There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
06-09-2014, 10:45 AM( This post was last modified: 06-09-2014, 10:51 AM by GuateGojira )
(06-08-2014, 11:13 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(06-08-2014, 07:08 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Exactly, liger are man-made creations with no purposes, except that of the show and the money-making business.
On the reproduction, only female ligers are able to breed, no idea why males don't.
The interesting point is that lions and tigers are the most different of the great cats, in therms of evolution, as tigers evolved from the original Panthera steam about 2,000,000 years ago, while lions evolved just about 600,000 years ago. However, they can breed very well and they share many characteristics that other great cats don't. Is this possibly an example of convergent evolution? I have never thought this before. [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img]
Which aspects that lion and tiger are more in common?
Apart from its size, i simply failed to see anything in common between these two panthera species.
Here are a few things that I think are similar, not equal, in tigers and lions:
1. Both are the top of the food change, evolved to be a super predator in they own habitats.
2. Both are the most social of the cats, even the cheetah is less sociable than the tiger.
3. Both have a similar sexual dimorphism, larger than in any other cat.
Morphologically speaking, they are not equal, that is for sure, for example:
1. They body proportions are different:
Tiger - longer body, lower at the shoulder, shorter muzzle, larger brain case.
Lion - shorter body, taller at the shoulder, longer muzzle, shorter brain case.
2. They own roaring are different and are based in two forms, for that reason some taxonomist put the tiger in they own genus/subgenus Tigris.
3. They bones and skull proportions are different.
Obviously, these points are NOT absolute and we will need more data, but for the moment, I have found that tigers and lions are different in they morphology and closer in they ecology. This is completely different than the popular voices in some circles.
(06-08-2014, 07:08 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Exactly, liger are man-made creations with no purposes, except that of the show and the money-making business.
On the reproduction, only female ligers are able to breed, no idea why males don't.
The interesting point is that lions and tigers are the most different of the great cats, in therms of evolution, as tigers evolved from the original Panthera steam about 2,000,000 years ago, while lions evolved just about 600,000 years ago. However, they can breed very well and they share many characteristics that other great cats don't. Is this possibly an example of convergent evolution? I have never thought this before. [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img]
Which aspects that lion and tiger are more in common?
Apart from its size, i simply failed to see anything in common between these two panthera species.
Here are a few things that I think are similar, not equal, in tigers and lions:
1. Both are the top of the food change, evolved to be a super predator in they own habitats.
2. Both are the most social of the cats, even the cheetah is less sociable than the tiger.
3. Both have a similar sexual dimorphism, larger than in any other cat.
Morphologically speaking, they are not equal, that is for sure, for example:
1. They body proportions are different:
Tiger - longer body, lower at the shoulder, shorter muzzle, larger brain case.
Lion - shorter body, taller at the shoulder, longer muzzle, shorter brain case.
2. They own roaring are different and are based in two forms, for that reason some taxonomist put the tiger in they own genus/subgenus Tigris.
3. They bones and skull proportions are different.
Obviously, these points are NOT absolute and we will need more data, but for the moment, I have found that tigers and lions are different in they morphology and closer in they ecology. This is completely different than the popular voices in some circles.
Its up to interpretation.
In terms of "similarities"
Where are you drawing the line?
Both are cats, walk on 4 legs, roar, have canines, claws, eat meat, etc.....
But if you want to dive deeper, and try to compare on a sub species level, if the species is Panthera,
then there are quite a few differences
Different skeletal structure, size, muscle composistion, fur, social behavior, hunting technique, climate, living terrain etc...
Its to vague of a question when asking to name similarities or differences.
Both are cats, so they ofcourse are going to share much more in common than not. But there are some major, major differences between them that seperate lions and tigers as much as lions to leopards, or tigers to cheetah.
(06-09-2014, 10:00 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Its up to interpretation.
In terms of "similarities"
Where are you drawing the line?
Both are cats, walk on 4 legs, roar, have canines, claws, eat meat, etc.....
But if you want to dive deeper, and try to compare on a sub species level, if the species is Panthera,
then there are quite a few differences
Different skeletal structure, size, muscle composistion, fur, social behavior, hunting technique, climate, living terrain etc...
Its to vague of a question when asking to name similarities or differences.
Both are cats, so they ofcourse are going to share much more in common than not. But there are some major, major differences between them that seperate lions and tigers as much as lions to leopards, or tigers to cheetah.
Pckts, my comparison is not a simple “this and that”. To say that “both are cats, walk on 4 legs, roar, have canines, claws, eat meat, etc.....” is simply out of question, from this point of view, a wolf is 100% related to a weasel. That is not my point here.
If you take the time to go deeper in my statements, you can see that those simple sentences open a wider point of view, that at this moment, no one have taken the time to see, and even less people is going to accept, at this moment. But believe me, these two cats are the less related but at the same time, the most similar between the great cats and that is what intrigued me.
Of course, if we take only Morphology, tigers are lions are very different; in fact, the four great cats are very different. The old statement that we can’t distinguish a lion from a tiger, without the fur, is just nonsense, as a “good” expert can do it if he knows the correct proportions. However, even these proportions are very variable and some tigers are of about the same proportions than some lions and the other way around. Morphology is easy to describe, and we know very well the characteristics of the tigers and those of the lions.
My new concern, at this moment, is more ecological than morphological; these two cats have evolved in two completely different habitats and with completely different prey base. However, these cats have found similar results even from different beginnings, and there is the fascinating conception of the “convergent” evolution.
This idea from me is too raw right now, and it was maybe a mistake to share it too soon with all of you, but like Valmik Thapar, I am going to prepare it correctly, and will try to found if this hypothesis is correct or is just a “shot to the nothing”.
For the moment, I believe that it will be correct to leave it as it is, and let the true point of the topic grow, which are the “freak” specimens in the world of the cats. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
06-10-2014, 10:16 AM( This post was last modified: 06-10-2014, 03:43 PM by Apollo )
The Ecological similarity between Tigers and Lions.
The more Ecological similarity found between Tigers and Lions is most probably due to their positions in Food chain of their respective Ecosystems.
Both these cats are top of there respective food chains.
Characters such as
1) Higher degree of intelligence
2) Bigger sexual Dimorphism.
3) Higher territorial aggressiveness
4) More complex social structure
5) Behaviour to eliminate smaller competition
6) Hunting bigger herbivores when possible and available
7) Scavenging from smaller competitions.
etc etc
These ecological characters are mostly shown by predators in the top of the food chains and it is not restricted for tigers and lions only.
(06-09-2014, 10:00 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: But if you want to dive deeper, and try to compare on a sub species level, if the species is Panthera,
then there are quite a few differences
Different skeletal structure, size, muscle composistion, fur, social behavior, hunting technique, climate, living terrain etc...
The same can be said of individuals within a species.
900lb lion? I think we all know that isn't likely. I would bet the weight was given by the owner of the lion. Unless that lion is hiding a huge belly under that tarp, there is no way that boy is 9 bills.
Gaute, I have no doubt that when you are ready, the info you release on similarities between lions and tigers, will be eye opening and a interesting read. I was simply stating that it depends on how somebody wants to determine "similarities" will determine their opinion.
(06-10-2014, 10:36 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: 900lb lion? I think we all know that isn't likely. I would bet the weight was given by the owner of the lion. Unless that lion is hiding a huge belly under that tarp, there is no way that boy is 9 bills.
Have you heard any 900 pounds purebred captive Bengal? Only the non-obese specimen should be taken into account.
(06-10-2014, 10:36 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: 900lb lion? I think we all know that isn't likely. I would bet the weight was given by the owner of the lion. Unless that lion is hiding a huge belly under that tarp, there is no way that boy is 9 bills.
Have you heard any 900 pounds purebred captive Bengal? Only the non-obese specimen should be taken into account.
Nope, only a Purebred Siberian. And I wouldn't consider Baikal the other one (forgot his name) obese at all. Bengals do grow slightly smaller in captivity comapred to siberians and lions who grow larger in captivity. Lets not forget, lions are still the smaller cat than either, so a "900lb" lion is pretty much completely unrealistic. Unless anybody has a email from the sactuary with the trainers name and proof the lion was weighed and that was the outcome, it is safe to say that is merely a overexageration by the owner.
06-11-2014, 07:51 PM( This post was last modified: 06-11-2014, 07:51 PM by GrizzlyClaws )
(06-11-2014, 06:48 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(06-11-2014, 06:27 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(06-10-2014, 10:36 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: 900lb lion? I think we all know that isn't likely. I would bet the weight was given by the owner of the lion. Unless that lion is hiding a huge belly under that tarp, there is no way that boy is 9 bills.
Have you heard any 900 pounds purebred captive Bengal? Only the non-obese specimen should be taken into account.
Nope, only a Purebred Siberian. And I wouldn't consider Baikal the other one (forgot his name) obese at all. Bengals do grow slightly smaller in captivity comapred to siberians and lions who grow larger in captivity. Lets not forget, lions are still the smaller cat than either, so a "900lb" lion is pretty much completely unrealistic. Unless anybody has a email from the sactuary with the trainers name and proof the lion was weighed and that was the outcome, it is safe to say that is merely a overexageration by the owner.
Maybe the purebred Bengal and lion are about the same size in the captivity, whereas only Amur is on another league.
Without a body frame like that of Baikal, e.g 4 feet tall and 8 feet long, it is hard to believe that any cat can reach 900 pounds without getting obese or overweighed.
