WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
|
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
|
  (10-25-2018, 01:15 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I'm curious as to how captive big cats compare physically with their wild brothers and sisters. I understand that being dependent on the individual people caring for them, that some captive zoo or circus big cats will be healthier than others. But overall, on average, would the captive animals be healthier than those living in the wild? Even if the captive big cats live much more times than in wild and can be bigger, you cannot compare: free big cats are much more stronger. Life in wild mobilises all the senses. The captive felids bore to death and the boredom is seldom mortal, fatal.  (10-25-2018, 06:51 PM)Spalea Wrote:(10-25-2018, 01:15 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I'm curious as to how captive big cats compare physically with their wild brothers and sisters. I understand that being dependent on the individual people caring for them, that some captive zoo or circus big cats will be healthier than others. But overall, on average, would the captive animals be healthier than those living in the wild? Not a simple question, depending a lot how you approach it. Of course when in good place and getting medical care and good nutrition, physically they have to be in excellent condition. Then again mentally it is more complex matter. It is sad to see wild animals in captivity without a really good reason. I can understand people like Doug Seus, who have taken some orphanages, which would have died otherwise. When giving a good place to live and really giving to these animals some meaningful activities, it is difficult to see them suffer there. Still my opinion is, that animals shouldn´t be in captivity unless there is some real meaning to conservation of those animals. Too many quite sad places among zoos.  (10-25-2018, 06:51 PM)Spalea Wrote:(10-25-2018, 01:15 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I'm curious as to how captive big cats compare physically with their wild brothers and sisters. I understand that being dependent on the individual people caring for them, that some captive zoo or circus big cats will be healthier than others. But overall, on average, would the captive animals be healthier than those living in the wild? You're actually asking 2 different questions... Physically: Cats in the wild are more impressive when it comes to Musculature, body frame size is similar but captive cats generally are more robust, if they are well fed they tend to look more round or stocky. Captive cats will usually have some fat as well, wild cats do not. They are either skinny or in great condition, I've never seen any wild cat come close to being "stocky or round." Wild Cats also have lots of scars, they are more tattered looking at times while captive cats generally have a much more clean look about them. The most prominent difference physically, if you can even call it physical is their face, especially their eyes. Wild cats are killers, they look at you as either a threat, nuisance or lunch while Captive Cats usually look at you as entertainment to break the monotony of their day up or they look a bit lost and bored, especially when they start cage walking back and forth. Captive cats don't have the killer look of their wild counterparts, it's hard to put into words but you know it when you see it. Health: Captive cats can live to 20 plus, wild cats live to 13 if they are lucky, usually ages older than that are either with assistance from the FD or extremely rare natural occurrences. Wild cats face far more pressures on their life which contribute to their early deaths, it's not necessarily because a captive cat is healthier that it lives longer than a wild one, the captive one just doesn't have to worry about starvation, being wounded by prey or foe, poached, poisoned by snakes or insects, inclement weather or extreme drought, etc. But remove those outside factors and I have little doubt that a wild cat wouldn't live just as long as a captive cat if the tables were turned. If anything, a wild cat lives a far more healthy lifestyle outside of the harshness of the wild itself. They eat a far more lean and nutrient rich variety of food, they are able to mentally stimulate themselves with new adventure and will not suffer the depression of being unfree. Their food is also free of hormones and pesticides and their genes are usually that of healthy and strong individuals compared to captive cats which can be irresponsibly bred. IMO, there is no comparison, a wild cat is the superior specimen.
@peter I'm not sure if you've seen this study or not but it's right in your wheelhouse.
Take a look... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3981823/  (12-06-2018, 09:42 PM)Pckts Wrote: @peter I'm not sure if you've seen this study or not but it's right in your wheelhouse. Read that one some years ago. Scientific confirmation of what I saw when I measured skulls. Any specific question? (12-06-2018, 11:01 PM)peter Wrote:(12-06-2018, 09:42 PM)Pckts Wrote: @peter I'm not sure if you've seen this study or not but it's right in your wheelhouse. None, I just know your interest in Captive v Wild Skull differences. (12-06-2018, 11:14 PM)Pckts Wrote:(12-06-2018, 11:01 PM)peter Wrote:(12-06-2018, 09:42 PM)Pckts Wrote: @peter I'm not sure if you've seen this study or not but it's right in your wheelhouse. Appreciated. Skulls of captive big cats often are different from skulls of their wild relatives. Skulls of wild big cats nearly always are smooth, elevated, dense and muscular. Skulls of captive big cats are relatively wider, less dense and not as elevated and muscular. Not seldom, they're asymmetrical as well. In the teeth department, the differences are even more outspoken. For some reason, skulls of captive lions quite often show superfluous growths. Growths at vital places often have an effect. As large skulls are more affected than others, it's likely that males in particular suffer. Not a few think bone abnormalities (in the skull) could be a result of a lack of Vitamin A, but it also seems to be species-related. Tigers, jaguars and leopards are hardly, if at all, affected. Apart from asymmetry, a lack of density and more width, I didn't see abnormalities. Not to the extent seen in captive lions, that is. More research is needed, as quite many captive male lions perish well before their time.
CARNIVORE SKULLS - IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT - FOR ECOLOGISTS (M.A. Adibi, Research, October 2016)
Found this a few days ago. Must read for those interested in skulls of carnivores: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad_Ali_Adibi/publication/309320542_Carnivores_Skulls_-_Identification_and_Measurement_-_for_Ecologists/links/5809cf5a08ae1c98c253a84b/Carnivores-Skulls-Identification-and-Measurement-for-Ecologists.pdf
I asked Nick Kleer how the Tigers he's seen compare to the Lions he's seen
His response: " bengal tigers are a fare size bigger than lions" He's a guide at the Londolozi game reserve You can see our convo on his Insta if you're inclined. Nick Kleer (@nickkleer)  (01-08-2019, 12:15 AM)Pckts Wrote: I asked Nick Kleer how the Tigers he's seen compare to the Lions he's seen I think that is just a basic response I often see because many people think the tiger is much bigger before they have even seen them. I have seen lions in Krüger and tigers and there aren’t much to pick from, certanly not "a fare size bigger" I don’t think many people even guides are as interested in size as all of us are here on this forum. You also have seen both animals too, and a big dominant male in the reserve in which many belives to hold the biggest tigers in Central India. And if I’m not mistaken you also said they where pretty close in size. And I belive you are as I am very much more paying attention to the size of animals than most guides. So I think a large male tiger is bigger than small male lions and vice versa. And I consider you’re words as well as mine higher tbh and not to sound arrogant, but size is the first thing I think about when I see a big cat. I doubt that is the case with guides. Hopefully I can see a TOM tiger in Kanha then it will be even more interesting to compare. And I know you and I are fair when it comes to both animals. :) (01-08-2019, 12:59 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:(01-08-2019, 12:15 AM)Pckts Wrote: I asked Nick Kleer how the Tigers he's seen compare to the Lions he's seen I mostly agree with this but I still like to ask people who have a lot more experience than you or I. We've seen a handful of cats compared with some who've seen far more, especially guides. I have asked that question quite a few times and I've gotten many different answers, including my own. But that being said, I've probably gotten a few more who say the Tiger is larger but that is anything but conclusive. But my personal opinion is that they're way too close to conclusively determine one to be larger than the other with the naked eye. (01-08-2019, 04:12 PM)Pckts Wrote:Yes I agree, there is no problem in asking. I do the same, it’s always interesting to hear from peoples opinion and get their view.(01-08-2019, 12:59 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:(01-08-2019, 12:15 AM)Pckts Wrote: I asked Nick Kleer how the Tigers he's seen compare to the Lions he's seen I just often get the: "they where close I couldn’t see a big difference, but tigers are bigger" answer, with a link to Wikipedia. I think they are to close to tell the difference, imho, as I said I think just as with different specimen of the same species being larger than others. The same goes for different induviduals of these two species being larger or smaller imo. 
Thought this was interesting to see . shows india's big cats jaws.
Credits to Siddhesh Mungekar  *This image is copyright of its original author
 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 32 Guest(s) |