There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
11-16-2018, 03:47 AM( This post was last modified: 11-16-2018, 04:24 AM by Wolverine )
(11-15-2018, 05:48 PM)Spalea Wrote:
(10-14-2018, 10:56 AM)Wolverine Wrote: "Lions are perhaps bolder than tigers, and certainly much more noisy, their habit of roaring, especially in the evening and at night, having necessarily attracted the attention of all who have been in countries infested by them."
These words of prof. Blanford I think explain why lions were much easily and early exterminated in large areas of India than the tigers. Unlike the secretive, illusive and silent tiger, the lion likes to show and demonstrate his royal presence to everybody around, no hide, no secrets, no fear, noisy concerts every night. For the hunters with modern firearms probably there was no easier animal to be exterminated than the lion.
When the lions were largely exterminated in the Norh-West and Central India in the period from 17th to 19th century on the their former territories seems moved the secretive tigers, an animals more difficult to be hunted, even in the relatively open landscapes. I guess that for the period of 300 years - from 17th to 19th centuries areal of the Bengal tiger expanded several hundred miles in direction west north-west. This period coincidented with the decline of the Mughal empire and the rise of the British empire. Lately some scientists don't knowing the reason for that expansion created the theory that the tiger displaced the lion due to its larger strength and size.
Partially agree... Yes the lions are more noisy than tigers, but in Africa, in such areas where they were severely hunted, they were able to modify their behaviour in order not to be totally eradicated, by adopting a much more discreet lifestyle. By this way, we saw they subsisted in Gabon (forests), Ethopia (at altitude), Congo (partially forested areas), in Namibie (desert)... Why wouldn't it be the same thing in Asian ? Lions are perhaps not quite stupid animals. Of course the African countries I named aren't India. The lions were perhaps able to invest new areas that were not inhabited by a super predator like the tiger.
Anyway, as you say, I believe that their social way of living in open landscapes make them much more vulnerable than tigers. And this in a exploded-population country during the XXth century, they get absolutely no chance to survive without an human intervention.
Of course wild animals could adapt and change a little bit their behavior in result of human pressure. But lions in general are much more communicative animals than tigers, they leave in prides and the members of the pride need to communicate "verbally" regularly. Tiger need more emotional impulses to start roaring. Its like some people are more talkative while other are more silent. I don't think that lion is capable to become noiseless, it will just stop being a lion, it could happen only if it suffer from severe mental depression. That's why lion often been called "animal-voice". For this reason spending of several nights by a tourist in area inhabited by lions is more interesting because sitting on the dinner table with a cup of tea you can enjoy almost every night lion concerts, while in a jungle inhabited by tigers you can seldom hear the roar of "the King of the jungle", while leopard is even more silent.
For this reason I think that even in relatively open landscapes in India it was easier for hunters historically to locate and exterminate lions than tigers. With modern weapons in 21 century of course there is no any difference.
