[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Jurassic Park 4: Electric Boogaloo
In a message dated 2/9/05 6:09:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<< I'm truthfully getting sick of the solo vs pack-hunting talks. Pack
hunting has NOTHING to do with intelligence. It has to do with the environment
food availability which are both intertwined. If there's enough food to
consistently support a pack, that's most likely how they will live. If the
population density is low, the predator should be solitary, ie. lions vs
"NOTHING to do with intelligence"? This seems a little sweeping.
Leaving aside, if I may, the idea that a pack might constitute too dense a
predator population to be supported by "slim pickin's" (in which case, the pack
COULD not survive, but probably wouldn't have formed in the first place): Why
would it be more likely that a pack will form, based on the availability of
food, unless there are other factors at play? It seems to me there are enough
counterexamples (among tetrapods, anyway) that test this "rule:" cheetahs in
Africa share the environment & food supply with lions (which are exceptions
the Felidae as far as communal hunting); New World cougars have plenty of
prey, but don't form packs (as far as I know). Is a dearth of prey the reason
tigers, leopards, jaguars, bears, and foxes tend to be solitary, or is it more
likely that that's what their ancestors did & it works just fine?
Wolves form packs that cooperate in the hunt, as do lions. They don't just go
after the prey en masse, side-by-side - they take up positions, drive their
quarry to fellow predators, relieve one another when a chaser gets tired, etc.
Surely this involves higher social intelligence which tigers and other loners