Social systems and life‐history characteristics of mongooses

Abstract

The diversity of extant carnivores provides valuable opportunities for comparative research to illuminate general patterns of mammalian social evolution. Recent field studies on mongooses (Herpestidae), in particular, have generated detailed behavioural and demographic data allowing tests of assumptions and predictions of theories of social evolution. The first studies of the social systems of their closest relatives, the Malagasy Eupleridae, also have been initiated. The literature on mongooses was last reviewed over 25 years ago. In this review, we summarise the current state of knowledge on the social organisation, mating systems and social structure (especially competition and cooperation) of the two mongoose families. Our second aim is to evaluate the contributions of these studies to a better understanding of mammalian social evolution in general. Based on published reports or anecdotal information, we can classify 16 of the 34 species of Herpestidae as solitary and nine as group-living; there are insufficient data available for the remainder. There is a strong phylogenetic signal of sociality with permanent complex groups being limited to the genera Crossarchus, Helogale, Liberiictis, Mungos, and Suricata. Our review also indicates that studies of solitary and social mongooses have been conducted within different theoretical frameworks: whereas solitary species and transitions to gregariousness have been mainly investigated in relation to ecological determinants, the study of social patterns of highly social mongooses has instead been based on reproductive skew theory. In some group-living species, group size and composition were found to determine reproductive competition and cooperative breeding through group augmentation. Infanticide risk and inbreeding avoidance connect social organisation and social structure with reproductive tactics and life histories, but their specific impact on mongoose sociality is still difficult to evaluate. However, the level of reproductive skew in social mongooses is not only determined by the costs and benefits of suppressing each other's breeding attempts, but also influenced by resource abundance. Thus, dispersal, as a consequence of eviction, is also linked to the costs of co-breeding in the context of food competition. By linking these facts, we show that the socio-ecological model and reproductive skew theory share some determinants of social patterns. We also conclude that due to their long bio-geographical isolation and divergent selection pressures, future studies of the social systems of the Eupleridae will be of great value for the elucidation of general patterns in carnivore social evolution.

Does the grey mouse lemur use agonistic vocalisations to recognise kin?

“…Photo: S. E. Kessler Contributions to Zoology, 87 (4) -2018 food resources, though this behaviour did not appear to be driven by kin relations (Hauver et al, 2013). Here, we are following the definition of coalitions used by Gompper et al, 1997, which restricts coalitions to short-term interactions, thus excluding the relatively long-term male-male associations in some otherwise solitary species, such as mongooses (Waser et al, 1994;Schneider and Kappeler, 2014), hyenas (Wagner et al, 2007(Wagner et al, , 2008, and cheetahs (Caro and Collins, 1987;Marker, Wilkerson, 2008;Dalton et al, 2013). To our knowledge, no study has tested whether a non-group living, small-brained mammal recognises maternal kin via agonistic calls.…”

Genetic population structure and relatedness in the narrow‐striped mongoose (Mungotictis decemlineata), a socialMalagasy carnivore with sexual segregation

“…For the Malagasy carnivores, information on local genetic population structure is missing, apart from relatedness estimations of male dyads in fossa, Cryptoprocta ferox (Lührs et al. 2013; Schneider and Kappeler 2014). Existing molecular studies in euplerids have focused on a higher organizational level, addressing phylogeographic and taxonomic questions (Veron et al.…”

“…The sister taxa Herpestidae (mongooses) and Eupleridae (Malagasy carnivores, including the Galidiinae, Malagasy mongooses) are socially and ecologically diverse groups of carnivores (Schneider and Kappeler 2014). Genetic studies of social herpestids have focused on breeding success and patterns of inbreeding (Keane et al 1996;Griffin et al 2003;Nielsen et al 2012;Leclaire et al 2013).…”

“…In contrast, much less is known about genetic structure and reproductive systems of the socalled "solitary" mongooses, which often display gregarious tendencies (e.g., Galerella sanguinea: Waser et al 1994). For the Malagasy carnivores, information on local genetic population structure is missing, apart from relatedness estimations of male dyads in fossa, Cryptoprocta ferox (L€ uhrs et al 2013;Schneider and Kappeler 2014). Existing molecular studies in euplerids have focused on a higher organizational level, addressing phylogeographic and taxonomic questions (Veron et al 2004;Bennett et al 2009;Durbin et al 2010;van Vuuren et al 2012).…”

Sexual dimorphism and condition dependence in the anal pad of the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus)

“…This species appears to be an extreme dietary generalist (Gorman 1975;Hays and Conant 2007) with a solitary social system (Nellis 1989;Hays and Conant 2003), and demonstrates high degrees of both inter-and intra-sexual home-range overlap, suggesting a lack of territoriality (Gorman 1979;Roy et al 2002). Nothing is known of mate choice or competition in the small Indian mongoose, but semicaptive studies indicate that they are promiscuous and that males provide no parental care (Nellis and Everard 1983;Schneider and Kappeler 2014). In such mating systems, sexual selection generally favors males with larger bodies or elaborate weapons (Andersson 1994).…”