Want to know how science really works? Here's a fun interesting article about research that answers a basic, fundamental question: Why do lions lave manes?


############

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-lions-mane

The Lion's Mane
By Peyton West

Neither a token of royalty nor a shield for fighting, the mane is a signal of quality to mates and rivals, but one that comes with consequences

The African lion is one of the world's most admired and best studied species, yet its most striking feature has long been a mystery: Why do lions have manes?

Charles Darwin, who knew almost nothing about lions, was one of the first to suggest an answer, writing, "The mane of the lion forms a good defence against the one danger to which he is liable, namely the attacks of rival lions." This unsupported hypothesis prevailed until 1972, when George Schaller published his seminal work, The Serengeti Lion. Schaller suggested that males bore sumptuous manes to signal their quality as a prospective mate, similar to the displays of several other polygamous species. Although these two hypotheses were not mutually exclusive, scientists tended to favor one or the other. When I began my research in 1995 neither theory had been systematically tested.

Craig Packer introduced the question to me in a casual conversation about potential thesis projects, months before I started graduate school at the University of Minnesota. "There are really two big mysteries left about the big cats," he said. "Why did saber tooth tigers have saber teeth and why do lions have manes?" I remember thinking that there wasn't much I could do about saber tooth tigers, but the lion's mane—I was hooked. The possibility of answering such a basic question was exactly the reason I got into science in the first place. I soon joined Craig's lab despite his warning: "it's not an easy project…"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2025 08:34AM by anybody.

I'm pretty sure god gave lions manes so Father Adam could hold onto them while riding.

I could be wrong. I'll leave it to scientists to figure out this important question.

Fascinating article, thank you!

Lions have manes presumably because there is a DNA sequence (gene)--perhaps coupled with environmental and developmental factors triggering such gene expression--that produces such manes as a trait within a population of lions. That is the biological explanation.

So, what about the evolutionary explanation? That would require evidence of "adaptation" where there were 2 (or more) populations of lions, mane and non-mane, and where having a mane carried with it a survival, or reproductive advantage over lions without such a mane. Where is the evidence for that? In other words, where is the evidence that having mane is an evolutionary adaptation, as opposed to just a contingency of nature? Contrary to old-school adaptationist thinking, not all traits of a given species represent evolutionary adaptations.

The fact that there is mane variation in nature, and that female lions have certain mane preferences for purposes of mating, might explain how certain mane traits came to be favored within a population by sexual selection. But it does not explain why lions have manes in the first place. There is no evidence (at least from this article) such that somewhere in the evolutionary past, there were no lions with manes and that thereafter a genetic mutation occurred creating manes within the population, such that lions born with a mane were favored by females for mating purposes. To consider this possibility, population genetics might be helpful, but again, that is not what this article is about.

So, bottom line, this is speculation, not science. First, the toy lions that were the heart of this 'experiment' are poor substitutes for real lions, where any number of traits besides manes and their color might be relevant to sexual advantage, for example the social status of a lion within a pride. Second, even assuming it was shown that lions with black manes reproduce better than other lions, it doesn't answer the question as to why lions have manes in the first place, which was the OP question at issue.

The authors should perhaps remember the advice of George C. Williams in his classic book, *Adaptation and Natural Selection:*

"The ground rule--or perhaps *doctrine* would be a better term -- is that adaptation is a special and onerous concept that should be used only where it is really necessary. When it must be recognized, it should be attributed to no higher a level of organization that is demanded by the evidence. In explaining adaptation, one should assume the adequacy of the simplest form of natural selection, that of alternative alleles in Mendelian populations, unless the evidence clearly shows that this theory does not suffice."

So, contrary to your assertion, THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS! Although a clever experiment, such as this, might shed some light on the issue of lion sexual preferences, whether it does or not in actual nature, and if so how much, is still an open question.

and why are Hammerhead sharks apparently the only fish of their type?

Because they wouldn't so cool without them.

Who needs science when you can just say stuff?

:-) :-) :-)

"...wouldn't *look* so cool without them."

AAARRRGGGHHHH--ruined my own joke. :-(

For the same reason the chicken crossed the road.

Why did B. YOUNG cross the road?

Guffaw!

To paraphrase Sir Francis Bacon, the idea of the thing is not the thing. The thing is the thing.

There isn't really a good answer to this question at all. Most big cats, which lead similar lives to lions, don't have manes. So most of the pat answers which are being handed out, don't really work for that reason.

At some point in the remote past, lions many have been reduced in number leading to a lot of inbreeding and the mane gene arose in those conditions. It could also be a dominant, rather than a recessive gene and of no particular advantage.

We find in human beings, for example, that many genes are dominant but not advantageous. They knock out other genes for health, intelligence etc which would be more beneficial.

Did you even bother to read the article?