Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

The evolution of cooperative hunting

Packer, Craig; Ruttan, Lore

The American Naturalist, 1988

Peer-reviewedmodelling studynot applicable

Modelled when an individual should join a hunt rather than scavenge from it, and compared the predictions against recorded hunting success at different group sizes across carnivores.

Studied in
Carnivora
Sample size
model with a comparative survey of carnivore hunting records

Group hunting is frequently stable not because the group is more efficient but because a non-participant would still obtain a share, and cooperation in the strict sense — where individuals do better by coordinating than by hunting alone — is harder to demonstrate than group hunting itself.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

Hunting in a group and hunting cooperatively are separate claims, and much reported cooperative hunting has not distinguished them.

How NatureHQ reads it

The record that keeps NatureHQ from calling every group hunt cooperation. The distinction it draws — several animals hunting at once versus individuals whose roles depend on each other — governs how every cooperative-hunting page here is worded.

  • A model with comparative support rather than an experiment.
  • Data on per-capita intake by group size are patchy for most species.

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: University press journalsPublished in a university press journal.

doi.org/10.1086/284844

Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.

NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-03.