Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[peter]

(04-18-2014, 10:59 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: In regards to your bold "food intake" statement.
The reason that was dismissed was because of multiple reasons.
Bolds argument -" lions and tigers are really the same size, just tigers have more food intake"
Food intake has nothing to do with ...
Body lenght, fore limb girth, bone size, densisty and structure etc.... So to try and state that these cats are the "same" is obviously wrong.
Next in regards to food availability, lets look at it.
A male lion has access to the largest prey around, and the largest lion sub species are still smaller than the largest tiger sub species. Not only are lions able to eat larger prey items due to the pride, but a male lion dominates a kill. He is free to eat is share until complettely satisfied and takes his right seriously and will not let others eat until he is full. 2ndly a lion pride can protect a large kill for a long time, a tiger will have to defend his kill alone from bears, dholes and other tigers, they would probably have to give up their food more often.
Now about the pride, most male lions won't even contribute much to a hunt (no burning of calories) and yet they will still stuff themselves until they are full, so if you take into account the fact that a tiger has a higher DEI, it hunts alone and must excersize more often and yet it still maintains more massive size, then it obviously has nothing to do with "food intake", "food intake" is as much a part of it as it would be if you were to compare how much you eat to shaq. Yes shaq eats more than you, yes he is larger than you because he eats more, but that is one factor that goes into many others. Shaq is eats more because he needs more to sustain his larger muscles and body. Now take into account a higher metabolism and then that person/animal will have to eat even more.



 

Excellent points, Pckts. Lions and tigers, in spite of some remarks of experts on similarity, are very different animals. One could say they are about similar in size and be right, but skulls, bones and body dimensions say they differ in many respects. In skulls, the difference often is seen at a glance.

At similar weight, lions, on average, have a somewhat longer skull, a more convex mandibula and a higher and longer 'snout' (referring to the more inflated and somewhat wider maxillary bone). They also are a bit taller and more 'chesty'. For their size, lions often seem a bit inflated in the fore-quarters. Compared to tigers of similar weight, they seem stiffer and somewhat less agile in movement. One could perhaps say they are more 'doglike'. Adult male lions often live in social groups (prides). Pride lions use their energy to defend a territory and seldom hunt. Adult male lions often are composed and dominant animals. In conflict, males try to fight on all fours and prefer to strike. The main reason they do not fight like cats is they risk an attack of a second lion when they go down. Males who perish in conflict usually are killed by more than one opponent. Pride males in Africa seldom rule for more than 2-4 years. Wild males of 10 years and older are few and far between.        

Tigers, at similar weight, have a slightly shorter skull, a concave mandibula, longer canines, a shorter maxillary bone and a shorter, but wider rostrum. Although not as tall and (apart from Indian tigers) not as 'chesty', they usually are a bit longer and also have larger fore- and upper-arms. Compared to lions, tigers are more catlike and agile in their movements. They also seem to have a more flexible spine. Wild males often often are portrayed as wary, cunning and elusive animals. This attitude could be the main reason they survived the years in which they established a territory. Boldness in young males, in contrast to young male lions (who live in bachelor groups), doesn't pay. Quite many perish in fights, especially in overpopulated reserves. Waryness does. In conflict, male tigers, judging from the three fights recenty filmed and broadcasted, seem to adopt an 'all-or-nothing' strategy in that they target the skull or neck of their opponent with everything they have, thereby exposing themselves as well. In spite of the damage done in these often long fights, most seem to survive. Wild males of 10 years and older are more often encountered than in lions.

Although they differ in many ways, males of both species seem to have a similar function in that they try to establish and defend a territory with as many females as possible. The solitary tiger, in contrast to the lion, uses a lot of energy to hunt. Not a good investment when you want to father as much cubs as possible. For this reason, male tigers are more active and try to hunt large animals. Large prey animals enable a male tiger to invest more time in (enlarging) his territory, which usually results in more females (and more cubs). 

In order to hunt large animals, size is needed. What kind of size? Well, the information we have suggest large male tigers are longer than average and have massive (wide) skulls and forelimbs. Length, in tigers, often equals weight and weight is needed to quickly subdue large animals. Massive forelimbs are needed to control a struggling animal and wide skulls with long canines allow for maximum pressure at the tips of the canines. This enables the tiger to quickly overcome and kill powerful animals, thus limiting the risk of injury. 

This way of life, in theory, should result in high averages in regions with large prey animals and few limiting factors, like humans, snowfall and (too dense) vegetation. Any proof? Yes, India, Manchuria, south-east Russia and some parts south of the Caspian had good conditions. These regions also attracted new tigers and new genes (a big difference with islands). This, I think, could be the main reason they produced high averages and extra-large tigers. In tigers, Bergmann's rule is't as important as the factors mentioned above.

And lions? Lions are social animals. In social animals and defending a territory, it's about the total weight of the defenders. And mobility, so it seems. In conflict, four 400-pound males do as well as or even better than three 533-pound males. An extra mobile set of jaws could be the difference. One could also say extra size in lions, as a result of their way of life, doesn't pay as much as it does in solitary cats.

I don't think one is better than the other. Lions would be able to occupy a suitable region anywhere and even a 600-pound tiger wouldn't change that. In a more forested region with few large prey animals, however, individual size apparently pays. 

All this to say there are significant differences between both big cats. In favourable conditions, social big cats multiply in numbers, but apparently not in (individual) size. In solitary big cats living in similar conditions, extra size apparently pays. This is, I think, the main reason some regional types of the tiger show higher averages than anywhere else. Not a result of 'food intake' in itself, but a result of life style, conditions and adaptaility.

  Reply