Login

Shadow · 03-21-2020, 10:44 PM

@BorneanTiger What comes to your posting about lions mane and that study, which @Tshokwane had shared. That text doesn´t actually deny it, that the mane could give some protection in fight. It is more about it, what is the primary function of the mane and how it develops etc. And it certainly looks like it, that mane has developed at least mainly for another purpose than to be kind of body armor.

Then again it´s common sense, that especially thick manes have to give some protection against swipes etc. Not total, but some. Question is that how much and can it be sometimes even life saving protection. I don´t mean that another lion couldn´t get death grip and suffocate another when getting a good bite, but maybe sometimes thick mane can cause attacking lion to not get the best bite right away.

One thing to think about is approach of that study. I mean it how they assumed that if mane would be for protection, then attacking lions would attack especially to mane area and there should be most serious wounds etc. One could ask the question, that have lions learned with time to attack instead mane covered areas more for instance to spine, what we see often to happen. Then after attacked lion has been immobilized it can be left to die or finished easily.

We people have no fur. We can imagine easily what would happen if a cat would scratch us. I bet that we all would love to have long fur covering skin if we would have to handle an enraged house cat for some reason and no time to get some thick clothing etc Wink

In some issues we have to remember common sense too, when reading studies.

I see it so, that it´s not possible to say that mane wouldn´t give any protection. Question is about it, that how much? Some people for sure overestimate that protection. But if saying that it would be meaningless, then I see it as underestimation. And as I wrote already, that study didn´t deny that mane could protect. It just isn´t the primary reason for it why male lions have manes.

sik94 · 03-26-2020, 01:26 AM

(03-20-2020, 10:41 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: @Tshokwane How is it that those studies don't support the idea that a lion's mane offers protection, when we have a number of videos showing the opposite, like this one? One of these lions at Amboseli National Park (near Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya) tried really hard to kill the other lion with a bite to the neck, but it didn't work, and this has got to be one of the strongest attempts by any big cat to try killing a lion by biting its mane that I've seen!

Not to mention that there is at least one expert who does support the notion that the lion's mane does offer protection, like Dereck Joubert?

I will try to answer it as best as possible. For one, these are coalition mates fighting over mating rights. They aren't trying to kill each other as you assumed in your scenario. You're first making the wrongful assumption that they are fighting to the death and based on that you're suggesting that the manes of these lions are what's preventing either of them from getting killed.

On the point, if manes offer protection, in the study they claim that the patterns of injuries seen in males when compared to females show no difference. Males get injuries around their face/neck area as much as females, the comparison of Tsavo lions who have relatively very small manes also yield the same result. The studies make the convincing argument that manes are more likely to be serving as indicators of the condition and dominance of an individual. The length of the mane is also telling of an animal's condition, I thought maybe a smaller mane signifies a younger opponent or an injured animal, essentially easier targets. The advantage of a huge dark mane seems to be that it will deter other lions from targeting you because it advertises to others your dominance and physical condition. It also means that a male with a huge dark mane can tolerate the heat, again showing his genetic superiority. Such male is also the first choice for any female looking to mate, because of all this a lion would father more cubs and a higher number of his offspring is likely to reach adulthood.

BorneanTiger · 03-26-2020, 06:57 PM

(03-26-2020, 01:26 AM)sik94 Wrote:
(03-20-2020, 10:41 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: @Tshokwane How is it that those studies don't support the idea that a lion's mane offers protection, when we have a number of videos showing the opposite, like this one? One of these lions at Amboseli National Park (near Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya) tried really hard to kill the other lion with a bite to the neck, but it didn't work, and this has got to be one of the strongest attempts by any big cat to try killing a lion by biting its mane that I've seen!

Not to mention that there is at least one expert who does support the notion that the lion's mane does offer protection, like Dereck Joubert?
I will try to answer it as best as possible. For one, these are coalition mates fighting over mating rights. They aren't trying to kill each other as you assumed in your scenario. You're first making the wrongful assumption that they are fighting to the death and based on that you're suggesting that the manes of these lions are what's preventing either of them from getting killed.

On the point, if manes offer protection, in the study they claim that the patterns of injuries seen in males when compared to females show no difference. Males get injuries around their face/neck area as much as females, the comparison of Tsavo lions who have relatively very small manes also yield the same result. The studies make the convincing argument that manes are more likely to be serving as indicators of the condition and dominance of an individual. The length of the mane is also telling of an animal's condition, I thought maybe a smaller mane signifies a younger opponent or an injured animal, essentially easier targets. The advantage of a huge dark mane seems to be that it will deter other lions from targeting you because it advertises to others your dominance and physical condition. It also means that a male with a huge dark mane can tolerate the heat, again showing his genetic superiority. Such male is also the first choice for any female looking to mate, because of all this a lion would father more cubs and a higher number of his offspring is likely to reach adulthood.

But what about at least 5 videos of tigers (which are supposed to have longer canines and stronger bites than lions, at least those of the Bengal subspecies) trying to get the death grips on lions, but failing to do so? Of course, due to the sensitivity of the subject, I'm not showing those videos here, but those tigers were essentially trying to do what this tigress did to the leopard, that is to get a death grip on the victim by biting its throat or neck:

sik94 · 03-26-2020, 07:21 PM

(03-26-2020, 06:57 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:
(03-26-2020, 01:26 AM)sik94 Wrote:
(03-20-2020, 10:41 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: @Tshokwane How is it that those studies don't support the idea that a lion's mane offers protection, when we have a number of videos showing the opposite, like this one? One of these lions at Amboseli National Park (near Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya) tried really hard to kill the other lion with a bite to the neck, but it didn't work, and this has got to be one of the strongest attempts by any big cat to try killing a lion by biting its mane that I've seen!

Not to mention that there is at least one expert who does support the notion that the lion's mane does offer protection, like Dereck Joubert?
I will try to answer it as best as possible. For one, these are coalition mates fighting over mating rights. They aren't trying to kill each other as you assumed in your scenario. You're first making the wrongful assumption that they are fighting to the death and based on that you're suggesting that the manes of these lions are what's preventing either of them from getting killed.

On the point, if manes offer protection, in the study they claim that the patterns of injuries seen in males when compared to females show no difference. Males get injuries around their face/neck area as much as females, the comparison of Tsavo lions who have relatively very small manes also yield the same result. The studies make the convincing argument that manes are more likely to be serving as indicators of the condition and dominance of an individual. The length of the mane is also telling of an animal's condition, I thought maybe a smaller mane signifies a younger opponent or an injured animal, essentially easier targets. The advantage of a huge dark mane seems to be that it will deter other lions from targeting you because it advertises to others your dominance and physical condition. It also means that a male with a huge dark mane can tolerate the heat, again showing his genetic superiority. Such male is also the first choice for any female looking to mate, because of all this a lion would father more cubs and a higher number of his offspring is likely to reach adulthood.

But what about at least 5 videos of tigers (which are supposed to have longer canines and stronger bites than lions, at least those of the Bengal subspecies) trying to get the death grips on lions, but failing to do so? Of course, due to the sensitivity of the subject, I'm not showing those videos here, but those tigers were essentially trying to do what this tigress did to the leopard, that is to get a death grip on the victim by biting its throat or neck:

To test this question of if the mane acts as a shield, the best comparison is between female lions or mane-less male lions. These two apex predators wouldn't coexist in the same habitat in the wild and would never encounter each other or get in a fight to the death scenario. I don't think a fight between two caged animals in a staged fight is representative. This study was quite comprehensive and was the result of decades of research and data, you need more than a few videos to disregard the findings of this study.

Shadow · 03-26-2020, 08:42 PM

(03-26-2020, 07:21 PM)sik94 Wrote:
(03-26-2020, 06:57 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:
(03-26-2020, 01:26 AM)sik94 Wrote:
(03-20-2020, 10:41 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: @Tshokwane How is it that those studies don't support the idea that a lion's mane offers protection, when we have a number of videos showing the opposite, like this one? One of these lions at Amboseli National Park (near Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya) tried really hard to kill the other lion with a bite to the neck, but it didn't work, and this has got to be one of the strongest attempts by any big cat to try killing a lion by biting its mane that I've seen!

Not to mention that there is at least one expert who does support the notion that the lion's mane does offer protection, like Dereck Joubert?
I will try to answer it as best as possible. For one, these are coalition mates fighting over mating rights. They aren't trying to kill each other as you assumed in your scenario. You're first making the wrongful assumption that they are fighting to the death and based on that you're suggesting that the manes of these lions are what's preventing either of them from getting killed.

On the point, if manes offer protection, in the study they claim that the patterns of injuries seen in males when compared to females show no difference. Males get injuries around their face/neck area as much as females, the comparison of Tsavo lions who have relatively very small manes also yield the same result. The studies make the convincing argument that manes are more likely to be serving as indicators of the condition and dominance of an individual. The length of the mane is also telling of an animal's condition, I thought maybe a smaller mane signifies a younger opponent or an injured animal, essentially easier targets. The advantage of a huge dark mane seems to be that it will deter other lions from targeting you because it advertises to others your dominance and physical condition. It also means that a male with a huge dark mane can tolerate the heat, again showing his genetic superiority. Such male is also the first choice for any female looking to mate, because of all this a lion would father more cubs and a higher number of his offspring is likely to reach adulthood.

But what about at least 5 videos of tigers (which are supposed to have longer canines and stronger bites than lions, at least those of the Bengal subspecies) trying to get the death grips on lions, but failing to do so? Of course, due to the sensitivity of the subject, I'm not showing those videos here, but those tigers were essentially trying to do what this tigress did to the leopard, that is to get a death grip on the victim by biting its throat or neck:

To test this question of if the mane acts as a shield, the best comparison is between female lions or mane-less male lions. These two apex predators wouldn't coexist in the same habitat in the wild and would never encounter each other or get in a fight to the death scenario. I don't think a fight between two caged animals in a staged fight is representative. This study was quite comprehensive and was the result of decades of research and data, you need more than a few videos to disregard the findings of this study.

I think, that common sense is now forgotten in this discussion. Does the mane give some extra protection? Without a doubt, of course. Then again mane has been developed to different purpose. That extra protection what it gives is not like some kind of body armor, but then again thick fur absorbs a bit of hits etc. still naturally it won´t be something which would make male lions invulnerable in some way.

Sometimes in these discussions it´s hard to understand how people can discuss about something in a way, like things would be black and white, like answer could be only yes or no. Mane of the lion for sure isn´t something like that.

When someone falls and slides on the ground, let´s say on tarmac. Anyone can think would they like it to happen while wearing shorts or jeans or some even more thick pants. If falling hard and sliding, some scratches will be there on legs in all cases, question is how much more when no fabric at all there to protect.

I know that this mane issue is often a topic when tiger and lion fanatics are debating and people favoring lions try to tell, that lions would be almost invincible because of the mane, while people favoring tigers try to say, that it would have no meaning at all. And in those discussions common sense has been thrown away years ago. Hopefully here discussions could be better.

Sometimes things which have some primary function happen to have also some extra benefit(s). When looking at thickest manes of male lions, that benefit is obvious. It just isn´t that big as some people have thought.

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?