How often do lions mate
A pair of lions can mate 40 times in a day! Actual copulation takes 6-10 seconds.ChaCha [ Source: http://www.chacha.com/question/how-often-do-lions-mate ]
More Answers to "How often do lions mate"
- How often do lions mate?
- Lions mate about once every twenty minutes. Females are in heat for only a brief period of about 4 days, so that's the only time that leads to pregnancy. But both the males and females seem to willing and anxious almost constantly. Sex for ...
- Do lions mate for life?
- Yes, they are the only felines that actually mate for life. Though some alpha male may also mate with multiple females simutaneously and stay with them all for life.
- How many times a year lions mate?
- The mating activity generally lasts for about four days. Copulation lasts about 30-70 seconds and is repeated once every 25 minutes during the four day period. Mating usually takes place twice a year, though new males in a pride usually tr...
Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers
- How often can cats mate during one estrus?
- Q: How often can two cats mate during the estrus cycle of the female?I've heard lions can mate every four minutes, but I guess nobody has ever researched it with cats, probably because of the overpopulation.Still, I'd like to know out of curiosity. I attend A&M, and I might do a study on it using males who've had vasectomies if nobody has an answer for me. Thanks.
- A: I've never heard of a set maximum # but domestic cats definitely do mate repeatedly, sometimes with multiple partners.**Added** This link says up to 30 matings:http://www.petplace.com/cats/cats-and-mating/page1.aspx
- Why do people anthropomorphize evolution so much?
- Q: Why do people anthropomorphize evolution so much? It seems for many people evolution is more of a type of Pagan nature god, complete with intelligence, will and intent, instead of a neutral natural process.I hear/see people say stuff like this all the time:“Evolution favors the strong.” (How can a natural non-thinking process “favor” anything?)“Humans are interfering with evolution!” (How can humans “interfere” with a force that has no will, desire or intent? Humans are animals as well, so everything we do is natural. Creating hybrid plants to feed ourselves is no more unnatural than a chimp using a stick to get termites or harvester ants growing underground fungus farms. Are those animals "interfering" with evolution too?)“Wolves evolved sharp teeth to eat meat.”“Spiders evolved web making abilities to catch prey.”“The male lion evolved the behavior of killing a female’s cubs that do not belong to him to pass on his genes.”These statements are ridiculous. They insinuate that evolution is some thinking entity that has intent or will for organisms, or that the organisms themselves can evolve based on what they want, as if a canine can think “Man, I’d love to eat that deer, but I need to evolve sharp teeth first!”, and then evolve sharp teeth for that purpose, or that if I chewed on rocks enough, eventually I’d evolve stone-crushing teeth and the ability to eat them.To me, more correct statements would be:“Wolves/canines evolved sharp teeth, thus allowing them to eat meat more easily.”“Spiders evolved the ability to produce web, which many use to catch prey.”“Male lions who kill cubs that aren’t their own mate more often, thus producing more lions with this behavior/instinct and perpetuating it.“ A lion cannot even comprehend genetics, so he cannot be doing it to “pass on his genes.I just find it troubling that the natural process of evolution is becoming a god. Heck, people even want to have like evolution holidays now. What’s next, holidays celebrating gravity and other natural forces?I think the most frightening thing is I see this kind of talk in scientific communities. :(
- A: Teleology is putting goals in nature. That is considered an error in scientific thought and methodology. The only way to test a teoleogical statement is to teach the organism involved to speak and tell us "why" they are doing what they are doing. Most of your arguments above are against teoleological phrases, and that's fine.But as you have found, a good biologist can take a teleological statement, and rephrase it so that instead of a goal, we talk in terms of efficiencies of the system.Why then do we see statements like the ones you provided? And by the way, you won't see those statements in peer reviewed journals. I think when talking to non-biologists it is simpler to talk in teleological terms than in biological efficiency, and we have learned we can get our point across about adaptation quicker if we use such statements.... but I agree from a methodology perspective it's not the way to go.
- What if natural selection worked the opposite way?
- Q: Picture instead of the animal changing or "adapting" it was the survival of the fittest in the fittest environment. In other words, the animal that was better "equipped" survived the harsh climates and the scarce food source, and the animal that was "ill-equipped" just died off it didnt change it and it doesnt adapt. The animal that survived rather didnt adapt or change also, it was just fit (like a puzzle). It works in the animal kingdom as a natural order of things too for example in the african safari the antelope will outnumber the lions 5 to 1 but when supply is increased the lions will increase because of the ease and availability of food source. But when the lions out number the antelope say 5 to 1 the lions begin to die off and mate less often leaving the antelope to populate the plains again and so the cycle continues. That is how the fittest survive in the environment, when the food source is gone or the climate changes drastically the population of a particular species dies off. The one that survives is NOT the one that adapted but the one animal better "equipped", in the first place, to survive. Because if this was true it would totally refute the Darwinian theory. Despite all the bone's we have of similar species/animals is would make perfect sense if there just animals like that to begin with. Now you may think that this ties into creationism, well in a way it does but im not trying to convince anyone im simply asking a provoking question. I got into a argument today and up until today i have always believed in Darwinian natural selection. Well this person sort of opened my eyes. A couple more questions: Who controls natural selection? If it was the animal, how come i cant grow wings? How come i cant simulate an environment and grow wings? If it was mother nature, well what is mother nature? And if it was God.....well....is it? Can that be the explanation for complex organisms? Or machine like organisms? Seems to me now that Intelligent Design is the likely team to win the cup in my field. I think the most important fact is that we as humans just dont know.....we just dont.Well supply and demand is apart of nature. I was trying to relate natures job with a realistic concept. Overall that was a bad example please ignore that. The first answer:I didnt like how you failed to answer the overall question. Your opinions on the others were "ok" and plausible in some ways but overall its not the answer im looking forThe second answer:Great job on catching the supply and demand strategy but your answer explains selective breeding ....not natural selection. In selective breeding YOU choose....not nature so therefore your example is invalid. Thanks for your opinionsWell to continue to an argument, the "perceived" fitness as you call it comes from the term alot from the evolution theory stating that its survival of the fittest. Its not some arbitrary definition, its been "proven" through the darwinian theroy. I like how you would agree on the simulated environment. Mis-information? Well if you mean that its a subject that we have no information for....that in its self is false. Think of complex machines. Like bacteria for example, the bacterial flagellum (im sure you know) is machine mechanism. A mechanism with about 7 parts. Un-deniable logic is that you cannot have working machine with parts missing or broken. Right? So how could natural selection/evolution ever create such a complex organism. To this question scientists, anthropologists, and radical atheist's cannot simply give me a clue as to how or why the bacterial flagellum is created over time or how 1 part became another part and so on. When you say there are no contradictions or gaps in
- A: It seems that you are arguing over some perceived fitness based on some arbitrary definition. In nature, fitness is naturally selected for because they are the ones to survive. You seem to be swerving into all sorts of side issues like generalist verses the more adapted specialists which do tend to die first when the environments changes. The rules of natural selection still apply though."A couple more questions:Who controls natural selection? "It isn't controlled except by selection or survival of the most ideal fit for a particular niche or lifestyle."If it was the animal, how come i cant grow wings? How come i cant simulate an environment and grow wings? " You probably could grow wings but it would take thousands of generations of careful selection."If it was mother nature, well what is mother nature? And if it was God.....well....is it? Can that be the explanation for complex organisms? Or machine like organisms? Seems to me now that Intelligent Design is the likely team to win the cup in my field. I think the most important fact is that we as humans just dont know.....we just dont."We do know and intelligent design is nothing more than misinformation. None of the arguments are logical and they do indeed distort the actual theories. Evolution by natural selection isn't that difficult a concept but I have been studying it most of my adult life. A degree in chemistry and much biology has given me the tools to understand it on a molecular level. There really are no contradictions or gaps in the theory.
Prev Question: What is a way that I can tell my boyfriend that I may be pregnant
People also view