While the arguments for both opinions are well formed, the argument for solitary living is more persuasive. Lukas and Clutton-Brock make the argument that females who live in separate smaller regions create an environment that is ideal for social monogamy. Because their breeding/living grounds are not overlapping, it is rare to find many males fighting over one female. Each male mammal can only defend one female at a time due to the separated living style. Not only do Lukas and Clutton-Brock support their own opinion, they also refute the opinions argument. They say, “Male infanticide is typically found in species where the duration of lactation exceeds the duration of gestation… this is the case in few socially monogamous species”.
Opie, Atkinson, Dunbar, and Shultz are arguing that in fact is male infanticide, not solitary living, that lead to the evolution of social monogamy. They make a similar argument about males protecting the females in a solitary living environment, saying that “social monogamy might arise where the risks of infanticide are high and resident males can provide protection against infanticidal males”. Their whole argument is based around the socially monogamous males protecting against infanticidal males. They do not leave any room for other arguments and do not refute any other arguments. That is where their argument fails. Lukas and Clutton-Brock admit that other arguments are viable, yet also refute these other arguments. Although Opie, Atkinson, Dunbar, and Shultz have stronger evidence, Lukas and Clutton-Brock created a better argument.