|
Are Tigers 'Brainier' Than Lions?
|
 (02-01-2018, 10:12 PM)TheLioness Wrote: Do tigers have larger brains than lions? Yes, does that make them smarter? No.Brain-to-body mass ratio, also known as the brain to body weight ratio, is the ratio of brain weight to body weight, which is hypothesised to be a rough estimate of the intelligence of an animal, although fairly inaccurate in many cases. A more complex measurement, encephalization quotient, takes into account allometric effects of widely divergent body sizes across several taxa.[3] The raw brain-to-body mass ratio is however simpler to come by, and is still a useful tool for comparing encephalization within species or between fairly closely related species.Comparisons between groupsDolphins have the highest brain-to-body weight ratio of all cetaceans.[7] Along with them, primates and elephants have the highest value among mammals. Monitor lizards, tegus and anoles and some tortoise species have the largest among reptiles. Among birds, the most intelligent are parrots, crows, magpies, jays and ravens. Among amphibians, the studies are still limited but thus far there are no remarkably intelligent species in this class. Either octopuses[8] or jumping spiders[9] have some of the highest for an invertebrate, although some antspecies have 14%-15% of their mass in their brains, the highest value known for any animal. Sharks have one of the highest for fish alongside manta rays (although the electrogenic elephantfish has a ratio nearly 100 times higher - about 1/34, which is slightly higher than that for humans).[10] The tiny shrew, which holds about 10% of its body mass in its brain, has one of the highest brain-to-body mass ratio of any vertebrate.It is a trend that the larger the animal gets, the smaller the brain-to-body mass ratio. Large whales have very small brains compared to their weight, and small rodents like mice have a relatively large brain, giving the same brain-to-body mass ratio as a human.[1]One explanation could be that as an animal's brain gets larger, the size of the neural cells remains the same, and more nerve cells will cause the brain to increase in size to a lesser degree than the rest of the body. This phenomenon has been called the encephalization quotient; E = CS2, where E and S are body and brain weights and C is the cephalization factor.[8] Just focusing on the relationship between the body and the brain is not enough; one also has to consider the total size of the animal.In the essay "Bligh's Bounty",[11] Stephen Jay Gould noted that if one looks at vertebrates with very low encephalization quotient, their brains are slightly less massive than their spinal cords. Theoretically, intelligence might correlate with the absolute amount of brain an animal has after subtracting the weight of the spinal cord from the brain. This formula is useless for invertebrates because they do not have spinal cords, or in some cases, central nervous systems." Also that footage is from all different locations, the Lion and Hyena are from the Kevin Richardson experiment which the hyena completely outperformed the Lion if I remember correctly and I'm not sure where the Leopard one was and the tiger was obviously a different captive situation. Here's another Tiger performing the same feat on it's first try You can't stamp an assumption off of one test regardless, you need a large sample size and array of tests to make any assumptions like that and even then, measuring intelligence for animals that have no idea they are taking a test is difficult. 
Of course they are from different locations, that shouldn't have any affect on the outcome.
Like I had already stated, I believe different animals would show different results. It is my opinion that social animals have more intelligence and that brain size is not enough to prove intelligence. Plus this is a place to post results of these animals and studies correct? This is just my observation and that of the people who did the experiment. It's not conclusive but it's a start right. 
(02-01-2018, 11:09 PM)TheLioness Wrote: Of course they are from different locations, that shouldn't have any affect on the outcome.Social carnivores aren’t smarter—it’s all in the relative brain size Despite their bulk, bears are the champion puzzle solvers. JOHN TIMMER - 1/28/2016, 10:07 AM  *This image is copyright of its original author A tiger doing some problem-solving. Animal intelligence varies widely. Some have cognitive abilities that were once thought to be limited to humans, while others seem to act purely on instinct. It's not simply a matter of having large brains; birds don't have especially large ones, but they can master complicated problems or learn the solution from others in their social network. So what can explain animal intelligence? One general trend that has been noted is that the size of the brain relative to the rest of the body seems to matter. Birds may not have big brains on an absolute scale, but their brains are relatively large compared to their body mass. Others have also noted that lots of the animals we consider smart seem to operate in social groups. These include birds, primates, elephants, and dolphins. A new study looks at problem-solving across a wide range of carnivores and finds mixed support for these ideas. Belonging to a social group didn't seem to make a difference, but having a large brain to body ratio did. The surprising (or perhaps worrying) thing is that the brain to body ratio was high in some of the biggest carnivores tested: bears. The approach used here was simple, if limited. Researchers had devised a metal puzzle box that they could put food into. They took versions of this box, scaled for animal size, to zoos, where they handed it over to 140 different carnivores, which collectively represented 39 different species from nine families. They then tracked how long the individuals took to solve the problem (if they did at all), along with a variety of other measurements. Over all, 23 of the species represented managed to solve the problem at least once, with 35 percent of the individuals being successful. Within that average, however, were some clear winners and losers. Befitting their reputation for having a "will do anything to get food" attitude, 70 percent of the bears managed to solve the problem, an average brought down by the southeast Asia's sun bear, the smallest of the lot. Raccoons and their kin also performed well, with half of them successful; weasels of various sorts managed just under half. When looking for smarts, however, you can skip the mongooses, which completely failed to get at the food even once. (Enigmatically, nine animals managed to open the box but didn't bother to take the food inside it. Eliminating these cases did not change the results.) One of the striking things about that is that the mongooses were a social species. Other social species (like wolves) did reasonably well, but in the end, it was a wash: social species had no advantage in this test. Rating the species for manual dexterity, which might make the task easier, showed no correlation. What did matter was the brain size relative to body mass. You'd think something as large as a bear might need an enormous brain to compensate, but that's apparently not the case. The authors tested the volumes of some individual brain regions but found none of them showed a statistically significant connection to the success of the animal. And the weak correlation between absolute brain size and success wasn't significant when relative brain size was taken into account. These findings are in keeping with a number of past studies outside the carnivores. It also makes sense in terms of a general trend among the carnivores: there's no relationship between relative brain size and a tendency toward forming social groups among these animals. There are a number of limitations to this study. As the authors note, they're testing a small number of animals and subjecting them to only one test—they're not capturing all the dimensions of intelligence. But within the limits, the experiments were remarkably thorough. Zoos can also have very different environments and enrichment programs, which could affect these outcomes, but the authors included a variable that tracked the zoo in their statistical model and found it had no predictive value. Still, the results raise some questions about the relationship between intelligence and social interactions. And some of the researchers are testing the puzzle against carnivores in the wild, which could help avoid some of these limits. PNAS, 2015. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1505913113 (About DOIs). https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/social-carnivores-arent-smarterits-all-in-the-relative-brain-size/
Some scientists believe they are and some believe they aren't. Different studies will have different results.
Although this isn't lion and tiger it helps prove social animals are more intelligent. https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/09/24/soc...tans-10210 Cognitive scientists believe that social learning -- i.e., learning behaviors from others -- enhances an animal's ability to learn new things by itself. In other words, social intelligence helps promote individual intelligence. This idea, called the cultural intelligence hypothesis, also has a corollary: Social species should have evolved to be better at problem-solving than related, non-social species. A team of mostly Swiss researchers put this hunch to the test by studying how two different species of orangutan responded to various intellectual challenges. In total, the authors examined 33 zoo-dwelling orangutans, 19 of which were Sumatran (a more social species) and 14 of which were Bornean (a more solitary species). Their prediction was that the Sumatran orangutans would be more clever. They were right. In one task, a transparent box with two openings of different sizes contained a piece of fruit.  (02-01-2018, 10:12 PM)TheLioness Wrote: Do tigers have larger brains than lions? Yes, does that make them smarter? No. The most basic way to measure an animals intelligence is its brain size to body mass ratio. I already know about that study, there are only 7 tigers used as opposed to 20+ lions. I have another study which actually uses a more complicated box puzzle, 6 lions had 3 trials each, a male lion manages to open on his 2nd try.. but failed 1st and 3rd. 2 out of 4 tigers managed to open. (Pckts just posted this study on here) And again, not enough animals. Tigers had higher dexterity, playing with the box trying to figure it out, contrary to your stu— experiment. Im also sure you have seen the difference in environment between the two animals in the video you sent too - semi-wild lions literaly free in an open environment, and a tiger is in a rotting factory prison. Tells me everything i need to know LOL Sociality doesnt automatically mean intelligence. You cant just say, oh lions live together they must be einstein in animal form. Tigers seem to be extremely sociable, could be even more so then lions, i have watched tigers in real life. I have had a tiger use his cleverness, to fool people at a zoo, so he can play with me. Thats right. I used to play with this Amur tiger at the window in this zoo, he would chase me and paw at me and try and get me in an obvious playful manner.. of course i couldnt when they were people around me, but thats the point. This tiger figured out how to get rid of the people. So he would usually just pace back and forth at the window, with or without people there, i discovered him playing with me when a bunch of little kids (dont make fun of me) was running back and forth with him, and i saw the tiger was starting to chase them. So, at first i would just wait for everybody to leave, and he wasnt so "into" playing with me. He wouldnt just jump in playing with me immediantly, obviously because he doesnt know me much. But it seems he likes doing it, prob predatory behaviors idk. But after idk a week or more, he started being more friendly you can say, and when i come there he would be looking at me personally more. You know that one single head bob you do towards some people and they doing it back as a silent greeting? Me and the tiger were doing that, lol. He obviously wanted to play with me, and he was stressed out pacing when everyone was there. He would just go inside where noone can see him for around 30 seconds to a minute, everybody would say the tigers gone and just walk away. Of course i stayed, and when everyone left the tiger came back to the window to greet me, and i would start to play with him. At first i didnt realize he was getting rid of the people just to play with me, but when a few more weeks past, it was obvious. He would be very stressed out, then gets rid of the people, then he would come back without an ounce of stress in him and he would be looking straight at me looking lively and happy and would nearly instantly play with me. And of course this behavior became more frequent when i was there. Sometimes it wouldnt work, because when people leave, there are still people walking over. I never doubted the tigers intelligence after this. Did you see the amur tigress that came to humans for help? Look up animals asking humans for help on google, and see what animals do that. Obviously the well known intelligent ones. Coincidence you say? Absolutely.. not. The tiger sometimes paced it out instead of "tricking" them, until everyone left. But what was the problem? He didnt play with me when everyone left. He only does his trick when he wants to play. This was far into when he was "tricking" people. He is the amur tiger now at the smithsonian national zoo.
20+ lions?
Borrego and her team presented the rope challenge to 12 captive lions at Florida's Lion Country Safari. Eleven of them successfully solved it: seven on their own and four after watching another lion do it. Ten of the 11 recalled the solution five to seven months later. Nice story though, I'm not denying that tigers are highly intelligent, I'm merely stating that I believe lions tend to be more intelligent, not by much. Brain size is not a proven factor of intelligence, if it was then other experiments proven that it isn't wouldn't exist. (02-02-2018, 12:02 AM)TheLioness Wrote: Some scientists believe they are and some believe they aren't. Different studies will have different results. Captive born and bred species are neither social nor non social, and it's not as comprehensive when comparing to the study I posted. The study posted by you uses two of the same species but different sub species, both of which are still social in their own right. Not to mention, the diversity in captive genetics will be lacking, meaning a dumber or smarter individual will most likely pass on it's traits throughout the bloodline. Compared to the study I posted which uses a much larger sample size of species and helps with a more conclusive outcome IMO. (02-02-2018, 12:30 AM)TheLioness Wrote: 20+ lions? The video you sent?: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/g...ls-smarter The 12 lions were a complete different and seperate study, lol. It even said in your article "In a follow-up experiment using a similar conceptual puzzle," I think more research has to be done on this.. and hopefully both the same amount of specimens, lol.
Like I mention pckts, different studies will result in different results. This is why we can debate on this topic. I know you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. However I appreciate the information you provide and it helps your point, as do mine. We can agree to disagree. I beleive lions are smarter in some areas and tigers are smarter in other areas. Even if I beleive lions may be more intelligent, it is slight.
"Brain size is not a proven factor of intelligence"
Brain size certainly IS a proven factor of intelligence. I do not say there are no other factors... However, a certain correlation between brain size and intelligence is undeniable
"Some scientists believe they are and some believe they aren't."
Which scientists belive that lions are smarter than tigers? Vratslav Mazak: " Tiger - at least according to Professor Hemmer and other researchers - shows the highest degree of intelligence from all felids and is one of the most intelligent predators" (Velke kocky a gepardi - Big Cats and Cheetahs) My earlier post. Interview with very experieced big cat breeder: "O tygrech se rika, ze je z kocek nejinteligentnejsi. To muzu ze sve zkusenosti potvrdit. Jsou to osobnosti. Lev je spolecenstejsi, ale hloupejsi. Tygr je plachy, ale premyslivy. Duma nad tim, jak treba ziskat potravu." It is said that tiger is the most intelligent cat. I can confirm that from my experience. They are personalities. Lion is more social, but dumber. Tiger is shy, but more thinking. For example he more thinks how to get the access to food." https://zlinsky.denik.cz/zpravy_region/tygr-dokaze-zabit-cloveka-uz-v-roce20091221.html 
The more IQ-based and spatial intelligences does have a larger correlation to brain size than most think, we have more creative intelligence than Neanderthals but they were probably of equal or (maybe even slightly more) similar physical, spatial, and/or emotional intelligence, those two traits are not mutually exlclusive as there are several different types of intelligence (some listed above). So it must follow that tigers are more creative thinkers and have a more occupied mind, while lions have a mind destined more for following social cues and group/hierarchy strategy. Both are probably equal in emotional, physical, and spatial abilities.
I'd say a split 50/50, idk. (02-01-2018, 03:40 PM)paul cooper Wrote: What else is there to say? That is not an absolute indicator of intelligence...any cat can see any human with medical instruments repairing another animal and can come to the conclusion that it may need help when it arises.
IMO tigers are more effective/intelligent as individuals, while lions are more effective/intelligent as a group. Somewhere I read that tigers are smarter because they live in more complex environment. This high intelligence is also one of the reasons for their extraordinary adaptability
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |