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.
(02-17-2022, 04:20 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I overall dont know the circumstances of a NT male (as some can have alliances). But given the conditions and stress they are living they wont survive well. The sucessrate of a NT male isnt measured but from what i have researched it isnt actually significantly lower as we are talking about males in this case, which are of course more experienced, which means its higher than the overall. Which is the reason for the average food intake with large samples. We have the food intake of Pride males and it was just 9.4 kg, which may indicate as i said a safe live (not easy by far of course). Lions are generally lean and fit but have a high potential of course.
The alliances of some male lions will definetely surpass most pride males in just individual size. Like as i said Mabande and Ximpoko who were nomads with a terretory (at least at the time when they were weighed). These arent the only ones i have seen. Lions who are doing well completely alone can be found. Those nomadic males are massive, with just some out of many pride males reaching that level. The nomadic males i am talking about is for example kalamas, the Kenya lion and various nomadic male lions alone or together.
Overall there are tons of factors. But the fact remained that NT males ate on average more than a T male by a great margin, although being more under pressure and so on. Over 3 hyenas per kill is a very high number actually
But a male tiger is completely different. Not only in their lifestyle (Solitary) but also compared to a male(esp NT) in africa they are better conditioned . So a terretorial male tiger is definetely above a pride male in terms of food intake just looking at the significant difference. I made that conclusion just after seeing the data and the other discussions were just assumptions from the past.
Regarding the Nepal males only 2 adult males were collared by Sunquist thats safe to say. The rest are adult females.
I mean 9.4 kg on average for a pride male from kruger (may be lower in other areas) is more a diet for a fit lion. Thats not impressive at all.
Thats just my opinion but its definetely reasonable.
Again, you are ignoring the conclutions and report of people like Schaller, Bertram, Packer and many others that shows that T males are bigger, eat more and had a significant easier life than the NT males. The problem here is that you are basing your conclutions in just one document, while we are stating our conclutions is several documents, reports, documentaries, etc.
The food intake of 9 kg for an adult male lion do not make any sence at all. That may be only the minimal amount estimated that is necesary for a lion in 24 hours, but is by no means the real food intake. Lions gorge themselves and we have several pictures and videos about that. There is even a video where a group of lions, several males included, that eat a large antelope in less than 15 min (as far I remember, may be less time).
Those presumably large males that you quote, were actually weighed and measured? Because if they "large" size was based only in visual apreciation there is huge margin of error there.
Comparison with tigers is incorrect as tigers make a kill every 8-9 days and stay with it about 3 days, a harder life. Lions on the other hand, they need to kill more often, in some cases even daily (if the prey is too small), but this affect more the lionesses which eat after the dominant male lion eat they fill. Male lions do not care about its pride in food issues (they even may kill they own sons for daring to eat with them), they want to eat to they fill and that is all. Everyone here can tell you that. They even fight for food, the sociability degree of lions is very primitive in comparison with canids, for example.
I don't know why you mention the tigers from Sunquist, what is the point? We already know the number of tigers in the entire Nepalese study. You are ignoring what I told you, that you was saying that Sunquist only recorded 2 intances of male food intake, and I showed to you that was at least 7 events.
Again, male lions, especially territorial ones, eat until they gorge themselves with amounts up to 33 kg. Maybe in lean times or in harder habitats like in deserts, they may eat less, but certainly the lionesses suffer more and need to kill often.
So I got around to reading that paper that SpinoRex posted ("Hunting by male lions: ecological influences and socioecological implications" by Funston et al). It's an interesting one! There are some details that I think are important but so far have been overlooked in the discussion. The authors note that the movements of pride males were constrained by the need to patrol the pride territory and scent-mark the boundaries to deter rivals; nomadic males on the other hand, with no territory to maintain, were free to pursue the movements of their favoured prey (buffalo). They also seemed more likely to engage in more risk-taking behaviour. This could explain why the nomadic lions killed this prey at higher frequencies than the territorial males in the study. It's also possible that this is a location-specific phenomenon, which in my view may explain why it contradicts the findings of some other studies (which found that pride males are generally better fed than nomadic males). The local environment, after all, has a big impact on hunting and territorial behaviour.
Quote:Amongst the males, the differences in prey selection,with nonterritorial males catching significantly more buffalo and scavenging less frequently, reflect important social differences between the two groups. Nonterritorial males, with their slightly larger group sizes and freedom to select foraging ranges, preyed on dangerous, but rewarding, buffalo more frequently than territorial males.The latter have to maintain sufficient body mass and condition to ensure their competitiveness in territory defence, and are essentially restricted to foraging within their territorial range. In contrast, nonterritorial males may benefit by ranging more freely in search of buffalo,and thus from eating more than the minimum required amount. In fact, they encountered buffalo more frequently than the other lion group types, suggesting that they were occupying areas where buffalo were likely to been countered. Killing buffalo frequently, and thus eating more, allows for rapid growth and the acquisition of the body size required to challenge for territorial status,provided that their coalition size and experience allow successful hunting of buffalo. Although there was no significant difference in probability of hunting success, nonterritorial males had slightly lower success rates than the other groups (57 versus 72–73%), suggesting less experience, at least initially, in capturing buffalo.
On the topic of food-sharing, interestingly enough, non-territorial males were observed to share food with unrelated males from other coalitions:
Quote:A further aspect of the nonterritorial males’ behaviour was food sharing with other unrelated nonterritorial males. Sharing with unrelated individuals of the same status was never recorded during the study for the other groups. It is, however, known that pride females will occasionally feed on carcasses with other prides (Schaller1972; personal observation in other parts of the KNP). Nonterritorial males, however, shared a relatively large number (26–40%) of their carcasses with other coalitions.This was probably because of their being attracted to large buffalo kills. On five occasions, more than one coalition of males was observed hunting the same large buffalo herd. Food sharing could also be explained by the reduced likelihood of aggression between equally low-ranking nonterritorial male groups at large carcasses.
Male lions living in prides typically take "the lion's share" and appropriate the carcass for themselves when the prey is small - however, for large prey, they fed together with the rest of the pride:
Quote:Territorial males obtained significantly more meat from each carcass killed by themselves (X +/- SD=38 +/ 17 kg, N =21) than from carcasses that they scavenged (19 +/- 10 kg, N = 23, Mann-Whitney U test: Z = -3.25, P < 0.05). When joining pride females at a kill, territorial males were usually sufficiently dominant to appropriate smaller (<100 kg) carcasses (10 of 13) whereas when feeding on large carcasses (>100 kg, usually adult zebra, wildebeest or buffalo), they were not able to appropriate the entire carcass and fed together with the pride (5 of 6; Fisher’s exact test: chi^2 = 6.11, P < 0.05).
Some more notes on the impact of environment on hunting and territorial behaviour (male lions in plains-like ecosystems did less independent hunting - relying more on lionesses - than male lions in thicker bush, for example):
Quote:The cross-habitat review showed that in open ‘plains-like’ ecosystems adult males tend to be located mostly in the company of pride females (Table 7). We propose three hypotheses that may explain habitat-related differences in male/female associations.
(2) Territory and/or group defence. It is accepted that territorial males primarily defend the territory of the pride, enabling a cohort of their cubs to be reared(Schaller 1972; Bertram 1978; Packer 1986). In open areas, males may defend cubs largely by staying with the females. Visibility over the pride range is not hindered so that (a) males are easily able to detect intruders in their females’ territory when in the company of the females and cubs, and (b) females and their cubs are more easily detected by intruding infanticidal males, necessitating that the males accompany them. In a savanna woodland environment where intruders are less conspicuous it maybe necessary for males to patrol the territory, repelling other males by maintaining the territory through scent marking and roaring. Females and their cubs would also be less easily detected in thicker bush.
(3) Spotted hyaena interrelationships. Cooper (1991)suggested that cooperative defence of carcasses against high density spotted hyaena populations may be a factor influencing lion grouping. In areas where spotted hyaenas occur at much higher densities than lions, they appropriate large amounts of meat from female kills(Schaller 1972; Cooper 1991). When females are outnumbered at a kill by spotted hyaenas by more than four to one, they are unable to defend their kills (Cooper 1991) whereas spotted hyaenas are not able to appropriate kills when territorial males are present (southern Kalahari:Mills 1990; Savuti: Cooper 1991). The kills made by females are vital to territorial males, both in terms of the food acquisition (particularly in open habitats with low buffalo densities) and to provide food for their cubs. Spotted hyaena density relative to that of lions maybe a factor influencing defence of kills, and thus the association of territorial males with pride females,especially in open habitats where carcasses are more easily located.
I hope that is useful! I do recommend reading the discussion in full.
(02-17-2022, 04:41 PM)LandSeaLion Wrote: So I got around to reading that paper that SpinoRex posted ("Hunting by male lions: ecological influences and socioecological implications" by Funston et al). It's an interesting one! There are some details that I think are important but so far have been overlooked in the discussion. The authors note that the movements of pride males were constrained by the need to patrol the pride territory and scent-mark the boundaries to deter rivals; nomadic males on the other hand, with no territory to maintain, were free to pursue the movements of their favoured prey (buffalo). They also seemed more likely to engage in more risk-taking behaviour. This could explain why the nomadic lions killed this prey at higher frequencies than the territorial males in the study. It's also possible that this is a location-specific phenomenon, which in my view may explain why it contradicts the findings of some other studies (which found that pride males are generally better fed than nomadic males). The local environment, after all, has a big impact on hunting and territorial behaviour.
Quote:Amongst the males, the differences in prey selection,with nonterritorial males catching significantly more buffalo and scavenging less frequently, reflect important social differences between the two groups. Nonterritorial males, with their slightly larger group sizes and freedom to select foraging ranges, preyed on dangerous, but rewarding, buffalo more frequently than territorial males.The latter have to maintain sufficient body mass and condition to ensure their competitiveness in territory defence, and are essentially restricted to foraging within their territorial range. In contrast, nonterritorial males may benefit by ranging more freely in search of buffalo,and thus from eating more than the minimum required amount. In fact, they encountered buffalo more frequently than the other lion group types, suggesting that they were occupying areas where buffalo were likely to been countered. Killing buffalo frequently, and thus eating more, allows for rapid growth and the acquisition of the body size required to challenge for territorial status,provided that their coalition size and experience allow successful hunting of buffalo. Although there was no significant difference in probability of hunting success, nonterritorial males had slightly lower success rates than the other groups (57 versus 72–73%), suggesting less experience, at least initially, in capturing buffalo.
On the topic of food-sharing, interestingly enough, non-territorial males were observed to share food with unrelated males from other coalitions:
Quote:A further aspect of the nonterritorial males’ behaviour was food sharing with other unrelated nonterritorial males. Sharing with unrelated individuals of the same status was never recorded during the study for the other groups. It is, however, known that pride females will occasionally feed on carcasses with other prides (Schaller1972; personal observation in other parts of the KNP). Nonterritorial males, however, shared a relatively large number (26–40%) of their carcasses with other coalitions.This was probably because of their being attracted to large buffalo kills. On five occasions, more than one coalition of males was observed hunting the same large buffalo herd. Food sharing could also be explained by the reduced likelihood of aggression between equally low-ranking nonterritorial male groups at large carcasses.
Male lions living in prides typically take "the lion's share" and appropriate the carcass for themselves when the prey is small - however, for large prey, they fed together with the rest of the pride:
Quote:Territorial males obtained significantly more meat from each carcass killed by themselves (X +/- SD=38 +/ 17 kg, N =21) than from carcasses that they scavenged (19 +/- 10 kg, N = 23, Mann-Whitney U test: Z = -3.25, P < 0.05). When joining pride females at a kill, territorial males were usually sufficiently dominant to appropriate smaller (<100 kg) carcasses (10 of 13) whereas when feeding on large carcasses (>100 kg, usually adult zebra, wildebeest or buffalo), they were not able to appropriate the entire carcass and fed together with the pride (5 of 6; Fisher’s exact test: chi^2 = 6.11, P < 0.05).
Some more notes on the impact of environment on hunting and territorial behaviour (male lions in plains-like ecosystems did less independent hunting - relying more on lionesses - than male lions in thicker bush, for example):
Quote:The cross-habitat review showed that in open ‘plains-like’ ecosystems adult males tend to be located mostly in the company of pride females (Table 7). We propose three hypotheses that may explain habitat-related differences in male/female associations.
(2) Territory and/or group defence. It is accepted that territorial males primarily defend the territory of the pride, enabling a cohort of their cubs to be reared(Schaller 1972; Bertram 1978; Packer 1986). In open areas, males may defend cubs largely by staying with the females. Visibility over the pride range is not hindered so that (a) males are easily able to detect intruders in their females’ territory when in the company of the females and cubs, and (b) females and their cubs are more easily detected by intruding infanticidal males, necessitating that the males accompany them. In a savanna woodland environment where intruders are less conspicuous it maybe necessary for males to patrol the territory, repelling other males by maintaining the territory through scent marking and roaring. Females and their cubs would also be less easily detected in thicker bush.
(3) Spotted hyaena interrelationships. Cooper (1991)suggested that cooperative defence of carcasses against high density spotted hyaena populations may be a factor influencing lion grouping. In areas where spotted hyaenas occur at much higher densities than lions, they appropriate large amounts of meat from female kills(Schaller 1972; Cooper 1991). When females are outnumbered at a kill by spotted hyaenas by more than four to one, they are unable to defend their kills (Cooper 1991) whereas spotted hyaenas are not able to appropriate kills when territorial males are present (southern Kalahari:Mills 1990; Savuti: Cooper 1991). The kills made by females are vital to territorial males, both in terms of the food acquisition (particularly in open habitats with low buffalo densities) and to provide food for their cubs. Spotted hyaena density relative to that of lions maybe a factor influencing defence of kills, and thus the association of territorial males with pride females,especially in open habitats where carcasses are more easily located.
I hope that is useful! I do recommend reading the discussion in full.
So numerous things to unpack...
First is the difference in feeding on large prey *100kg or more* observations.
TM were only viewed on 4 carcasses while NTM were viewed on 13 on top of that no matter the Sub Group, all Lions preyed most often on animals less than 100kg. However pride females caught the most substantial number of large species *100kg or more* since Male Lions aren't very successful in preying on Zebra and Wildebeest while pride females are. And since TM Lions scavenged kills much more often from pride females, they also had access Zebra and Wildebeest without expending any energy. On top of that, Males generally only spent time with females when no cubs were present and during that same time they were most likely to scavenge prey. TM's would spend less time with the pride once cubs were born and overall they spent very little time with the pride as a whole.
Next is the amount of meat available per lion is only a calculation not an actual observation and since TM's were seen with less Adult Buffalo throughout the study the calculation was less for them but that's misleading since TM's were seen with less kills period.
What really stands out is Impala, both TM and NTM would attempt predation on Impala at the same rate when the encountered them but since TM controlled the thick bush habitat they encountered Impala far more often and thus preyed upon them far more.
Also the hunting technique, living in controlling the thick bush territory allowed the TM to stalk the impala where as the NTM had to chase upon detection.
The NTM's encountered Buffalo more often but no difference in success rate on hunts between groups so that again leads itself to the idea that the NTM are forced to inhabit a more open habitat and Buffalo were their only option. Buffalo hunts also cover a significantly greater distance so this means the Lions would likely expend more energy tracking and hunting buffalo as well as Buffalo being more dangerous prey obviously.
Next is Hyena, which made up very little observations at kills but when they did show they were least present at Territorial Male kills and most present and NTM kills.
Hyena #'s only exceeded female #'s at 5 out of 77 kills observed, and never higher than a ration of 3:1 and they showed that 4:1 is needed to usurp a kill from a female, which goes to show their small impact on Lion predation there. Although it will depend on the location.
For instance, Males spent very little time with pride females in general but in areas where Hyena outnumber Lion 6.3:1 *Savuti* TM spent more time with their prides, so in areas with high Hyena density the pride males play much more of a factor in protection than areas where the Lion/Hyena density is low. So most likely E. Africa TM males are the most important since animal/lion/hyena density is the highest on earth.
This is also implied in the fact that Males NT/TM alike made their own kills much higher there than in other areas.
This limited study also had differences in coalition size, TM's were no more than 2 while NTM's were between 2-4, this could also play a role in prey taken. The Notches are probably a perfect example, their large coalition size and prey availability turned them into Hippo hunters and the largest Lions in the Mara. This could be different in S. Africa where the prey density and habitat is different.
Like the paper states, there are a significant amount of ecological factors that goes into prey preference. You could make arguments for or against many claims, but nothing I read in this study backs the idea that a TM will have less food intake than a NTM. What I really take away from it is the major differences in lifestyle between the two, it's no doubt easier to be a TM in Kruger than a NTM, which I think most would agree regardless of reading this study or not.
(02-17-2022, 04:20 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I overall dont know the circumstances of a NT male (as some can have alliances). But given the conditions and stress they are living they wont survive well. The sucessrate of a NT male isnt measured but from what i have researched it isnt actually significantly lower as we are talking about males in this case, which are of course more experienced, which means its higher than the overall. Which is the reason for the average food intake with large samples. We have the food intake of Pride males and it was just 9.4 kg, which may indicate as i said a safe live (not easy by far of course). Lions are generally lean and fit but have a high potential of course.
The alliances of some male lions will definetely surpass most pride males in just individual size. Like as i said Mabande and Ximpoko who were nomads with a terretory (at least at the time when they were weighed). These arent the only ones i have seen. Lions who are doing well completely alone can be found. Those nomadic males are massive, with just some out of many pride males reaching that level. The nomadic males i am talking about is for example kalamas, the Kenya lion and various nomadic male lions alone or together.
Overall there are tons of factors. But the fact remained that NT males ate on average more than a T male by a great margin, although being more under pressure and so on. Over 3 hyenas per kill is a very high number actually
But a male tiger is completely different. Not only in their lifestyle (Solitary) but also compared to a male(esp NT) in africa they are better conditioned . So a terretorial male tiger is definetely above a pride male in terms of food intake just looking at the significant difference. I made that conclusion just after seeing the data and the other discussions were just assumptions from the past.
Regarding the Nepal males only 2 adult males were collared by Sunquist thats safe to say. The rest are adult females.
I mean 9.4 kg on average for a pride male from kruger (may be lower in other areas) is more a diet for a fit lion. Thats not impressive at all.
Thats just my opinion but its definetely reasonable.
Again, you are ignoring the conclutions and report of people like Schaller, Bertram, Packer and many others that shows that T males are bigger, eat more and had a significant easier life than the NT males. The problem here is that you are basing your conclutions in just one document, while we are stating our conclutions is several documents, reports, documentaries, etc.
The food intake of 9 kg for an adult male lion do not make any sence at all. That may be only the minimal amount estimated that is necesary for a lion in 24 hours, but is by no means the real food intake. Lions gorge themselves and we have several pictures and videos about that. There is even a video where a group of lions, several males included, that eat a large antelope in less than 15 min (as far I remember, may be less time).
Those presumably large males that you quote, were actually weighed and measured? Because if they "large" size was based only in visual apreciation there is huge margin of error there.
Comparison with tigers is incorrect as tigers make a kill every 8-9 days and stay with it about 3 days, a harder life. Lions on the other hand, they need to kill more often, in some cases even daily (if the prey is too small), but this affect more the lionesses which eat after the dominant male lion eat they fill. Male lions do not care about its pride in food issues (they even may kill they own sons for daring to eat with them), they want to eat to they fill and that is all. Everyone here can tell you that. They even fight for food, the sociability degree of lions is very primitive in comparison with canids, for example.
I don't know why you mention the tigers from Sunquist, what is the point? We already know the number of tigers in the entire Nepalese study. You are ignoring what I told you, that you was saying that Sunquist only recorded 2 intances of male food intake, and I showed to you that was at least 7 events.
Again, male lions, especially territorial ones, eat until they gorge themselves with amounts up to 33 kg. Maybe in lean times or in harder habitats like in deserts, they may eat less, but certainly the lionesses suffer more and need to kill often.
I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.
Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way.
(02-17-2022, 04:20 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I overall dont know the circumstances of a NT male (as some can have alliances). But given the conditions and stress they are living they wont survive well. The sucessrate of a NT male isnt measured but from what i have researched it isnt actually significantly lower as we are talking about males in this case, which are of course more experienced, which means its higher than the overall. Which is the reason for the average food intake with large samples. We have the food intake of Pride males and it was just 9.4 kg, which may indicate as i said a safe live (not easy by far of course). Lions are generally lean and fit but have a high potential of course.
The alliances of some male lions will definetely surpass most pride males in just individual size. Like as i said Mabande and Ximpoko who were nomads with a terretory (at least at the time when they were weighed). These arent the only ones i have seen. Lions who are doing well completely alone can be found. Those nomadic males are massive, with just some out of many pride males reaching that level. The nomadic males i am talking about is for example kalamas, the Kenya lion and various nomadic male lions alone or together.
Overall there are tons of factors. But the fact remained that NT males ate on average more than a T male by a great margin, although being more under pressure and so on. Over 3 hyenas per kill is a very high number actually
But a male tiger is completely different. Not only in their lifestyle (Solitary) but also compared to a male(esp NT) in africa they are better conditioned . So a terretorial male tiger is definetely above a pride male in terms of food intake just looking at the significant difference. I made that conclusion just after seeing the data and the other discussions were just assumptions from the past.
Regarding the Nepal males only 2 adult males were collared by Sunquist thats safe to say. The rest are adult females.
I mean 9.4 kg on average for a pride male from kruger (may be lower in other areas) is more a diet for a fit lion. Thats not impressive at all.
Thats just my opinion but its definetely reasonable.
Again, you are ignoring the conclutions and report of people like Schaller, Bertram, Packer and many others that shows that T males are bigger, eat more and had a significant easier life than the NT males. The problem here is that you are basing your conclutions in just one document, while we are stating our conclutions is several documents, reports, documentaries, etc.
The food intake of 9 kg for an adult male lion do not make any sence at all. That may be only the minimal amount estimated that is necesary for a lion in 24 hours, but is by no means the real food intake. Lions gorge themselves and we have several pictures and videos about that. There is even a video where a group of lions, several males included, that eat a large antelope in less than 15 min (as far I remember, may be less time).
Those presumably large males that you quote, were actually weighed and measured? Because if they "large" size was based only in visual apreciation there is huge margin of error there.
Comparison with tigers is incorrect as tigers make a kill every 8-9 days and stay with it about 3 days, a harder life. Lions on the other hand, they need to kill more often, in some cases even daily (if the prey is too small), but this affect more the lionesses which eat after the dominant male lion eat they fill. Male lions do not care about its pride in food issues (they even may kill they own sons for daring to eat with them), they want to eat to they fill and that is all. Everyone here can tell you that. They even fight for food, the sociability degree of lions is very primitive in comparison with canids, for example.
I don't know why you mention the tigers from Sunquist, what is the point? We already know the number of tigers in the entire Nepalese study. You are ignoring what I told you, that you was saying that Sunquist only recorded 2 intances of male food intake, and I showed to you that was at least 7 events.
Again, male lions, especially territorial ones, eat until they gorge themselves with amounts up to 33 kg. Maybe in lean times or in harder habitats like in deserts, they may eat less, but certainly the lionesses suffer more and need to kill often.
I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.
Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way.
If you have other points you can write it.
Comparing conditions in Africa v India is like comparing Sand to Water.... They're very different. Claiming Africa to have harder conditions than India is baseless, especially since I'm assuming you've been to neither?
If you're saying there is less competition in India v Africa, that is true but there is far less available prey too. So the idea that Tigers have more meat available than Lions is wrong and it's not even close. Let's not forget, Lions already live in India and they don't reach the same dimensions as they do in Africa, so that already goes against your claim.
And most certainly a Nomadic Male will not be heavier than a Pride male, nothing in that paper you posted supports that theory either so you're basing it off of misleading excerpts.
(02-18-2022, 12:50 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.
Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way.
If you have other points you can write it.
Like Pckts says, we can't compare India with Africa overall, not even with single countries like Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa. The African regions where lions live, especially those from the East and Souther regions, had one of the highest prey densities of the planet! They have a huge amount of prey, in all sized and weights. Preys over 100 kg are incredibly abundant and live in huge groups, plus the fact that they live in open habitat with several options to check for prey.
Now, India do not have more than 4, maybe 5, species that weight more than 100 kg (Barasingha, Nilgay, Sambar, Gaur and wild pigs with large males only). Prey density is low in comparison with any African country, specially the large animals, and most of the prey available are relatively small, plus the fact that the habitat is close and the prey is secretive. Tiger hunt every 8 days because of that, even in places like in Chitwan and Kanha, were prey has been studied too and prey crude mass since high.
So no, there is no form that tigers had an easier life than lions, specially by the fact that male tigers need to hunt by themselves while the TM lions just need to steal the kill from the lioness and hunt just when is actually necesary. NT lions can't have this great life of the TM lions, they need to hunt themselves and more regularly, but that do not means that they eat more than TM lions, that do not make sense at all. Again, you are basing your personal conclution in ONE document, while you should read ALL the other studies about lions and only then you will see the error in your hypotesis.
Who says that Kruger lions eat less than any other lion, or tiger? 17 kg is also average for a male lion in any part, they can and do eat more than 30 kg in a moment and that is proved and recorded. And also in the necesary daily food intake, male tigers and lions are estimated both at about 7 kg per day, and in your study says 9 kg, which is even bigger for male lions, again.
We never said that Kruger lions are "genetically" heavier than any other population, that is YOUR assumption, again, incorrect. The checkings of the populations shows that all the Southern African lions had about the same weights, on average and on ranges, BUT the fact that Kruger lions had a big sample that includes specimens emtpy belly while the other don't and even then they had about the same body masses (about 190 kg for males), make us to conclude that overall they are heavier than the other populations, that is the correct conclution. Also they are bigger (length and height) because the records that we have were taken "between pegs" while those of the other populations were "over the curves". Details that probably you ignored. The fact that genetic is involved came only to light only when you compared African lion and Indian lions, that is something that is obviously different in all sences. So don't mix apples with carrots man.
The fact that male lions are leaner than male tigers do not support your point of view, for the contrary, it shows that with the same food intake and with a lower prey base, tigers are still bigger.
(02-18-2022, 12:50 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.
Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way.
If you have other points you can write it.
Like Pckts says, we can't compare India with Africa overall, not even with single countries like Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa. The African regions where lions live, especially those from the East and Souther regions, had one of the highest prey densities of the planet! They have a huge amount of prey, in all sized and weights. Preys over 100 kg are incredibly abundant and live in huge groups, plus the fact that they live in open habitat with several options to check for prey.
Now, India do not have more than 4, maybe 5, species that weight more than 100 kg (Barasingha, Nilgay, Sambar, Gaur and wild pigs with large males only). Prey density is low in comparison with any African country, specially the large animals, and most of the prey available are relatively small, plus the fact that the habitat is close and the prey is secretive. Tiger hunt every 8 days because of that, even in places like in Chitwan and Kanha, were prey has been studied too and prey crude mass since high.
So no, there is no form that tigers had an easier life than lions, specially by the fact that male tigers need to hunt by themselves while the TM lions just need to steal the kill from the lioness and hunt just when is actually necesary. NT lions can't have this great life of the TM lions, they need to hunt themselves and more regularly, but that do not means that they eat more than TM lions, that do not make sense at all. Again, you are basing your personal conclution in ONE document, while you should read ALL the other studies about lions and only then you will see the error in your hypotesis.
Who says that Kruger lions eat less than any other lion, or tiger? 17 kg is also average for a male lion in any part, they can and do eat more than 30 kg in a moment and that is proved and recorded. And also in the necesary daily food intake, male tigers and lions are estimated both at about 7 kg per day, and in your study says 9 kg, which is even bigger for male lions, again.
We never said that Kruger lions are "genetically" heavier than any other population, that is YOUR assumption, again, incorrect. The checkings of the populations shows that all the Southern African lions had about the same weights, on average and on ranges, BUT the fact that Kruger lions had a big sample that includes specimens emtpy belly while the other don't and even then they had about the same body masses (about 190 kg for males), make us to conclude that overall they are heavier than the other populations, that is the correct conclution. Also they are bigger (length and height) because the records that we have were taken "between pegs" while those of the other populations were "over the curves". Details that probably you ignored. The fact that genetic is involved came only to light only when you compared African lion and Indian lions, that is something that is obviously different in all sences. So don't mix apples with carrots man.
The fact that male lions are leaner than male tigers do not support your point of view, for the contrary, it shows that with the same food intake and with a lower prey base, tigers are still bigger.
My words were pretty clear i think. If a animal is heavier than there are 2 options. Its heavier because of his conditioning or it is genetical heavier by a more robust bone structure. Thats the reason i dont take weights really seriously to some degree when comparing lions (i.e tiger but the diff in lions is even more noticable). Huge lions from hamilton not even reaching the average weight from past datas shows it.
The fact that male lions are leaner shows they are not consuming not as much as tigers(In a blink of an eye its pretty visible). In the future im interested to see more datas on this but the fact that the food intake was so seriously different between the tigers from sunquist and the lions from kruger shows it. You compared mostly lion and tigers when they got a meal, which doesnt have to do with the average food intake (some lions might be used to gorge themselves better than tigers). So the datas clearly doesnt support the claim that they have the same food intake.
Some might show africa as an easy land as you did. Once you are there it seems to be really different and that not only because of other animals except the lion. In the discussion my point was thats its useless to compare a solitary cat with a own terretory to a cat with a pride. Of course the place they are living in will effect it.
By believing that what you are saying you are assuming that tigers have a stronger structure, which is evidently questionable just at looking at the overlap, and importantly when comparing females, which have the largest sample and have the same identical dimension as males. At same length they are almost identical.
Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
So my conclusion was more than understandable it think. For some it might be coincidence but i dont think so, when most record lions where nomadic ones having a own terretory. Thats my opinion but you said im incorrect when you presented single meat datas (when both are gorging themselves).
There is a difference being heavier or genetically heavier
Again thats my opinion but you are saying im incorrect although i didnt see clearcut evidences regarding the food intake. I dont know where there is a discussion when females in large samples consumed 15 kg when pride males consumed 9.4 kg or females with 5.9 kg.
(02-18-2022, 12:50 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.
Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way.
If you have other points you can write it.
Like Pckts says, we can't compare India with Africa overall, not even with single countries like Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa. The African regions where lions live, especially those from the East and Souther regions, had one of the highest prey densities of the planet! They have a huge amount of prey, in all sized and weights. Preys over 100 kg are incredibly abundant and live in huge groups, plus the fact that they live in open habitat with several options to check for prey.
Now, India do not have more than 4, maybe 5, species that weight more than 100 kg (Barasingha, Nilgay, Sambar, Gaur and wild pigs with large males only). Prey density is low in comparison with any African country, specially the large animals, and most of the prey available are relatively small, plus the fact that the habitat is close and the prey is secretive. Tiger hunt every 8 days because of that, even in places like in Chitwan and Kanha, were prey has been studied too and prey crude mass since high.
So no, there is no form that tigers had an easier life than lions, specially by the fact that male tigers need to hunt by themselves while the TM lions just need to steal the kill from the lioness and hunt just when is actually necesary. NT lions can't have this great life of the TM lions, they need to hunt themselves and more regularly, but that do not means that they eat more than TM lions, that do not make sense at all. Again, you are basing your personal conclution in ONE document, while you should read ALL the other studies about lions and only then you will see the error in your hypotesis.
Who says that Kruger lions eat less than any other lion, or tiger? 17 kg is also average for a male lion in any part, they can and do eat more than 30 kg in a moment and that is proved and recorded. And also in the necesary daily food intake, male tigers and lions are estimated both at about 7 kg per day, and in your study says 9 kg, which is even bigger for male lions, again.
We never said that Kruger lions are "genetically" heavier than any other population, that is YOUR assumption, again, incorrect. The checkings of the populations shows that all the Southern African lions had about the same weights, on average and on ranges, BUT the fact that Kruger lions had a big sample that includes specimens emtpy belly while the other don't and even then they had about the same body masses (about 190 kg for males), make us to conclude that overall they are heavier than the other populations, that is the correct conclution. Also they are bigger (length and height) because the records that we have were taken "between pegs" while those of the other populations were "over the curves". Details that probably you ignored. The fact that genetic is involved came only to light only when you compared African lion and Indian lions, that is something that is obviously different in all sences. So don't mix apples with carrots man.
The fact that male lions are leaner than male tigers do not support your point of view, for the contrary, it shows that with the same food intake and with a lower prey base, tigers are still bigger.
My words were pretty clear i think. If a animal is heavier than there are 2 options. Its heavier because of his conditioning or it is genetical heavier by a more robust bone structure. Thats the reason i dont take weights really seriously to some degree when comparing lions (i.e tiger but the diff in lions is even more noticable). Huge lions from hamilton not even reaching the average weight from past datas shows it.
The fact that male lions are leaner shows they are not consuming not as much as tigers(In a blink of an eye its pretty visible). In the future im interested to see more datas on this but the fact that the food intake was so seriously different between the tigers from sunquist and the lions from kruger shows it. You compared mostly lion and tigers when they got a meal, which doesnt have to do with the average food intake (some lions might be used to gorge themselves better than tigers). So the datas clearly doesnt support the claim that they have the same food intake.
Some might show africa as an easy land as you did. Once you are there it seems to be really different and that not only because of other animals except the lion. In the discussion my point was thats its useless to compare a solitary cat with a own terretory to a cat with a pride. Of course the place they are living in will effect it.
By believing that what you are saying you are assuming that tigers have a stronger structure, which is evidently questionable just at looking at the overlap, and importantly when comparing females, which have the largest sample and have the same identical dimension as males. At same length they are almost identical.
Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
So my conclusion was more than understandable it think. For some it might be coincidence but i dont think so, when most record lions where nomadic ones having a own terretory. Thats my opinion but you said im incorrect when you presented single meat datas (when both are gorging themselves).
There is a difference being heavier or genetically heavier
Again thats my opinion but you are saying im incorrect although i didnt see clearcut evidences regarding the food intake. I dont know where there is a discussion when females in large samples consumed 15 kg when pride males consumed 9.4 kg or females with 5.9 kg.
Quote:Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
Weight of the bone will depend on how long it has been stored. Older bones will weigh less than newly preserved bones.
(02-19-2022, 11:16 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: My words were pretty clear i think. If a animal is heavier than there are 2 options. Its heavier because of his conditioning or it is genetical heavier by a more robust bone structure. Thats the reason i dont take weights really seriously to some degree when comparing lions (i.e tiger but the diff in lions is even more noticable). Huge lions from hamilton not even reaching the average weight from past datas shows it.
The fact that male lions are leaner shows they are not consuming not as much as tigers(In a blink of an eye its pretty visible). In the future im interested to see more datas on this but the fact that the food intake was so seriously different between the tigers from sunquist and the lions from kruger shows it. You compared mostly lion and tigers when they got a meal, which doesnt have to do with the average food intake (some lions might be used to gorge themselves better than tigers). So the datas clearly doesnt support the claim that they have the same food intake.
Some might show africa as an easy land as you did. Once you are there it seems to be really different and that not only because of other animals except the lion. In the discussion my point was thats its useless to compare a solitary cat with a own terretory to a cat with a pride. Of course the place they are living in will effect it.
By believing that what you are saying you are assuming that tigers have a stronger structure, which is evidently questionable just at looking at the overlap, and importantly when comparing females, which have the largest sample and have the same identical dimension as males. At same length they are almost identical.
Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
So my conclusion was more than understandable it think. For some it might be coincidence but i dont think so, when most record lions where nomadic ones having a own terretory. Thats my opinion but you said im incorrect when you presented single meat datas (when both are gorging themselves).
There is a difference being heavier or genetically heavier
Again thats my opinion but you are saying im incorrect although i didnt see clearcut evidences regarding the food intake. I dont know where there is a discussion when females in large samples consumed 15 kg when pride males consumed 9.4 kg or females with 5.9 kg.
I have no idea why you bring the bone structure. There is no clear information about bone weights on lions and tigers. The FEW information available in many cases do not separete males from females, even worst, there is no information about the subspecies, origin (captive or wild) and many other details. So if you are trying to use bones as a excuse to invalidate the weights it will be futile. Remember that I offer you to use skulls (which we can know the origiin and subspecies) but you ignore it. So I see a double standard here. Unless that you can know the origin, sex, physical details and subspecies of the bones, any analisys will be useless.
The lions of Hamilton are big, but not all the lions were weighed, only 5 of the males. So we can't know how big where all the other males. Still, the date is usefull for comparison.
Lion DO consume the same amount as tigers. Food intake is the same, specially in male lions. I have no idea why you are ignoring the REAL data from ACTUAL food consumption from the sources that I provided. You are saying that is not valid because it do not show the average intake, but you should know that the average intake of the largest populations, in females for example, is the same, 14 kg for Nepal and 14 from Etosha. Certainly males eat more, and that is a known fact, they gorge themselves in every oportunity. So, you think that a male lion is going to eat 9 kg and will stop to allow his females to eat? Male lions will eat as much as they can and they don't care for other pride members, that is the true, and that is what you can see in the reports of Schaller, Packer, Smuts, Bertram, etc. I can put the information of each one of them if you want.
You can't compare the food intake of Nepalese tigers with those of Kruger based in that single document. Nepal tigers intake is real data, those from Kruger are CALCULATIONS. Seriously, you should drop that paper and actually read the people that worked with lions in the wild and read how lions eat, how often they hunt, and the size of the prey that they take.
Again, anyone here, or in comparative papers, can tell you that Africa is a heaven compare with India, prey base is huge in comparison. Tigers will be lucky of they got a group of chital deers of 60 kg, while lions had entire groups of wildebest, zebras, antelopes, buffaloes (all of them over 200 kg) and all in relatively good densities. If you want to deny this FACT, then there is no point in continue the conversation.
Tigers not only have an stroger structure, but they need to, they hunt alone and in some cases they hunt prey that lions do in groups. That is why tigers need bigger body masses and muscular mass too. They don't have the support of a pride at all. It is curious, you are saying that females have the same dimentions as males? Are you talking serious? Do you know that sexual dimosphism in lions and tigers is among the highest in cats?
And what is the point in put genetic again? I alredy explained to you. If you are going to compare lions from different subspecies there IS a difference in genetic and development of thousand of years. And if you are going to compare two different species that are separated from 2, maybe 3 millions years, then is OBVIOUS that genetic should be included in the equation. Dude, are you reading with I am writing?
There is no clearcut evidence in nothing that you have presented. Even other posters here already showed to you the flaws in the ONLY study that you presented in this discussion. You can't compare a calculated average intake with a real food intake. Check also the ocurrence of kills and how often they hunt. There is no comparison between a tigers that kill once every 8 days with a food intake of 14 kg and a lioness that hunt every 3 days and an intake of 7 kg, and leave out the lioness like those from Etosha that had an average intake of 14 kg too. Who do you think that eat more?
Again, read all the other documents and drop that single paper that is showing you that information. We also have here documents that calculate that the food intake of male Amur tigers is about 4 kg, but no one use it as the same author explain that that type of calculations are not reliable, maybe the author of your single paper should have done that too.
(02-18-2022, 12:50 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.
Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way.
If you have other points you can write it.
Like Pckts says, we can't compare India with Africa overall, not even with single countries like Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa. The African regions where lions live, especially those from the East and Souther regions, had one of the highest prey densities of the planet! They have a huge amount of prey, in all sized and weights. Preys over 100 kg are incredibly abundant and live in huge groups, plus the fact that they live in open habitat with several options to check for prey.
Now, India do not have more than 4, maybe 5, species that weight more than 100 kg (Barasingha, Nilgay, Sambar, Gaur and wild pigs with large males only). Prey density is low in comparison with any African country, specially the large animals, and most of the prey available are relatively small, plus the fact that the habitat is close and the prey is secretive. Tiger hunt every 8 days because of that, even in places like in Chitwan and Kanha, were prey has been studied too and prey crude mass since high.
So no, there is no form that tigers had an easier life than lions, specially by the fact that male tigers need to hunt by themselves while the TM lions just need to steal the kill from the lioness and hunt just when is actually necesary. NT lions can't have this great life of the TM lions, they need to hunt themselves and more regularly, but that do not means that they eat more than TM lions, that do not make sense at all. Again, you are basing your personal conclution in ONE document, while you should read ALL the other studies about lions and only then you will see the error in your hypotesis.
Who says that Kruger lions eat less than any other lion, or tiger? 17 kg is also average for a male lion in any part, they can and do eat more than 30 kg in a moment and that is proved and recorded. And also in the necesary daily food intake, male tigers and lions are estimated both at about 7 kg per day, and in your study says 9 kg, which is even bigger for male lions, again.
We never said that Kruger lions are "genetically" heavier than any other population, that is YOUR assumption, again, incorrect. The checkings of the populations shows that all the Southern African lions had about the same weights, on average and on ranges, BUT the fact that Kruger lions had a big sample that includes specimens emtpy belly while the other don't and even then they had about the same body masses (about 190 kg for males), make us to conclude that overall they are heavier than the other populations, that is the correct conclution. Also they are bigger (length and height) because the records that we have were taken "between pegs" while those of the other populations were "over the curves". Details that probably you ignored. The fact that genetic is involved came only to light only when you compared African lion and Indian lions, that is something that is obviously different in all sences. So don't mix apples with carrots man.
The fact that male lions are leaner than male tigers do not support your point of view, for the contrary, it shows that with the same food intake and with a lower prey base, tigers are still bigger.
My words were pretty clear i think. If a animal is heavier than there are 2 options. Its heavier because of his conditioning or it is genetical heavier by a more robust bone structure. Thats the reason i dont take weights really seriously to some degree when comparing lions (i.e tiger but the diff in lions is even more noticable). Huge lions from hamilton not even reaching the average weight from past datas shows it.
The fact that male lions are leaner shows they are not consuming not as much as tigers(In a blink of an eye its pretty visible). In the future im interested to see more datas on this but the fact that the food intake was so seriously different between the tigers from sunquist and the lions from kruger shows it. You compared mostly lion and tigers when they got a meal, which doesnt have to do with the average food intake (some lions might be used to gorge themselves better than tigers). So the datas clearly doesnt support the claim that they have the same food intake.
Some might show africa as an easy land as you did. Once you are there it seems to be really different and that not only because of other animals except the lion. In the discussion my point was thats its useless to compare a solitary cat with a own terretory to a cat with a pride. Of course the place they are living in will effect it.
By believing that what you are saying you are assuming that tigers have a stronger structure, which is evidently questionable just at looking at the overlap, and importantly when comparing females, which have the largest sample and have the same identical dimension as males. At same length they are almost identical.
Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
So my conclusion was more than understandable it think. For some it might be coincidence but i dont think so, when most record lions where nomadic ones having a own terretory. Thats my opinion but you said im incorrect when you presented single meat datas (when both are gorging themselves).
There is a difference being heavier or genetically heavier
Again thats my opinion but you are saying im incorrect although i didnt see clearcut evidences regarding the food intake. I dont know where there is a discussion when females in large samples consumed 15 kg when pride males consumed 9.4 kg or females with 5.9 kg.
Quote:Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
Weight of the bone will depend on how long it has been stored. Older bones will weigh less than newly preserved bones.
That has basically no influence at all. Bones are dry as they are from animals that are already for a time. Therefore i said neglible, which means there is basically no difference.
02-20-2022, 09:00 PM( This post was last modified: 02-20-2022, 09:01 PM by Charger01 )
(02-20-2022, 05:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(02-20-2022, 04:15 AM)Khan85 Wrote:
(02-19-2022, 11:16 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(02-19-2022, 01:07 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-18-2022, 12:50 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.
Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way.
If you have other points you can write it.
Like Pckts says, we can't compare India with Africa overall, not even with single countries like Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa. The African regions where lions live, especially those from the East and Souther regions, had one of the highest prey densities of the planet! They have a huge amount of prey, in all sized and weights. Preys over 100 kg are incredibly abundant and live in huge groups, plus the fact that they live in open habitat with several options to check for prey.
Now, India do not have more than 4, maybe 5, species that weight more than 100 kg (Barasingha, Nilgay, Sambar, Gaur and wild pigs with large males only). Prey density is low in comparison with any African country, specially the large animals, and most of the prey available are relatively small, plus the fact that the habitat is close and the prey is secretive. Tiger hunt every 8 days because of that, even in places like in Chitwan and Kanha, were prey has been studied too and prey crude mass since high.
So no, there is no form that tigers had an easier life than lions, specially by the fact that male tigers need to hunt by themselves while the TM lions just need to steal the kill from the lioness and hunt just when is actually necesary. NT lions can't have this great life of the TM lions, they need to hunt themselves and more regularly, but that do not means that they eat more than TM lions, that do not make sense at all. Again, you are basing your personal conclution in ONE document, while you should read ALL the other studies about lions and only then you will see the error in your hypotesis.
Who says that Kruger lions eat less than any other lion, or tiger? 17 kg is also average for a male lion in any part, they can and do eat more than 30 kg in a moment and that is proved and recorded. And also in the necesary daily food intake, male tigers and lions are estimated both at about 7 kg per day, and in your study says 9 kg, which is even bigger for male lions, again.
We never said that Kruger lions are "genetically" heavier than any other population, that is YOUR assumption, again, incorrect. The checkings of the populations shows that all the Southern African lions had about the same weights, on average and on ranges, BUT the fact that Kruger lions had a big sample that includes specimens emtpy belly while the other don't and even then they had about the same body masses (about 190 kg for males), make us to conclude that overall they are heavier than the other populations, that is the correct conclution. Also they are bigger (length and height) because the records that we have were taken "between pegs" while those of the other populations were "over the curves". Details that probably you ignored. The fact that genetic is involved came only to light only when you compared African lion and Indian lions, that is something that is obviously different in all sences. So don't mix apples with carrots man.
The fact that male lions are leaner than male tigers do not support your point of view, for the contrary, it shows that with the same food intake and with a lower prey base, tigers are still bigger.
My words were pretty clear i think. If a animal is heavier than there are 2 options. Its heavier because of his conditioning or it is genetical heavier by a more robust bone structure. Thats the reason i dont take weights really seriously to some degree when comparing lions (i.e tiger but the diff in lions is even more noticable). Huge lions from hamilton not even reaching the average weight from past datas shows it.
The fact that male lions are leaner shows they are not consuming not as much as tigers(In a blink of an eye its pretty visible). In the future im interested to see more datas on this but the fact that the food intake was so seriously different between the tigers from sunquist and the lions from kruger shows it. You compared mostly lion and tigers when they got a meal, which doesnt have to do with the average food intake (some lions might be used to gorge themselves better than tigers). So the datas clearly doesnt support the claim that they have the same food intake.
Some might show africa as an easy land as you did. Once you are there it seems to be really different and that not only because of other animals except the lion. In the discussion my point was thats its useless to compare a solitary cat with a own terretory to a cat with a pride. Of course the place they are living in will effect it.
By believing that what you are saying you are assuming that tigers have a stronger structure, which is evidently questionable just at looking at the overlap, and importantly when comparing females, which have the largest sample and have the same identical dimension as males. At same length they are almost identical.
Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
So my conclusion was more than understandable it think. For some it might be coincidence but i dont think so, when most record lions where nomadic ones having a own terretory. Thats my opinion but you said im incorrect when you presented single meat datas (when both are gorging themselves).
There is a difference being heavier or genetically heavier
Again thats my opinion but you are saying im incorrect although i didnt see clearcut evidences regarding the food intake. I dont know where there is a discussion when females in large samples consumed 15 kg when pride males consumed 9.4 kg or females with 5.9 kg.
Quote:Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
Weight of the bone will depend on how long it has been stored. Older bones will weigh less than newly preserved bones.
That has basically no influence at all. Bones are dry as they are from animals that are already for a time. Therefore i said neglible, which means there is basically no difference.
That has A LOT of influence since older stored bones are drier than newly preserved ones.
02-20-2022, 10:43 PM( This post was last modified: 02-21-2022, 01:38 AM by SpinoRex )
(02-20-2022, 04:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-19-2022, 11:16 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: My words were pretty clear i think. If a animal is heavier than there are 2 options. Its heavier because of his conditioning or it is genetical heavier by a more robust bone structure. Thats the reason i dont take weights really seriously to some degree when comparing lions (i.e tiger but the diff in lions is even more noticable). Huge lions from hamilton not even reaching the average weight from past datas shows it.
The fact that male lions are leaner shows they are not consuming not as much as tigers(In a blink of an eye its pretty visible). In the future im interested to see more datas on this but the fact that the food intake was so seriously different between the tigers from sunquist and the lions from kruger shows it. You compared mostly lion and tigers when they got a meal, which doesnt have to do with the average food intake (some lions might be used to gorge themselves better than tigers). So the datas clearly doesnt support the claim that they have the same food intake.
Some might show africa as an easy land as you did. Once you are there it seems to be really different and that not only because of other animals except the lion. In the discussion my point was thats its useless to compare a solitary cat with a own terretory to a cat with a pride. Of course the place they are living in will effect it.
By believing that what you are saying you are assuming that tigers have a stronger structure, which is evidently questionable just at looking at the overlap, and importantly when comparing females, which have the largest sample and have the same identical dimension as males. At same length they are almost identical.
Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
So my conclusion was more than understandable it think. For some it might be coincidence but i dont think so, when most record lions where nomadic ones having a own terretory. Thats my opinion but you said im incorrect when you presented single meat datas (when both are gorging themselves).
There is a difference being heavier or genetically heavier
Again thats my opinion but you are saying im incorrect although i didnt see clearcut evidences regarding the food intake. I dont know where there is a discussion when females in large samples consumed 15 kg when pride males consumed 9.4 kg or females with 5.9 kg.
I have no idea why you bring the bone structure. There is no clear information about bone weights on lions and tigers. The FEW information available in many cases do not separete males from females, even worst, there is no information about the subspecies, origin (captive or wild) and many other details. So if you are trying to use bones as a excuse to invalidate the weights it will be futile. Remember that I offer you to use skulls (which we can know the origiin and subspecies) but you ignore it. So I see a double standard here. Unless that you can know the origin, sex, physical details and subspecies of the bones, any analisys will be useless.
The lions of Hamilton are big, but not all the lions were weighed, only 5 of the males. So we can't know how big where all the other males. Still, the date is usefull for comparison.
Lion DO consume the same amount as tigers. Food intake is the same, specially in male lions. I have no idea why you are ignoring the REAL data from ACTUAL food consumption from the sources that I provided. You are saying that is not valid because it do not show the average intake, but you should know that the average intake of the largest populations, in females for example, is the same, 14 kg for Nepal and 14 from Etosha. Certainly males eat more, and that is a known fact, they gorge themselves in every oportunity. So, you think that a male lion is going to eat 9 kg and will stop to allow his females to eat? Male lions will eat as much as they can and they don't care for other pride members, that is the true, and that is what you can see in the reports of Schaller, Packer, Smuts, Bertram, etc. I can put the information of each one of them if you want.
You can't compare the food intake of Nepalese tigers with those of Kruger based in that single document. Nepal tigers intake is real data, those from Kruger are CALCULATIONS. Seriously, you should drop that paper and actually read the people that worked with lions in the wild and read how lions eat, how often they hunt, and the size of the prey that they take.
Again, anyone here, or in comparative papers, can tell you that Africa is a heaven compare with India, prey base is huge in comparison. Tigers will be lucky of they got a group of chital deers of 60 kg, while lions had entire groups of wildebest, zebras, antelopes, buffaloes (all of them over 200 kg) and all in relatively good densities. If you want to deny this FACT, then there is no point in continue the conversation.
Tigers not only have an stroger structure, but they need to, they hunt alone and in some cases they hunt prey that lions do in groups. That is why tigers need bigger body masses and muscular mass too. They don't have the support of a pride at all. It is curious, you are saying that females have the same dimentions as males? Are you talking serious? Do you know that sexual dimosphism in lions and tigers is among the highest in cats?
And what is the point in put genetic again? I alredy explained to you. If you are going to compare lions from different subspecies there IS a difference in genetic and development of thousand of years. And if you are going to compare two different species that are separated from 2, maybe 3 millions years, then is OBVIOUS that genetic should be included in the equation. Dude, are you reading with I am writing?
There is no clearcut evidence in nothing that you have presented. Even other posters here already showed to you the flaws in the ONLY study that you presented in this discussion. You can't compare a calculated average intake with a real food intake. Check also the ocurrence of kills and how often they hunt. There is no comparison between a tigers that kill once every 8 days with a food intake of 14 kg and a lioness that hunt every 3 days and an intake of 7 kg, and leave out the lioness like those from Etosha that had an average intake of 14 kg too. Who do you think that eat more?
Again, read all the other documents and drop that single paper that is showing you that information. We also have here documents that calculate that the food intake of male Amur tigers is about 4 kg, but no one use it as the same author explain that that type of calculations are not reliable, maybe the author of your single paper should have done that too.
You took it too offensive regardless of the infos in your replies. I dont hate you and saw many great tables from your side but you get too much aggressive/offensive in these type of disagreements. Many things i mentioned are clear-cut basic things and not excuses(dont understand what excuses). I will not mention tigers next to lions as a comparison because the different lion population, subspecies do it even better when we want to show how unreliable weights are to determine the size of a species. (Or size potential)
Quote:I have no idea why you bring the bone structure. There is no clear information about bone weights on lions and tigers. The FEW information available in many cases do not separete males from females, even worst, there is no information about the subspecies, origin (captive or wild) and many other details. So if you are trying to use bones as a excuse to invalidate the weights it will be futile. Remember that I offer you to use skulls (which we can know the origiin and subspecies) but you ignore it. So I see a double standard here. Unless that you can know the origin, sex, physical details and subspecies of the bones, any analisys will be useless.
The question from your side was the bone structure right? A weight difference (except for individualism) between lions with similar skeleton size can be only explained by the bone structure (Robustness). Im involved in bodybuilding and thus i know exactly how weight is influenced. You can calculate the lean mass of a human by taking into account the bone structure and thus you will get the lean bodymass potential. Compare a human of a same height with a ankle of 22 cm and 19 cm wrist to a human with a 20cm ankle and 17 cm wrist. In terms of individualism thats not a wonder but if you get that for a whole population thats indeed a really significant difference in bone structure, which would be noticable directly in a depth study for bones (such as for lions and tigers). And you can guess even then the weight difference is 5% (85.5 kg , 90 kg for both humans). Though again you can doubt the data. But the datas in terms of bone robusticity are there and they arent small in samples. The datas i mentioned for bone weights came from bengal tigers and lions with both having identical bone lengths. The factors you mentioned are more present for lions so thats not a good argument to ignore the datas. Especially when most bones are from bengal tigers.
I didnt ignore the skulls but what you want to proof with the skulls exactly? The lion populations have identical skeleton sizes. Kruger lions have different skulls but arent larger overall (skeleton).
Quote:Lion DO consume the same amount as tigers. Food intake is the same, specially in male lions. I have no idea why you are ignoring the REAL data from ACTUAL food consumption from the sources that I provided. You are saying that is not valid because it do not show the average intake, but you should know that the average intake of the largest populations, in females for example, is the same, 14 kg for Nepal and 14 from Etosha. Certainly males eat more, and that is a known fact, they gorge themselves in every oportunity. So, you think that a male lion is going to eat 9 kg and will stop to allow his females to eat? Male lions will eat as much as they can and they don't care for other pride members, that is the true, and that is what you can see in the reports of Schaller, Packer, Smuts, Bertram, etc. I can put the information of each one of them if you want.
You can't compare the food intake of Nepalese tigers with those of Kruger based in that single document. Nepal tigers intake is real data, those from Kruger are CALCULATIONS. Seriously, you should drop that paper and actually read the people that worked with lions in the wild and read how lions eat, how often they hunt, and the size of the prey that they take.
Again, anyone here, or in comparative papers, can tell you that Africa is a heaven compare with India, prey base is huge in comparison. Tigers will be lucky of they got a group of chital deers of 60 kg, while lions had entire groups of wildebest, zebras, antelopes, buffaloes (all of them over 200 kg) and all in relatively good densities. If you want to deny this FACT, then there is no point in continue the conversation.
I would like to see the evidences that they have the same food intake. Calculations aside are better than mere estimations and it wont change ANYTHING that the NT males consumed more *when* they killed a prey. A tiger when terretorial lives thus in much better conditions than a single lion (no matter terretory or not). Of course from your side it was even more worse to come up with single meal datas, which have no valuable information. About the etosha females you are certainly incorrect although i would say the food intake isnt significantly different as the ones in etosha weighed 141 kg and those nepal tigresses 139 kg.
You are considering the TOP group of lionesses and not the average. This data comes from the book written by Mel, Fiona sunquist on page 292. And in a more detailed study the food intake overall was 10 kg and not 14 kg. Also again look at the different food intakes. This document is interesting as well (about etosha female lions)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unlike in India.... Africa is a place with much more action, and has more factors. As well as more dangerous enemies and rivalities and generally the stress accuring there(Deseases as well). A small research in depth should clarify that easily, especially the paper from Dewalt Keet regarding the southern Kruger lions as well. You can see how the females differed in weight as well as the males.... and the lionesses were as heavy as the asiatic lionesses, which again shows its nearly all about conditioning. I have a question to you. Do you think those lions from Serengeti are lighter than the ones from Kruger at similar conditions? If Africa is a heaven according to you then tigers even in the present of lions should be heavier in africa than they are in india. That doesnt make any sense and that also because you came with 1 factor.
The lions were heavier and such overlaps can not happen if a species has truly the better bone structure. I never denied the difference in blood. I am mentioning the differences in there bone structure. That means if you take any bone of a african lion and compare it to a asiatic lion i doubt there will be a difference in robusticity let alone a significant one i mentioned before. I have every right to claim this because of numerous studies and the weights i was able to analyze.
Quote:Tigers not only have an stroger structure, but they need to, they hunt alone and in some cases they hunt prey that lions do in groups. That is why tigers need bigger body masses and muscular mass too. They don't have the support of a pride at all. It is curious, you are saying that females have the same dimentions as males? Are you talking serious? Do you know that sexual dimosphism in lions and tigers is among the highest in cats?
And what is the point in put genetic again? I alredy explained to you. If you are going to compare lions from different subspecies there IS a difference in genetic and development of thousand of years. And if you are going to compare two different species that are separated from 2, maybe 3 millions years, then is OBVIOUS that genetic should be included in the equation. Dude, are you reading with I am writing?
There is no clearcut evidence in nothing that you have presented. Even other posters here already showed to you the flaws in the ONLY study that you presented in this discussion. You can't compare a calculated average intake with a real food intake. Check also the ocurrence of kills and how often they hunt. There is no comparison between a tigers that kill once every 8 days with a food intake of 14 kg and a lioness that hunt every 3 days and an intake of 7 kg, and leave out the lioness like those from Etosha that had an average intake of 14 kg too. Who do you think that eat more?
Again on what this idea is based? Its based on nothing and actually its even proven to be wrong. Lions hunt large animals and the fact that they do it in a group doesnt mean they have to evolve weaker when a male lion has to hunt ALONE when being Nonterretorial or living as a nomadic lion with a terretory or searching for it (with some other males most of the time). Yes they hunt sometimes animals lion hunt in groups. So nomadic male lions do it as well (kalamas for example, he killed bulls alone). You should read what i wrote. I meant that the dimensional size in females and males is the same when we talk about the differences. I didnt say they have the same dimensional size.
Why do lions hunt more often than tigers? Because they are a pride and therefore a buffalo may look in less than 12 hours like a skeleton.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I cant find the study anymore. But in South Africa there were on average also 40-50 per lion (LFU). Around 250 kills per year with c.7 lions.... seems low but as some arent adults the LFU was used. Thats the result of a pride that was studied.
Quote:Again, read all the other documents and drop that single paper that is showing you that information. We also have here documents that calculate that the food intake of male Amur tigers is about 4 kg, but no one use it as the same author explain that that type of calculations are not reliable, maybe the author of your single paper should have done that too.
I would like to see the datas and that wouldnt wonder me as amur tigers live in some places under horrible conditions. I think they get their basic diet (talking about the healthy ones) but not more than that actually (depends in some areas but generally speaking)
02-20-2022, 11:04 PM( This post was last modified: 02-21-2022, 01:32 AM by SpinoRex )
(02-20-2022, 09:00 PM)Khan85 Wrote:
(02-20-2022, 05:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(02-20-2022, 04:15 AM)Khan85 Wrote:
(02-19-2022, 11:16 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(02-19-2022, 01:07 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-18-2022, 12:50 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.
Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way.
If you have other points you can write it.
Like Pckts says, we can't compare India with Africa overall, not even with single countries like Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa. The African regions where lions live, especially those from the East and Souther regions, had one of the highest prey densities of the planet! They have a huge amount of prey, in all sized and weights. Preys over 100 kg are incredibly abundant and live in huge groups, plus the fact that they live in open habitat with several options to check for prey.
Now, India do not have more than 4, maybe 5, species that weight more than 100 kg (Barasingha, Nilgay, Sambar, Gaur and wild pigs with large males only). Prey density is low in comparison with any African country, specially the large animals, and most of the prey available are relatively small, plus the fact that the habitat is close and the prey is secretive. Tiger hunt every 8 days because of that, even in places like in Chitwan and Kanha, were prey has been studied too and prey crude mass since high.
So no, there is no form that tigers had an easier life than lions, specially by the fact that male tigers need to hunt by themselves while the TM lions just need to steal the kill from the lioness and hunt just when is actually necesary. NT lions can't have this great life of the TM lions, they need to hunt themselves and more regularly, but that do not means that they eat more than TM lions, that do not make sense at all. Again, you are basing your personal conclution in ONE document, while you should read ALL the other studies about lions and only then you will see the error in your hypotesis.
Who says that Kruger lions eat less than any other lion, or tiger? 17 kg is also average for a male lion in any part, they can and do eat more than 30 kg in a moment and that is proved and recorded. And also in the necesary daily food intake, male tigers and lions are estimated both at about 7 kg per day, and in your study says 9 kg, which is even bigger for male lions, again.
We never said that Kruger lions are "genetically" heavier than any other population, that is YOUR assumption, again, incorrect. The checkings of the populations shows that all the Southern African lions had about the same weights, on average and on ranges, BUT the fact that Kruger lions had a big sample that includes specimens emtpy belly while the other don't and even then they had about the same body masses (about 190 kg for males), make us to conclude that overall they are heavier than the other populations, that is the correct conclution. Also they are bigger (length and height) because the records that we have were taken "between pegs" while those of the other populations were "over the curves". Details that probably you ignored. The fact that genetic is involved came only to light only when you compared African lion and Indian lions, that is something that is obviously different in all sences. So don't mix apples with carrots man.
The fact that male lions are leaner than male tigers do not support your point of view, for the contrary, it shows that with the same food intake and with a lower prey base, tigers are still bigger.
My words were pretty clear i think. If a animal is heavier than there are 2 options. Its heavier because of his conditioning or it is genetical heavier by a more robust bone structure. Thats the reason i dont take weights really seriously to some degree when comparing lions (i.e tiger but the diff in lions is even more noticable). Huge lions from hamilton not even reaching the average weight from past datas shows it.
The fact that male lions are leaner shows they are not consuming not as much as tigers(In a blink of an eye its pretty visible). In the future im interested to see more datas on this but the fact that the food intake was so seriously different between the tigers from sunquist and the lions from kruger shows it. You compared mostly lion and tigers when they got a meal, which doesnt have to do with the average food intake (some lions might be used to gorge themselves better than tigers). So the datas clearly doesnt support the claim that they have the same food intake.
Some might show africa as an easy land as you did. Once you are there it seems to be really different and that not only because of other animals except the lion. In the discussion my point was thats its useless to compare a solitary cat with a own terretory to a cat with a pride. Of course the place they are living in will effect it.
By believing that what you are saying you are assuming that tigers have a stronger structure, which is evidently questionable just at looking at the overlap, and importantly when comparing females, which have the largest sample and have the same identical dimension as males. At same length they are almost identical.
Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
So my conclusion was more than understandable it think. For some it might be coincidence but i dont think so, when most record lions where nomadic ones having a own terretory. Thats my opinion but you said im incorrect when you presented single meat datas (when both are gorging themselves).
There is a difference being heavier or genetically heavier
Again thats my opinion but you are saying im incorrect although i didnt see clearcut evidences regarding the food intake. I dont know where there is a discussion when females in large samples consumed 15 kg when pride males consumed 9.4 kg or females with 5.9 kg.
Quote:Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))
Weight of the bone will depend on how long it has been stored. Older bones will weigh less than newly preserved bones.
That has basically no influence at all. Bones are dry as they are from animals that are already for a time. Therefore i said neglible, which means there is basically no difference.
That has A LOT of influence since older stored bones are drier than newly preserved ones.
I dont think thats the right argument tbh. But anyways as i said its about the same
02-21-2022, 08:18 PM( This post was last modified: 02-21-2022, 08:28 PM by GuateGojira )
(02-20-2022, 10:43 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: You took it too offensive regardless of the infos in your replies. I dont hate you and saw many great tables from your side but you get too much aggressive/offensive in these type of disagreements. Many things i mentioned are clear-cut basic things and not excuses(dont understand what excuses). I will not mention tigers next to lions as a comparison because the different lion population, subspecies do it even better when we want to show how unreliable weights are to determine the size of a species. (Or size potential)
Quote:I have no idea why you bring the bone structure. There is no clear information about bone weights on lions and tigers. The FEW information available in many cases do not separete males from females, even worst, there is no information about the subspecies, origin (captive or wild) and many other details. So if you are trying to use bones as a excuse to invalidate the weights it will be futile. Remember that I offer you to use skulls (which we can know the origiin and subspecies) but you ignore it. So I see a double standard here. Unless that you can know the origin, sex, physical details and subspecies of the bones, any analisys will be useless.
The question from your side was the bone structure right? A weight difference (except for individualism) between lions with similar skeleton size can be only explained by the bone structure (Robustness). Im involved in bodybuilding and thus i know exactly how weight is influenced. You can calculate the lean mass of a human by taking into account the bone structure and thus you will get the lean bodymass potential. Compare a human of a same height with a ankle of 22 cm and 19 cm wrist to a human with a 20cm ankle and 17 cm wrist. In terms of individualism thats not a wonder but if you get that for a whole population thats indeed a really significant difference in bone structure, which would be noticable directly in a depth study for bones (such as for lions and tigers). And you can guess even then the weight difference is 5% (85.5 kg , 90 kg for both humans). Though again you can doubt the data. But the datas in terms of bone robusticity are there and they arent small in samples. The datas i mentioned for bone weights came from bengal tigers and lions with both having identical bone lengths. The factors you mentioned are more present for lions so thats not a good argument to ignore the datas. Especially when most bones are from bengal tigers.
I didnt ignore the skulls but what you want to proof with the skulls exactly? The lion populations have identical skeleton sizes. Kruger lions have different skulls but arent larger overall (skeleton).
Quote:Lion DO consume the same amount as tigers. Food intake is the same, specially in male lions. I have no idea why you are ignoring the REAL data from ACTUAL food consumption from the sources that I provided. You are saying that is not valid because it do not show the average intake, but you should know that the average intake of the largest populations, in females for example, is the same, 14 kg for Nepal and 14 from Etosha. Certainly males eat more, and that is a known fact, they gorge themselves in every oportunity. So, you think that a male lion is going to eat 9 kg and will stop to allow his females to eat? Male lions will eat as much as they can and they don't care for other pride members, that is the true, and that is what you can see in the reports of Schaller, Packer, Smuts, Bertram, etc. I can put the information of each one of them if you want.
You can't compare the food intake of Nepalese tigers with those of Kruger based in that single document. Nepal tigers intake is real data, those from Kruger are CALCULATIONS. Seriously, you should drop that paper and actually read the people that worked with lions in the wild and read how lions eat, how often they hunt, and the size of the prey that they take.
Again, anyone here, or in comparative papers, can tell you that Africa is a heaven compare with India, prey base is huge in comparison. Tigers will be lucky of they got a group of chital deers of 60 kg, while lions had entire groups of wildebest, zebras, antelopes, buffaloes (all of them over 200 kg) and all in relatively good densities. If you want to deny this FACT, then there is no point in continue the conversation.
I would like to see the evidences that they have the same food intake. Calculations aside are better than mere estimations and it wont change ANYTHING that the NT males consumed more *when* they killed a prey. A tiger when terretorial lives thus in much better conditions than a single lion (no matter terretory or not). Of course from your side it was even more worse to come up with single meal datas, which have no valuable information. About the etosha females you are certainly incorrect although i would say the food intake isnt significantly different as the ones in etosha weighed 141 kg and those nepal tigresses 139 kg.
You are considering the TOP group of lionesses and not the average. This data comes from the book written by Mel, Fiona sunquist on page 292. And in a more detailed study the food intake overall was 10 kg and not 14 kg. Also again look at the different food intakes. This document is interesting as well (about etosha female lions)
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unlike in India.... Africa is a place with much more action, and has more factors. As well as more dangerous enemies and rivalities and generally the stress accuring there(Deseases as well). A small research in depth should clarify that easily, especially the paper from Dewalt Keet regarding the southern Kruger lions as well. You can see how the females differed in weight as well as the males.... and the lionesses were as heavy as the asiatic lionesses, which again shows its nearly all about conditioning. I have a question to you. Do you think those lions from Serengeti are lighter than the ones from Kruger at similar conditions? If Africa is a heaven according to you then tigers even in the present of lions should be heavier in africa than they are in india. That doesnt make any sense and that also because you came with 1 factor.
The lions were heavier and such overlaps can not happen if a species has truly the better bone structure. I never denied the difference in blood. I am mentioning the differences in there bone structure. That means if you take any bone of a african lion and compare it to a asiatic lion i doubt there will be a difference in robusticity let alone a significant one i mentioned before. I have every right to claim this because of numerous studies and the weights i was able to analyze.
Quote:Tigers not only have an stroger structure, but they need to, they hunt alone and in some cases they hunt prey that lions do in groups. That is why tigers need bigger body masses and muscular mass too. They don't have the support of a pride at all. It is curious, you are saying that females have the same dimentions as males? Are you talking serious? Do you know that sexual dimosphism in lions and tigers is among the highest in cats?
And what is the point in put genetic again? I alredy explained to you. If you are going to compare lions from different subspecies there IS a difference in genetic and development of thousand of years. And if you are going to compare two different species that are separated from 2, maybe 3 millions years, then is OBVIOUS that genetic should be included in the equation. Dude, are you reading with I am writing?
There is no clearcut evidence in nothing that you have presented. Even other posters here already showed to you the flaws in the ONLY study that you presented in this discussion. You can't compare a calculated average intake with a real food intake. Check also the ocurrence of kills and how often they hunt. There is no comparison between a tigers that kill once every 8 days with a food intake of 14 kg and a lioness that hunt every 3 days and an intake of 7 kg, and leave out the lioness like those from Etosha that had an average intake of 14 kg too. Who do you think that eat more?
Again on what this idea is based? Its based on nothing and actually its even proven to be wrong. Lions hunt large animals and the fact that they do it in a group doesnt mean they have to evolve weaker when a male lion has to hunt ALONE when being Nonterretorial or living as a nomadic lion with a terretory or searching for it (with some other males most of the time). Yes they hunt sometimes animals lion hunt in groups. So nomadic male lions do it as well (kalamas for example, he killed bulls alone). You should read what i wrote. I meant that the dimensional size in females and males is the same when we talk about the differences. I didnt say they have the same dimensional size.
Why do lions hunt more often than tigers? Because they are a pride and therefore a buffalo may look in less than 12 hours like a skeleton.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I cant find the study anymore. But in South Africa there were on average also 40-50 per lion (LFU). Around 250 kills per year with c.7 lions.... seems low but as some arent adults the LFU was used. Thats the result of a pride that was studied.
Quote:Again, read all the other documents and drop that single paper that is showing you that information. We also have here documents that calculate that the food intake of male Amur tigers is about 4 kg, but no one use it as the same author explain that that type of calculations are not reliable, maybe the author of your single paper should have done that too.
I would like to see the datas and that wouldnt wonder me as amur tigers live in some places under horrible conditions. I think they get their basic diet (talking about the healthy ones) but not more than that actually (depends in some areas but generally speaking)
First, I am not angry or anything like that, that is just the form I wrote. So, no offense.
Second, as you continue with the bone issue, I will like to see those bones, especifically where it says that those are "Bengal", I mean, clearly saying that came from wild male and females specimens from India/Nepal/Buthan region. Rememer that if only says Bengal and came from captivity, those maybe not pure bread and even from Indochina and Malaysia (remember that before 1970 all tigers from Indochina and Malaysia were clasified as "Bengal" too). So, I want to see those bones first, I will like to see the study, because the ones that are normally used are from unidentified specimens, with no location, and samples are not even as big as you want to make it show.
I see your point in the comparison with humans, but your point is invalid if you can't provide a sample on wild lions and tigers and that is simple unavailable at this point. However, tigers (Bengal ones) had bigger girths (chest, wrist, arms, etc) than lions, so based in your assumption, that means that tigers are bigger also in body robusticity. And we do have girths data to prove this point. And about the skulls, thay are not quite the same, there are variations, even between populations. So if you want to use bones, you must include skulls in your analysis.
Again, like I said, lion intake is the same, but the page of Dr Sunquist book only shows the extreams in females populations. Check that what we can see is that there are variations int he food intake on lionesses, with depends of the season. Also, we should see the original source and see how often they hunt, that is CRITICAL as I told you before, is not the same a tigerss that kill one prey every 8 days and eat about 14 kg in three days, than a lioness that kill every 3-4 days with the same intake, even with an intake as low as 6 kg, still the lioness is eating about the same in a daily baisis if we take the total amount intaked and divided it in the 7 days of the week. That is my point, all those numbers are relative to how often they kill, how many pride animals are present and the huge factor, if the male lion is there. After all, even when the females eat 6 - 14 kg depending of the season and place, you can be 100% sure that the male lion will eat the entire kill alone (if small) or eat until gorge (if large) and then will live space to females. None of the studies quoted by Sunquist in his book (that you show here) focus in males.
Please remember that the weight of 131 kg of tigress from Nepal is already adjusted while the figure of 141 kg for lionesses is not. Unadjusted, the weight of tigresses is of 145 kg.
About your question: Do you think those lions from Serengeti are lighter than the ones from Kruger at similar conditions? If Africa is a heaven according to you then tigers even in the present of lions should be heavier in africa than they are in india. That doesnt make any sense and that also because you came with 1 factor.
Certainly lions in the Serengeti are the SAME subspecies as lions in Kruger, so they genetic is the same and will weight the same in similiar conditions. Check the lions from Crater are big and compared with the biggest lions from Southern Africa (Etosha for example). Tigers are not adapted to live in Africa, they do not have the morphological characteristics for that. You are talking about two species separeted by 2-3 million years ago so your attempt to compare tigers in Africa do not make sense at all. Other people already tried to do it, but is not even fair, is like to try to put lions in Ussuri, do you think that they will survive in that harsh climate, with such a low prey base and specially with the grupal stile of lions? Honestly your assumption is ilogical and do not prove anything. Any animal that is fully adapted to its enviroment like great cats will fail if is introduced in a harsh form. African lions failed in India even when the Indian lions trive in similar habitat. Coincidence? Obviously not.
About this: That means if you take any bone of a african lion and compare it to a asiatic lion i doubt there will be a difference in robusticity let alone a significant one i mentioned before. I have every right to claim this because of numerous studies and the weights i was able to analyze.
Did you have bones from Indian lions to compare with those from Africa? If not, lest use skulls and you will see the difference, not only in size but also in anatomy and morphology. Sorry, but those "numerous" studies are not about lions or cats over all, don't they?
And finally, you acepted the fact that lions hunt more often, and also you acept that is because they live in prides, this is exactly what I told you before. So now you only need to acept the fact that they eat the same or even more than a lone tiger because they eat more often, and thanks that they have a bigger prey base, they can do it much better than a tiger. Actually this is what Dr Sunquist theorized in 1981, that tigers do not live in groups because is uneconomical (few prey and small size) in comparison with lions (more prey and bigger size). Even when in Africa there is more competition (in the deceases is the same in any part of the world, so no big factor), this is covered by the pride size to protect they prey.
About this too: I cant find the study anymore. But in South Africa there were on average also 40-50 per lion (LFU). Around 250 kills per year with c.7 lions.... seems low but as some arent adults the LFU was used. Thats the result of a pride that was studied.
What pride, how many "real" lions per kill, which season, which area, what subspecies/population?? Details.
Amur tigers probably eat the same as any large tiger, it do not make sence that they will eat less. The factor here is the prey density, how often they need to kill and how much they eat in that timeframe. Prey in the cold last a little longer than in hot climates. Tigers in Nepal and Nagarahole rarely stay more than 3 days in a kill, independently of the size. I will search the paper for you.
(02-20-2022, 11:04 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: I dont think thats the right argument tbh. But anyways as i said its about the same
It is not the same. Old bones lost condition with time, this is showed in all the cases of skulls that when dried and now they weight less with time. Some bones may even shrink or turn to dust if they were not correctly prepared (boiled) and sadly, that is a common factor.
So Khan85 is right, bones may weigh or measure less than they original mass with time, if not correctly prepared. This detail is important in comparison, together with the status of the animal, the age, sex, subspecies/population, origin (wild or captive), health status, and other things that I may forget now.
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
