The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)

[Polar]

(11-19-2017, 07:55 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2017, 12:46 AM)Polar Wrote: That would only be true if the genetic size difference between lions and tigers were similar; not saying it is completely false though. The American Lion grew up to be 650-pounds on average, the Ngandong Tiger 650 to 700-pounds on average, and Panthera Fossilis maybe in between, on average. There is a lot more that goes on than simply the difference of climates.

Hereditary genes also make a big difference. Humans, coming from the same Pleistocene lineage, grew similarly thicker when they went up north and skinnier when migrating south; however, tigers and lions grew from two completely different lineages in the same genus under different conditions. I think tigers (and I am saying this with no absolute proof) have the potential to be a much larger size than lions on both average and maximum due to their in-built genetics. Throughout their lineage, most tiger species seemed to be consistently smaller than the lions on average, but the exceptional tiger species were much larger than the exceptional lion ones. So if @GrizzlyClaws or @tigerluver can back me up or prove me otherwise, then the statement can be true.

Well, intuitively, which one got more robusticity in your opinition?

Here this is the prime for both Cave lion and Amur tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Tigers are usually a bit more robust, especially the ones from the Sunda region (the hotter region). Bergmann's rule also dictates that animals also become wider for their length (more robust) as temperatures get colder in order to conserve body heat by limiting body size relative to height. However, the more robust tigers actually occured within the Sunda region and, now, the Kaziranga and Nepal regions (which are actually colder). Most lions, even the more robust ones, don't seem to match the skeletal robustness of the prehistoric tigers or even modern ones.

However, robustness doesn't indicate possible maximum size. Brown bears are quite robust for their size, at least compared to polar and black bears, yet polar bears have the ability to genetically achieve sizes that brown bears can not and black bears the opposite. Even if an animal species is more robust than the other, it doesn't indicate whether its potential for growth is greater than the less robust animal. Even though the tiger is normally more robust, I still think the tiger has greater genetic potential for a greater average and exceptional size based on the prehistoric specimens and skulls. Reply