|
Can someone explain this..
|
How are Tigers bigger than Lions on average? If you skin these animals you wouldn't see much of a difference, so how is it that A tiger, which has almost exact structure as a lion, be bigger of the two?
Now on to my second question... Are there any sources on captive weights of the bengal tiger, siberian and african lion? My sources tell me that African lions are around the same size as Tigers with captive weights, but I can be wrong 
@faess ,Though we don't allow any question realted to Lion Vs Tiger, It is Hydrogen bomb that will distroy the community.
But I am allowing it to see how it goes for next few days. Chances are high we will delete this thread without any warning. Notice to all - While answering this question, please don't bring LvT debate here. Remember the forum rules and most important -- Bring the science  (01-28-2015, 10:47 AM)'faess' Wrote: How are Tigers bigger than Lions on average? If you skin these animals you wouldn't see much of a difference, so how is it that A tiger, which has almost exact structure as a lion, be bigger of the two? BONES Lions evolved in plains, whereas tigers evolved in forested and more elevated regions. For this reason, lions usually have slightly longer and wider bones than tigers. Tigers, however, have slightly denser bones. Heavier bones need more or larger muscles to move them and larger muscles need a bit more room than smaller muscles. For this reason, tigers, at about equal spine length, usually are a bit longer in head and body length as well as a bit heavier. Lions, however, are a bit taller than most tiger subspecies, which will reduce the (relative) difference in weight (length equals weight in big cats). Apart from that, tigers have more subspecies, some of which are jaguar-sized. This is the reason lions are a trifle larger at the level of species, whereas tigers have the smallest and largest subspecies. WEIGHT Wild Indian tigers are heavier than all other wild big cats, because they, apart from a large prey base and intense competition in small reserves (which will result in slightly bigger animals), are a bit taller than many assume. Central Indian tigers are about as tall as large lion subspecies (like those in southern Africa) and a bit longer in head and body, which, given the difference in bone density, results in a weight difference of about 8-10%. In southern India, tigers are a bit shorter and not as tall, which results in a similar average weight (or slightly over). In northern India and Nepal, tigers are as tall or slightly taller than lions as well as a bit longer, which results in an average weight difference of 15% or just over. Remember the amount of individual variation is significant. Amur tigers, longer and a bit taller than all other big cats, seem to be more cursorial than Indian tigers. They also face tougher conditions, more competition (from bears) and less large prey animals. As walkers, their bones are somewhat less dense (also seen in skulls). Weightwise, they compare to the average of large lion subspecies (Amurs a trifle heavier). According to Tigerluver, Sunda tigers could top the list for density. CAPTIVE BIG CATS Captive animals, even when healthy, often are a mere shadow of their wild relatives, meaning they wouldn't last long in an encounter. In spite of that, they usually are a bit heavier (about 10% or thereabout in most lion and tiger subspecies, but not Indian and Sumatran tigers). Lions are heavier because they face less competition (less stress) and have more access to food, meaning they should be able to get to their potential more often. Captive Amur tigers are heavier because they are not faced with empty forests and tough conditions (like a severe winter, crop failure, mass migrations of deer and wild boars and overhunting of large ungulates). Captive Indian tigers usually are smaller than their wild relatives, because those unable to compete survive more often (resulting in more smaller animals). Captive Indian tigers also are unable to go for large prey animals. In general, captive lions often do well, whereas captive tigers often quickly degenerate. Tigers are more adaptive animals. This should result in survival of the fittest (the most adaptive) in the long run and, therefore, more competitive animals. In lions, adaptation and size are less important. The reason is they are social animals. This means males below par often are able to compete with larger individuals because of (superior) group size. A male lion defeated in a fight often survives without serious injuries. The reason is male lions often fight in prides, meaning there is no time and opportunity to finish a defeated opponent. This means a defeated lion often has a chance to start again, whereas a defeated tiger often is wounded or killed. Furthermore, a defeated tiger, in India, often has no refuge. It's do or die. AVERAGES IN CAPTIVITY There's no question that Amur tigers top the list for length and weight in captivity (averages). The difference between lions and Indian tigers in captivity is close to zilch. Adult male Amur tigers range between 360-620 pounds (average 450-480 pounds, I think), whereas African lions and Indian tigers range between 350-570 pounds or a little over (average in both 400-430 pounds and closer to 400, I think). There are, of course, plenty of exceptions. I saw direct descendants of (white) Timbavati lions of 550-570 pounds in a Dutch zoo and the one I recently saw in Berlin was well over 500 pounds. In exceptional animals, the difference between lions and tigers is limited (just over 10 feet straight and close to or just over 600 pounds). The difference is tigers of large subspecies, and Amur tigers in particular, do it more often, both in captivity and in wild Russia or India. FOLLOW-UP Tigerluver is able to answer most questions on bones, density and weight, whereas Guate has a few tables with averages of (captive and wild) African lions, Indian tigers and Amur tigers. My department is skulls and wild big cats. ONE MORE THING I know you would want to see a bit more on lions and tigers. Yes, I saw it. Not happening. Lions, tigers and fights will not be discussed over here for the reason Sanjay mentioned. If you want to know a bit more, go to the Carnivora forum and say hello to Asad (now Asadus) and Bold. I visit that forum every now and then and recently read a post of an unknown poster on lions, tigers, fights, old Rome and Everland. As he was able to understand Korean, he got to the core of things. His analysis, although long, was well written and interesting. Most questions on lions, tigers and fights, I think, were answered. My advice is to read it. 
Just checked out the Carnivora forum Peter spoke of. The subject material on l v t mirrors the former ava forum.
No revelations. Brings focus to how senseless and futile this topic is. Be appreciative of the fact we at this forum have steered clear of this. Some very familiar posters still active in this never ending debate.
I don't want this to be a Lion vs Tiger thread. I don't see how explaining the anatomy of the two big cats would ensue some sort of problem on behalf of many posters. I was just curious on how two animals with similiar anatomies can be bigger than the other Sure there are anatomical and morphological differences between the two, but they are really small. In the end the Tiger is longer and the Lion is Taller, but it is widely accepted that the Bengal and Siberian Tiger can get much bigger, around 50-70 lbs. At least I've recieved some sort of indication on why a Tiger is bigger.
To expand on the density topic, I'll use an example. A 200 cm body length, sub 100 cm shoulder height Bengal tiger attains a mass of around 270 kg. A lion of 200 cm and bit taller than 100 cm at the shoulder seems to attain 240 kg at best. Therefore, Bengal tigers are significantly heavier for their frame. The rest of the tiger subspecies, bar the Amur form, also seems just as proportionately heavy, with the island varieties being actually even more proportionately heavier. The modern Amur form seems equally as proportionately heavy as lion per the STP data.
As Peter pointed out, cursoriality is a major factor in mass proportionality. Lions lives in an open, treeless environment where endurance and speed must account for the lack of surprise. To be fast, one needs both a large stride, thus a big frame, but also light. By being taller and having longer limbs, lions cover a greater distance per stride, bringing about speed while saving energy by not taking extra steps to cover a select distance. Decreasing the mass stress on the frame is also essential for energy conservation and ensuring attaining and keeping high speeds are less stressful on the skeletal structure, thus lions went down that route as well. Tigers live in densily forested areas for the most part, where surprise is not hard to obtain, thus no need to run further or longer. Moreover, the trees above discourage vertical size. With those factors, tigers must go a different route in their morphology. 
But how come the Amur tiger got the heaviest canine teeth of all pantherine cats?
Their modern prey base isn't any larger than their Bengal cousins'.
The Amur tiger situation is quite complex. I think Peter noted that captive skulls at least showed the Bengal tiger skulls being the really heavy ones out the subspecies.
The Amur tiger has faced both a serious bottleneck and significant prey reduction at once in a very short amount of time. The species' is probably at the genetic brink in terms of survivability. It's possible that Amurs still have denser bones just not as much muscle mass. A dense body just does not work well for an energy deficient environment. A greater prey base may allow Amur tigers to fill up more, as if I am not mistaken the modern form have smaller chest girths than Bengals. Furthermore, seeing that 20-30 individuals brought about the current population, a lot of traits were probably lost just due to the small parent population and coincidentally Amurs maintained the canine density and size while losing dense postcranial characteristics. All in all, the Amur tiger's awkward physical composition probably is the result of the subspecies being nearly wiped out and its environment being changed too quickly for the population to find a different way to adapt to with its already narrow, bottlenecked gene pool.
When it comes to the density of the canine teeth, the order should be:
Amur > Bengal > other tiger subspecies > Lion Here is an example of a very dense canine tooth from a modern tiger. And by judging its length, it does look like to belong to an adult female Amur. http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/top...MnLkv05A5s  (01-29-2015, 10:58 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: When it comes to the density of the canine teeth, the order should be: Actually, the largest Canines ever measured belong to Madla (Bengal Tiger) same with the largest skull I believe. Its like splitting hairs when trying to compare large amurs or bengals. When it comes to captivity, it is always reported through circus info that Siberian are by far the largest. But we must take this with a grain of salt since most "bengals" used where hybrids between multiple tiger sub species and also from areas nearer to Java, Sumatra I believe (not certain), Peter can expand more on this. But if you look at the measurements of captive siberians that was posted here with weights around 240kg-270kg the skull size, body length and canine size are all in normal levels and some even being smaller than bengals measured. Its interesting to research. One last thing, there are almost zilch Pure bred captive bengals to go off of. They all live in india and up until recently, india didn't have the proper nutritional requirements needed to support these cats but now they are better and you can see their sizes improving in some images. But you still have practically nothing to go off so you cant compare them to others. On a side note, could somebody supply the link that peter is talking about in regards to the write up from the person who can interpret Korean? May be Pm'ing it is a better option to avoid derailment. Thanks again
The wild Amur and Bengal used to have the same canine teeth.
Meanwhile, the pure bred Amur in the captive can produce some outstanding freak specimens. However, as you mentioned above, there is practically no pure bred Bengal in the captivity except India, while the Indian zoos didn't have enough nutrition to support their pure bred Bengal to grow large.   (01-30-2015, 07:25 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: What about muscle density? Do tigers have denser muscles? Interesting question, In terms of forelimb and back limb girth USUALLY Tigers have larger muscles while Lions have a slightly larger chest when the same size but their chest girth is almost identical once both are full grown. It may have to do with body length since lions are full grown and begin to put on mass once they hit their typical body length which would be 3-6'' shorter than a Tiger which wont begin to put on mass till its fully grown in length. I also don't know how the mane is measured or the role it plays in Lion size estimation. I would be curious about muscle density but I would think it would be extremely close and probably depend on individual. Prey hunted, terrain and body size would all play vital roles in determining muscle density I would guess. @GrizzlyClaws Also the fact that captive tigers never come close to putting the ware and tare on their teeth that wild ones do. You really have to catch and measure a wild cat at the perfect time to truly know what size chompers its working with.
We can try answering the muscle density question after finding out how much denser tigers' bones are. Starting with canines, does anyone have both length and weight dimensions of the canines?
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |