Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2018 6:07 AM
204 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 201 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,416 Year: 17,239/29,783 Month: 1,227/1,956 Week: 224/506 Day: 29/131 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   lion vs tiger
Metman07
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 91 (314715)
05-23-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ikabod
04-20-2006 3:28 AM


There have been accounts of both kinds of cat winning in captivity. These have included various varieties of tiger against mostly African lions. Also there have been battles between different sexes of the two. You can find several of these on the internet. Most of the videos I saw had the tiger winning.

The average male Bengal tiger is approximately 75lbs heavier than the average male lion. Of course for cats this big 75lbs isn't all that big a difference. Siberian tigers on the other hand are MUCH bigger.

Surprisingly the Caspian tiger was reported to be a very good fighter. Though smaller than both the Bengal and the Siberian tiger, it was very ferocious. Also it had a stocky build and abnormally large claws.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ikabod, posted 04-20-2006 3:28 AM ikabod has not yet responded

  
safari111
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 91 (359468)
10-28-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by extremophile
05-06-2004 12:12 AM


this might be of some interest to some of you
korea has the world's the one and only safari of tigers and lions(about 40 altogether i think). right now the enclosure's boss is 4 year old siberian tiger named "round of 16"(it was born in 02, same year korea hosted world cup, and we desperately wanted our team to make round of 16).

16(i'll refer to him 16 from now on) became the boss last year, and it's the biggest of them all(i think). he has massive head and front jaws and he dethroned 2 former lion kings(brothers from a royal family in the safari), Techno and Id.

as far as i know, he didn't have a single competitive fight since he entered safari, all the fights he were in were completely one sided.

to make a long story short, majority of times lions have been the boss not because they're better fighters, but because they unite while tigers falter in battles. lion, the fighter, tiger, the hunter theory doesn't hold true, and i honestly believe it was made up by some extreme pro-lion person. if anything, it is tigers who are better at both. but as i have witnessed them over and over again, the outcome is decided by which individual in a fight is stronger, faster, and heavier.

if any of you are interested in the history of the safari and some interesting facts and battles between inter-species, i'll write some more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by extremophile, posted 05-06-2004 12:12 AM extremophile has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1882 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 48 of 91 (359706)
10-29-2006 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by kjsimons
12-01-2003 2:22 PM


eh. lions are scavengers.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by kjsimons, posted 12-01-2003 2:22 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
Apolo 
Inactive Suspended Junior Member


Message 49 of 91 (369978)
12-15-2006 4:31 PM


Lion vs Tiger Reply
Okay, no offense, but some of the comments made earlier were mostly based on bias of the animal, not true fact. First let us get something straight. When we say 'Tiger' we are talking Siberian or Bengal. Any other of the small subspecies are no match for the African lion. and when we say Lion, let us refer to the African Lion because the Asian Lion is smaller and not as good of a fighter. Okay, one of the latter statments was,
" Plus that big-old mane would probably fool the tiger into thinking the lion was bigger, so it might just back down " This, - im sorry - is not true. In ancient Roman times Tiger and Lions were pitted against eachother quite often. It has been documented that Tigers are the animals that attack first most of the time. The large mane of the Lion, doesnt scare the Tiger away beacause some of the shorter ans smaller Bengal Tigers are still the same size. And all Siberian Tigers are much larger. The mane acts as a force of protection against the Tiger. Since both species attack at the neck, the Mane helps protect the Lions neck.
Another comment was what if a Tiger runs into a group of Lions. Well, what if a lion ran into a group of Tigers? Lets stick to one on one.
The Bengal Tiger, is the quickest of the Tigers or Lions when it comes to fighting. The Siberian is the biggest. The Lion is the best protected.
Read this document and sea what I meen.

http://www.geocities.com/kinesisksweden/ig4b.jpg


  
Apolo 
Inactive Suspended Junior Member


Message 50 of 91 (370177)
12-16-2006 10:12 AM


Lion vs Tiger - Reply
First, if you’re going to revert back to ancient Roman Pit Fights, let me get something straight. In this type of fight, the Lion would be a Lion that the Romans imported from Africa, and the Tiger would be a Bengal. Romans believed the Amur Tiger was too large, and that it would die from the heat in the large coliseums. From the link you used, you can tell it was created in Word so... The Bengals were the first of the two animals to attack frequently. This was because the Tiger was a solitary animal, and not used to other large cats in its territory. Back then, there were less humans and more land for the Tigers. The mane acted as a shield, it protected the Tiger from biting the Lion's throat and neck. But because the Lion would normally weigh about an average of 50 pounds more that the Bengal, so the Bengal would go for the throat, where the lion was more protected. This creates for a longer fight, since the Lion hits slower.
  
Selfish RNA
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 91 (373889)
01-03-2007 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kirsten
11-30-2003 10:55 AM


i mistook this for an NFL vs CFL post season game. apologies
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kirsten, posted 11-30-2003 10:55 AM kirsten has not yet responded

  
breeblebrax
Junior Member (Idle past 3139 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-16-2010


Message 52 of 91 (543239)
01-16-2010 2:32 PM


Just a side point
Since Tigers are lone hunters and Lions hunt in packs, the adult tiger VS adult lion, from the wild, would have an experience advantage. All other things being equal, Tiger would have it.

Chuck
www.bigcat.com


    
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 53 of 91 (571744)
08-02-2010 6:42 AM


Tigers generally beat lions as they have bigger teeth and claws. However, genetically, these creatures are almost identical. They can mate and produce offspring. So it wouldn't surprise me if the odd lion could beat the odd tiger.

However, bears are more interesting. Bears are easily the most dangerous and ferocious of the predators. Tigers have been known to beat them though! It's rare for a bear to beat a lion or a tiger as bears typically run off as they are easily scared. Bears can easily scare tigers and lions away from a kill however.

Put them in a ring though and the bear wins everytime. History proves this.


Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2010 7:03 AM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 54 of 91 (571745)
08-02-2010 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Big_Al35
08-02-2010 6:42 AM


Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
However, genetically, these creatures are almost identical. They can mate and produce offspring. So it wouldn't surprise me if the odd lion could beat the odd tiger.

The fact that they can mate doesn't necessarily make them almost identical genetically, in fact amongst the Pantherine cats they are one of the more distantly related pairs. I also don't really see the relevance of that to the occassional reversal of fortune you might see in a face off, that seem to me much more likely to be an issue of variability within populations rather than anything to do with relatedness.

I can see how a rabbit, which is considerably less similar genetically, might always lose in a fight but mostly it seems that the genetics are totally irrelevant to your point that Tigers would usually win but not always.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 6:42 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 7:19 AM Wounded King has responded

    
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 55 of 91 (571746)
08-02-2010 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Wounded King
08-02-2010 7:03 AM


Re: Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
I also don't really see the relevance of that to the occassional reversal of fortune you might see in a face off, that seem to me much more likely to be an issue of variability within populations rather than anything to do with relatedness

I never mentioned any relevance. I simply stated that it wouldn't surprise me if the odd lion could beat the odd tiger.

If you could suggest a pantherine cat that is more related to the tiger than a lion I would be intrigued to know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2010 7:03 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2010 7:59 AM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 56 of 91 (571748)
08-02-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Big_Al35
08-02-2010 7:19 AM


Re: Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
If you could suggest a pantherine cat that is more related to the tiger than a lion I would be intrigued to know.

The snow leopard. Conversely the leopard and the jaguar are both more closely related to the lion (Johnson et al., 2006 (PDF); Davis et al., 2010).

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 7:19 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 9:02 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 57 of 91 (571759)
08-02-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Wounded King
08-02-2010 7:59 AM


Re: Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
The snow leopard. Conversely the leopard and the jaguar are both more closely related to the lion

Apparently so...and yet even the experts have difficulty telling lions and tigers skulls apart...whereas leopards and jaguars skulls are more easy to distinguish. Also lions and tigers can breed, often with fertile offspring. Leopards and tigers can also breed but lead to more still born or infertile offspring.

I should point out that the experts are still confused about relatedness between the cat species and their best estimates indicate a common ancestor for tigers and lions going back 3.5 - 4.0 million years ago. Very surprising that it takes 4 million years of evolution in a predatory mammal to simply change the fur coat, gain a few pounds and lengthen the teeth and claws a tiny bit.

Humans on the other hand have an evolutionary distance of 15 million years to our nearest relatives the great apes. A much bigger evolutionary step I think you would agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2010 7:59 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Huntard, posted 08-02-2010 9:07 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2010 9:13 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2010 10:19 AM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 58 of 91 (571760)
08-02-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Big_Al35
08-02-2010 9:02 AM


Re: Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
Big_Al35 writes:

Apparently so...and yet even the experts have difficulty telling lions and tigers skulls apart.


Interesting. Got any documentation on this?

Also lions and tigers can breed, often with fertile offspring.

I haven't heard of a fertile Liger or Tigon. Any documentation on that as well?

Very surprising that it takes 4 million years of evolution in a predatory mammal to simply change the fur coat, gain a few pounds and lengthen the teeth and claws a tiny bit.

Why?

Humans on the other hand have an evolutionary distance of 15 million years to our nearest relatives the great apes. A much bigger evolutionary step I think you would agree.

I wouldn't. But notice that it took more than 3 times as long.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 9:02 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2010 9:15 AM Huntard has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 59 of 91 (571761)
08-02-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Big_Al35
08-02-2010 9:02 AM


Re: Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
Big_Al35 writes:

Very surprising that it takes 4 million years of evolution in a predatory mammal to simply change the fur coat, gain a few pounds and lengthen the teeth and claws a tiny bit.

Don't forget character. Lions are the only truly social cat, and the lionesses hunt in teams. Tigers are famously solitary once fully adult. You don't get a pride of tigers!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 9:02 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Big_Al35, posted 08-02-2010 10:09 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 60 of 91 (571762)
08-02-2010 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Huntard
08-02-2010 9:07 AM


Re: Genetic compatibility is not relevant.
Huntard writes:

I haven't heard of a fertile Liger or Tigon.

The females can be fertile, and at least one has reproduced with a tiger (from memory, but I'm pretty sure).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Huntard, posted 08-02-2010 9:07 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Huntard, posted 08-02-2010 9:27 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018