My amazon.com comments on Eisenberg JF (1981)...Mammal "radiations"...
The mammalogist, John F. Eisenberg's, oeuvre remains one of the most highly respected and important in his field. Because most of his research investigated Neotropical mammals, rather than mammals of the Old World, his is not a household name. Because of my own specializations, in this brief review, I limit my comments to Eisenberg's treatments of mammal Behavior and Social Organization [group-living, interindividual interactions, cooperation, and altruism]. With E.O. Wilson's 1975 important chapter on patterns of sociality in Class: Mammalia ["The secret to the evolution of sociality in mammals is milk."], Eisenberg's "radiations" is the first attempt to identify PATTERNS of Behavior & Social Biology across all group-living mammals for which there was data by 1981. No subsequent treatment has attempted successfully to summarize the social biology of mammals comparable to Wilson's 1971 treatment of Social Insects [necessary reading for Behavioral Ecologists & Social Biologists] or Holldobler & Wilson's 1990 treatment of the Ants. Though Tim Clutton-Brock recently published a book [2016] titled Mammal Societies [sic], it stands as a highly selective literature review, rather than a synthesis. The limited and highly selective chapter by Smith et al. in Rubenstein & Abbott's 2017 Comparative Social Evolution omits Primates and posits bats as the Order needing research as a model for the evolution of sociality in mammals [a view, possibly, derived from Wilson, 1975's discussion of bats]. To the contrary, bats are a highly derived group not suited for a model of general patterns. Rodents are the taxon of choice, including large-bodied and small-bodied groups, sexually-segregated ["solitary"] to highly social species [including the social mole-rats], and taxa with generalized as well as specialized phenotypes--living across virtually all ecotones, and with a commensal relation to humans--that will be most helpful in the early phases of identifying common features across mammals, as well, possibly, across vertebrates. Additionally, critical to any scientific treatment, and as Eisenberg points out in "radiations," the marsupials are the only group of mammals that can serve as a "control group" for tests of hypotheses and apparent patterns [see comments on this idea in Wilson '75]. My 2014 book, The evolution of mammalian sociality in an ecological perspective, is synthetic, emphasizes Ecology, but is brief. The Class is sorely in need of a synthesis across taxa for which data are available; unfortunately, behavior & sociality of rodents are not well known [but, see, Wolff & Sherman's 2007 volume, Rodent Societies]. Wilson, 1971, 1975, are critical for the standardization of terminology, as well as, factors critical to the study of Social Biology and patterns of group life [e.g., the evolution of Communication, "polyethism"], and Robert Trivers', Social Evolution, as well as, James Costs's, The other social insects, should be consulted. Critically, as a few mammalogists have pointed out [e.g., Bob Selander], initial attempts to synthesize patterns across group-living mammals should begin with analyses that study large and small mammals separately. Finally, we want to assess the observation that the structure of mammal [vertebrate?] groups results from the tendency of females to select rich patches of food and that of males to select the largest relative aggregation[s] of females. Other patterns are identifiable in existing literature. Since the time of John Hurrell Crook [Behavior Monograph X], we know that patterns of group organization depend upon the distribution and abundance [dispersion] of limiting resources [e.g,, food, mates, sleeping sites]. Also, related to this overview, females are, cet. par., "energy maximizers;" males, "time-minimizers."
The mammalogist, John F. Eisenberg's, oeuvre remains one of the most highly respected and important in his field. Because most of his research investigated Neotropical mammals, rather than mammals of the Old World, his is not a household name. Because of my own specializations, in this brief review, I limit my comments to Eisenberg's treatments of mammal Behavior and Social Organization [group-living, interindividual interactions, cooperation, and altruism]. With E.O. Wilson's 1975 important chapter on patterns of sociality in Class: Mammalia ["The secret to the evolution of sociality in mammals is milk."], Eisenberg's "radiations" is the first attempt to identify PATTERNS of Behavior & Social Biology across all group-living mammals for which there was data by 1981. No subsequent treatment has attempted successfully to summarize the social biology of mammals comparable to Wilson's 1971 treatment of Social Insects [necessary reading for Behavioral Ecologists & Social Biologists] or Holldobler & Wilson's 1990 treatment of the Ants. Though Tim Clutton-Brock recently published a book [2016] titled Mammal Societies [sic], it stands as a highly selective literature review, rather than a synthesis. The limited and highly selective chapter by Smith et al. in Rubenstein & Abbott's 2017 Comparative Social Evolution omits Primates and posits bats as the Order needing research as a model for the evolution of sociality in mammals [a view, possibly, derived from Wilson, 1975's discussion of bats]. To the contrary, bats are a highly derived group not suited for a model of general patterns. Rodents are the taxon of choice, including large-bodied and small-bodied groups, sexually-segregated ["solitary"] to highly social species [including the social mole-rats], and taxa with generalized as well as specialized phenotypes--living across virtually all ecotones, and with a commensal relation to humans--that will be most helpful in the early phases of identifying common features across mammals, as well, possibly, across vertebrates. Additionally, critical to any scientific treatment, and as Eisenberg points out in "radiations," the marsupials are the only group of mammals that can serve as a "control group" for tests of hypotheses and apparent patterns [see comments on this idea in Wilson '75]. My 2014 book, The evolution of mammalian sociality in an ecological perspective, is synthetic, emphasizes Ecology, but is brief. The Class is sorely in need of a synthesis across taxa for which data are available; unfortunately, behavior & sociality of rodents are not well known [but, see, Wolff & Sherman's 2007 volume, Rodent Societies]. Wilson, 1971, 1975, are critical for the standardization of terminology, as well as, factors critical to the study of Social Biology and patterns of group life [e.g., the evolution of Communication, "polyethism"], and Robert Trivers', Social Evolution, as well as, James Costs's, The other social insects, should be consulted. Critically, as a few mammalogists have pointed out [e.g., Bob Selander], initial attempts to synthesize patterns across group-living mammals should begin with analyses that study large and small mammals separately. Finally, we want to assess the observation that the structure of mammal [vertebrate?] groups results from the tendency of females to select rich patches of food and that of males to select the largest relative aggregation[s] of females. Other patterns are identifiable in existing literature. Since the time of John Hurrell Crook [Behavior Monograph X], we know that patterns of group organization depend upon the distribution and abundance [dispersion] of limiting resources [e.g,, food, mates, sleeping sites]. Also, related to this overview, females are, cet. par., "energy maximizers;" males, "time-minimizers."