooperation within a pride therefore increases a lion’s fitness due the level of relatedness.

Therefore, lions do employ behaviors consistent with kin selection.





Leaders/Laggards

lag·gard
n.
One that lags; a straggler.

adj.
Hanging back or falling behind; dilatory. See synonyms at slow.

laggardly lag'gard·ly adv.
laggardness lag'gard·ness n.

==================================================



Although female lionesses do not have a defined dominance hierarchy by any means, leaders and laggards are present within a pride. Leaders take control of the pride and pull the majority of the weight within the pride.

Laggards get out easy by gaining great immediate rewards by not having to expend energies doing the duties of the leaders.

There is no real benefit to being a leader since there is not a dominance hierarchy nor is mating selection gleaned from the leaders vs. laggards list.

Leaders take note of how much laggards help out with things like territorial defense, but they realize it would be detrimental overall to the pride to threaten the life of the laggard.

Heinsohn suggests that leaders and laggards coexist peacefully in a mixed evolutionarily stable strategy (Heinsohn 1995).



Packer & Heinsohn together determined the reasoning for leaders and laggards based on three key ideas:



1) Leaders specialize in territorial defense whereas laggards specialize in other areas

2) Leaders gain more than laggards by being involved in territorial defense

3) Leaders may in fact be better fighters and therefore more likely to run less risk of injury



The lionesses work together to share their territory, and some lionesses have more tasks to carry out than others. Overall though, leaders do not gain any advantages and it’s the laggards that win out by getting a “free ride” (Packer 1996).