|
Are Tigers 'Brainier' Than Lions?
|
Wouldn't the angle of the picture comparing the amur and bengal skull also create slight differences when using a program to measure it?
You can see the floor panel lines slanting from high to low if you start from left side and finish towards the right. Just to the naked eye The differences I see The right skulls cheek bones look a bit wider and set further up towards the muzzle. A bit more "blocky" if you will. Also the bone connecting the cheek to the center of the skull seems a bit more robust and flat compared to the left skull. The back portion behind the brain case looks to be rounded or "blunt" compared to the left skull which is a bit more sharp or pointed at the end.  (10-14-2015, 09:52 PM)Pckts Wrote: Wouldn't the angle of the picture comparing the amur and bengal skull also create slight differences when using a program to measure it? His Bengal skull.  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (10-14-2015, 12:00 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: He claims these two skulls, Amur and Bengal respectively, measure about 40 cm.So @peter have you already measured these skulls yourself? Are the measurements on both of these skulls confirmed to be 16 inches?  (01-23-2017, 08:45 AM)johnny rex Wrote:(10-14-2015, 12:00 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: He claims these two skulls, Amur and Bengal respectively, measure about 40 cm.So @peter have you already measured these skulls yourself? Are the measurements on both of these skulls confirmed to be 16 inches? No to both questions. The longest Amur tiger skull measured by V. Mazak was 383 mm., whereas the longest skull from India was 378 mm. The longest lion skull he measured was 402 mm. in greatest total length. This is the skull in the collection of the Zoological Museum of Amsterdam mentioned in other posts. I measured the skull in 2004 and got to 408 mm. Same for the conservator and a biologist who happened to be there. Anyway. The tables V. Mazak published are often used. The reason is he was one of the few interested in skulls. In the third edition of his great book 'Der Tiger' (German edition, 1983, pp. 196), Mazak wrote he had measured 280 skulls. A pity that his example hasn't been followed. The question regarding tiger skulls is if they can reach 15,5 or 16 inches. Baikov (1925) said yes and he wasn't the only one. Same for Indian tigers. The JBNHS published different letters of hunters who had shot very large tigers. Two of these had a skull of 16 inches in greatest total length. Based on the details they provided, they could have been right. I'm not too sure about taxidermists. The skull of a 10.2 (measured 'over curves') tiger shot by the daughter of Sir John Hewett, according to the taxidermist that measured the skull, allegedly was 16,25 inches in greatest total length. The problem is the skull was measured in the wrong way: " ... Next morning we found the tiger dead, about sixty yards from where he was fired at. I have never seen a finer tiger. He measured 10 feet 2 inches, and must have been an inch or two longer had the tape been put over him before he had got stiff. He was in his winter coat and very perfectly marked. The measurements of his skull as given by Messrs. Spicer & Co., of Leamington, who set up the skin, are in their words 'over the bone' as follows: length - 16,25 inches, breadth - 9,875 inches and weight cleaned 4 lb. 14 oz. ... " ('Jungle trails in northern India', Sir John Hewett, first published in 1938 - I have the 2008 Natraj Publishers reprint, pp. 180). In those days in northern India, tigers were measured 'over curves' as a rule. My guess is the skull was measured in the same way ('over curves'). Indirect confirmation is in the width and weight of the skull in that it doesn't add up. My guess is the skull was just over 14 inches in a straight line. I know a few taxidermists over here. When they have a skull they can't determine, they call me. That should tell you something. I have to add I don't trust measurements taken by taxidermists (and many biologists, for that matter). My experience says that many of them tend to overestimate the length of big cat skulls, especially when they own it (...). On the other hand. I have seen captive lions and tigers with very large skulls. The facility I often visited a decade ago had a few that could have reached 16 inches. I asked the director of the facility to keep the skulls of his big cats for photographs and measurements. The answer was impossible. When his cats passed away, they had to be destroyed immediately. Law. Our House of Commons is opposed to trade in body parts of protected animals, like tigers. When you have a facility and a license, you're not going to play dice. No skulls to measure, that is. A pity. A few remarks to finish the post. Although the longest confirmed Amur tiger skull is 383 mm. in greatest total length, it's very likely that some skulls exceeded that mark. In one of his papers, Per Christiansen published the condylobasal length of three captive male Amur tigers. One of these could have been very close to 400 mm. in greatest total length. Same for the captive Amur tiger from the Duisburg Zoo and the wild Sungari River tiger shot in 1943. My guess is 16 inches (406 mm.) could be about right for the largest males. The 'normal' maximum would range between 375-385 mm. Some skulls of wild Indian (and Nepal) tigers could be close in size and I know of at least one skull from Annam (Vietnam) that, according to Rowland Ward, also reached 16 inches. The longest lion skulls might reach 16,5-17,0 inches. The main difference is in the averages. My guess is the difference between large lion and tiger subspecies would be close to an inch, perhaps a bit less. When they are about similar in size, tiger skulls often have a slightly wider rostrum and longer canines. Indian tiger skulls in particular tend to be a bit wider (zygomatic width) and heavier. In absolutes, apart from rostrum and canine length, it would be a close call. What we know, is based on very limited samples. If there's one department where biologists could clear the mist, it would be skulls.   (05-25-2014, 12:39 AM)sanjay Wrote: Hello friends, 
A good review on intelligence and brain size:
Evolution of the brain and intelligence  *This image is copyright of its original author A biggest possible flaw of the study is that every specimen, including extant individuals, had their mass estimated. Skulls are not the best predictors, so take these results with caution. Regardless of errors, working on the idea of the encephalization quotient, those specimens that fall above the line of best fit would be smarter, and vice versa for those below. 
Apollo,
You listen, and you listen good. Science is good, but science is NOT the ONLY source. Other good sources are eyewitness accounts What does this column ask ? are tigers more brainier than lions right ? Well that's still comparing tigers to lions. I gave a EYEWITNESS quote of a famed big cat trainer you trained both big cats, and observed their behaviors.
Beatty actually thinks lions and tigers are equal in intelligence but admits to knowing numerous trainers/experts who say the tiger is smarter, but that's not the impression Beatty got.
Check "animal trainers" thread for the book review. The fact that you use another comment to once again quote Beatty favoring a lion and trying to equate calm in battle to big cat intelligence is what is tiring. Hence why apollo reprimanded you on another L v T fight comment. We know you love Beatty, you never miss an opportunity to quote him or his accounts but the animal training world is far larger than him and filled with individuals just as qualified and more. You really should open your mind to the available library that exists. (03-01-2017, 06:25 AM)Ba Ba Lou Wrote: Apollo, Science is not the only source, but it is the only reputable, reproducible, and most objective source. If eyewitness accounts were to be of anywhere near equal value, the case on cryptids like bigfoot would have been closed and confirmed long ago. The eye is subjective, the number is objective. Also, your first sentence is unnecessary and rude, please avoid that from here on.
pckts,
But Clyde Beatty did say that tigers do not have the lion's ability for calm analysis in fighting ONLY, and the ability to have calm analysis in fighting does take intelligence, everything else about lion/tiger intelligence is debatable. After all this column ask a question, is tigers more brainier than lions ? I think other big cat trainers have said that tigers are more smarter than lions as far as training. But this also COULD BE do in part because numerous big cat trainers have said lions are more troublesome and quarrelsome than tigers. In their book "Gift For The Ages" 2000 by Siegfried and Roy, Roy Horn say tigers are more flexible and pliable than lions. Horn say when a you have a confrontation with a tiger, the tiger is more willing to forgive the confrontation you have with him. But Horn says a lion forgets nothing, and will make sure you understand that. Also I do not just quote Beatty, I've quoted other famed big cat trainers Hans Brick, Roy Horn of "Siegfried and Roy" Jim Chipperfield, Dave Hoover, and famed tiger EXPERT Dr. Kalish Sankhala. I sent you a P.M. on a quote from Hans Brick, remember ?
Analysis in fighting is once again the opionion of one man not fact like the tiger having 16% larger brain volume.
2nd, fighting style isn't intelligence, its preference. It's like saying Fedor is smarter than Conor Mcgregor because fedor is stoic before a fight and mcgregor is amped up. Once again, the Roy horn quote has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with a personality trait. Antler says the tiger is smarter, whenever he compares them, the tiger is always analyzing and scanning for opportunities, it's thinking while the lion isn't. Many trainers also talk about the fact that's Tigers are harder to read than lions or being more analytical. Even Beatty talks about two different tigers that studied the cage and managed to escape in a feat of intelligence that caught him off guard. When comparing first hand accounts on intelligence you'll see more favoring the tiger, but intelligence is subjective, you can use examples for for either and say that proves one is smarter. At the end of the day, comparably sized cats should mean comparably sized brain mass, but it doesn't. Just like homosapians have the largest brain volume compared to other hominids while coinciding with being recognized as the most intelligent. 
Tigers, much like polar bears, have a more unpredictable sensation to them: it is hard to read their emotions than let's say, lions or brown bears. The latter two project their emotions more often before they get aggressive or violent. I've seen videos of nonchalant-looking tigers seemingly walking around each other when both, all of a sudden, attack each other without warning. At least lions warn their opponents. Unpredictability is just a personality or species-related trait, not a sign of possible intelligence.
I've always said this, but intelligence is an impossible thing to ultimately assess, whether between species or even in human beings. Much like physical strength between differently-built species. Tigers might have a more emotionally-scavenging (meaning more emotional depth), individualistic intelligence, and a more constantly-analytical mind than lions do, but lions have better team-coordination intelligence, possibly more social intelligence, and probably some intelligence elsewhere. But again, total intelligence is impossible to assess. I will tell you one thing, though; I put big cats on the higher intelligence scale than great apes and even equal to humans and bears! That is only personal opinion, though. Overall, even if tigers do have a greater total brain size than lions, it isn't evident (or at least discussed) about which parts of the brain are bigger in relation to others in both lions and tigers. It is like men and women: men have a larger brain, but some parts of both men's and women's brains are larger than the other ratio-wise. (03-02-2017, 10:02 AM)Polar Wrote: I will tell you one thing, though; I put big cats on the higher intelligence scale than great apes and even equal to humans and bears! That is only personal opinion, though. This could make for an interesting thread in the debate and discussion forum. Perhaps you could start one soon? (03-02-2017, 10:20 AM)tigerluver Wrote:(03-02-2017, 10:02 AM)Polar Wrote: I will tell you one thing, though; I put big cats on the higher intelligence scale than great apes and even equal to humans and bears! That is only personal opinion, though. Perhaps this new thread could be "Carnivore Intelligence versus Primate Intelligence"? Humans will be included in primates. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |