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.
01-02-2018, 09:40 PM( This post was last modified: 01-03-2018, 12:02 AM by peter )
(01-02-2018, 12:47 PM)Garfield Wrote:
(01-01-2018, 10:50 PM)peter Wrote:
(12-31-2017, 12:32 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(12-30-2017, 05:54 PM)peter Wrote:
(12-30-2017, 06:55 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(12-30-2017, 06:35 AM)peter Wrote: Yes.
Do you also think that lion canine belongs to a larger animal than tiger?
That tiger canine belongs to a historical Amoyen tiger in North China, and the crown part below the gumline is similar for both animals, and the lion should be turned out to be a larger animal.
And the jag canine in the middle likely belongs to a large 100 kg male.
Very likely. There is a relation between upper canine size, skull size and body size in big cats, but it's slightly different in every species. Tigers have relatively (upper canine length divided by condylobasal length or greatest total skull length) longer canines than lions. The upper canine length of an average male Sumatran tiger more or less compares to the upper canine length of an average male African lion (length and width). This should tell you something about 'relative' regarding upper canine length, as an average male Sumatran tiger has a greatest total skull length of just over 310,00 mm., whereas the greatest total skull length in an average male African lion is over 350,00 mm.
I went over what I have and found 9 skulls of male lions with an upper canine length of 60,00 mm. and over. These 9 averaged 63,10 mm. in upper canine length (range 60,00 - 67,00). In greatest total skull length, they averaged 371,17 mm. (range 354,57 - 384,55). Of these 9 skulls, 6 were from wild animals.
As to the width of the upper canines at the insertion in the upper jaw (measured from front to back). I found 13 skulls of male lions of which the upper canines had a width of 27,50 mm. or more at the insertion. These 13 males averaged 28,71 mm. (range 27,50 - 31,00). In greatest total skull length, they averaged 369,64 mm. (range 345,70 - 408,00). Of these 13 animals, 7 had been born and bred in captivity.
One could conclude that wild male lions have slightly longer upper canines than their captive relatives. In width, measured at the insertion, there seems to be no difference. Captive male lions, if anything, seem to have wider upper canines. As they also have significantly wider skulls (referring to the arches), one could conclude that captivity seems to affect both the width of the skull and the width of the canines. The thickest upper canines (31,00 mm.), to be sure, belonged to a skull of a wild male lion from Tanzania. This although his skull (365,56 mm.) was not exceptional in length.
In tigers, it's the other way round, meaning that the upper canines of wild tigers are both longer and (quite a bit) wider than those of their captive relatives (this at the level of averages). The difference seems to be significant. The reason is that tigers, as solitary big game hunters, need specific tools. More so than lions, who live in groups. Uppercaninewise, one could conclude that it's use it or lose it in tigers. Not quite true for lions, so it seems.
Anyhow. The question was if a male lion with a long and strong upper canine could be a larger animal than a tiger with a upper canine of similar length and width. Based on what I saw, I would get to a clear yes. Male lions with long and thick upper canines average about 370 mm. in greatest total skull length. I didn't finish the tables on tigers, but my guess for now is that it's quite different. All this without quite a bit of overlap as a result of individual variation, of course.
As to a relation between greatest total skull length and body size in big cats. Based on what I have, I'd say that it's weak, but real. My guess for now is more so in lions than in tigers.
I also notice that lion-leopard-jaguar group all has proportionally narrower canine root, which is opposite to the tiger canine.
From a morphological perspective, we can conclude that the lion-leopard-jaguar belong to the same evolutionary branch within the genus Panthera, tiger has a unique branch of its own, whereas the snow leopard is intermediate between the tiger and lion-leopard-jaguar group.
Maybe the narrower nasal structure has resulted with the broader canine root, because it has left more room for the canine root?
A - THE ESSENCE OF CATS
1 - Offence
All cats are professional hunters living on the edge. As true specialists, they are able to bring down animals larger and heavier than themselves. In order to do that, they (apart from power, explosive speed, specific equipment and athleticism) need instinct, training and a kind of energy difficult to describe. Even with all that, it takes years of training to tackle large animals in a safe way.
All 5 members of Panthera (P. leo, P. tigris, P. onca, P. pardus and p. uncia) are large cats (> 50 pounds). The puma compares to a degree. Of these 6 species, 3 (F. concolor, P. pardus and P. onca) are known to climb trees when cornered. Lions are social big cats, enabling them to defend their kill from scavengers. I'm not sure about the snow leopard (P. uncia), but it's likely that they face scavengers (wolves and bears) on a regular basis as well. As they live in elevated regions, they can use rocky outcrops to get safe. As they're not larger than wolves and smaller than bears, it's likely they will use this strategy when faced with a large scavenger.
2 - Tiger
Tigers can climb trees, but I never heard of an adult tiger (male or female) climbing a tree when faced by a scavenger. In Indonesia, they face sun bears and wild boars. In mainland Asia, they face canids (wolves and dholes) and omnivores (wild boars and bears).
In the Russian Far East, wolves are hunted by Amur tigers at times. Dholes also are no match for them, but these canids have displaced tigers in the past and are able to tree leopards in India. Only very few wild boars will try to displace a tiger, but Himalayan black bears and black grizzlies of all sizes scavenge tiger kills whenever possible. If a large male Himalayan black bear can displace a male Indian tiger (see 'The Temple Tiger', Jim Corbett), a male brown bear (Ursus arctos lasiotus) should be able to displace a male Amur tiger. Research has shown that bears displace Amur tigresses or share kills made by tigresses with them, but male Amur tigers are not often displaced by bears.
C - SKULL STRUCTURE
A professional hunter like a cat, skullstructurewise, needs to find a balance between offence (hunting) and defence (protecting a kill). Based on the skulls I saw, I'd say that hunting is more important than defence. In brown bears, it seems to be the other way round. Their skulls, especially in the posterior part, are heavily reinforced, allowing them to take a lot of damage.
I've seen many big cat skulls. Every species has a slightly different structure. Lion skulls, and those of old males in particular, remind me of bear skulls in that they too seem to be reinforced in a similar way. The result often is a large and 'backheavy' skull. So much so, that they seem 'overskulled' at times.
Tiger skulls are shorter as a rule, but they have (relatively) longer and heavier canines and a wider, reinforced, rostrum. They also seem to have a different purpose in that they appear to serve as platforms for the large upper canines. In this respect, they remind me of battlecruisers. Not battleships, as these are too heavy, too slow and, for that reason, ineffective in battle.
Tiger skulls often do not seem to be as robust as lion skulls. This impression, however, is largely deceptive. Tiger skulls are more vaulted, which results in more acute angles, especially in the anterior part of the skull. Acute angles and dense bones allow tigers to generate a lot of pressure when biting. As the canines are longer and heavier compared to those of other big cat species, the result is more pressure at the tip of the canines. The relatively wide arches enable tigers to keep the pressure up in the region of the carnassials as well. All in all, the skull structure enables tigers to deliver a penetrating bite.
Lion skulls have a somewhat different purpose. The canines serve as large 'icepicks' enabling them to penetrate the skin of a large animal and hold on. The, enlarged and elevated, maxillary bone (snout) and the wide and reinforced os frontalis (the bone on top of the skull) enable lions to deal with immense pressure generated by struggling large prey animals.
Lion skulls seem to be the reinforced top end of a long, more or less horizontal, cable constructed with the purpose of keeping a large ship anchored, whereas tiger skulls seem to serve as big gun platforms constructed to generate maximum force from top to bottom. Hold and maul in order to tire (lion) versus pin and penetrate in order to kill as quickly as possible (tiger), one could say.
Lions are social animals. All adults participate during a hunt, but females usually take care of the hard work. For them, a functional skull matters. The result is a skull similar to a skull of a professional big game hunter, albeit somewhat longer in the anterior part (longer snout). Male lions also hunt, but not as often as females. When they participate, they often pin the victim, enabling the females to go for the kill. They can kill a large animal on their own, but their skull is reinforced to withstand pressure of struggling large prey animals and take damage in intraspecific conflicts.
This could be the reason why male lions only seldom target the skull of their opponent during a fight. Male tigers, on the other hand, deliberately target the skull of their opponent in a fight.
D - ANALOGY
Tigers are solitary big game hunters. In order to overcome a large animal, they need to be efficient. The less time they need, the better. Tigers need power, but not too much weight. Less weight results in more speed, more agility and better angles. Strength is not a result of size or weight, but of speed, acute angles and an effective construction (simplicity). Only the teeth department needs to be reinforced and that's what we see.
For a nice analogy, read a bit about tanks. I propose to start with WWII. Watch the Russian T-34 in particular. Best tank of that war, many German generals thought. The counters they later introduced (Tiger and Panther) were as good or better, but heavier, more complicated and, therefore, less reliable. They often broke down. As spare parts were difficult to get, not a few had to be left. Production also was complicated, which had an effect as well. The Germans later turned to self-propelled antitank vehicles. They did ok, especially those with the effective 88 mm. gun. The reason, again, was simplicity. That and large numbers.
E - NASALS
Tigers don't have narrow nasals to accomodate large canines. They don't need wide nasals. They need large canines; a reinforced rostrum; a vaulted maxillary bone to create the angles needed; wide arches; a straight or slightly concave mandible, and a strong sagittal crest slightly elevated at the end. All parts and angles are needed to enable a big bite. Tiger skulls are functional. Same for all wild animals, by the way. The exceptions (like the polar bear), often are a result of a transition.
F - TO CONCLUDE
What you read, to an extent, was exaggerated in order to highlight the main differences between lion and tiger skulls. The differences described, however, are real and they are structural. When you have some experience, you can see it at a glance. This regarding skulls of wild animals.
Skulls of captive big cats are different in that they are flatter, wider and not as dense. Furthermore, many skulls have superfluous growths. Although lion skulls seem more affected by captivity, tiger skulls are also affected in that not a few lost a number of typical features over time. The differences between Panthera leo and Panthera leo zoo often are remarkable. Same for Panthera tigris and Panthera tigris zoo.
Bones are a result of function, not a result of a need for more room or less. Tigers generally have longer and narrower nasals for a reason and the reason isn't canines (only). They live in a different environment and hunt in a different way than lions. Lions are social big cats. Like in humans, this will result in less adaptions over time. In solitary big cats, often specialists, the relation between function and environment generally is more outspoken.
Well I have to thank the dude Betty for atleast confirming some of what I was saying with the big teeth. But as far as this skulls stuff, I mean I dont get it, are you sayin the lions head is too bulky or the skull too thick headed so its attack is slower, yet the tigers skull is lighter but faster when it bites down with more power in the clamping down motion. Lion better for holdin onto the big buffalo an taking the pressure of the large animals. I mean that makes some sense actually. I saw that once on a nature vid, forget which one it was, but these two males decided to attack the rear of this big healthy male full grown buffalo, it resulted in them struggling with the bull till exhaustion, took em two hours.
HUNTERS AND MINIMALISM
Hunting is much underestimated. Professional hunters like cats all walk the edge all the time everywhere. They're true specialists that adapted over time. The result of this never ending process is an animal that, apart from specific equipment, combines strength, speed and agility. They don't come more athletic, I mean.
Most cats hunt small to medium-sized animals, but some target large herbivores. Although big game hunters are a bit different, skeletons and skulls of cats are very similar. In many ways, they're minimalists. Their bones, although dense, are just large enough for the job. They got what is needed and not an ounce more. Weight is important for a solitary hunter. Hunting is about balance and agility.
LIONS STAND OUT
Compared to other cats, lions stand out in a number of ways. One is that they live and hunt in groups. Two is that their skulls are more stretched. To such a degree, that they seem 'overskulled' at times. Three is that their bodies are different from other cats: more robust in head and body, but, relatively, less muscular in the limbs.
When you try to find answers to questions, you need to connect lifestyle, hunting technique and results (adaptations). Social predators need to hunt large animals. Hunting large animals on your own is difficult. For this reason, tigers had to adapt. Big game specialists like adult male tigers nearly always are large and muscular animals. Size pays. Lions are social animals. They cooperate when they bring down a large animals. Size doesn't really pay. Cooperation does.
How cooperate when hunting a large herbivore? The answer is planning an attack and use your combined weight to bring the victim down. Killing as quickly as possible has no priority. It is about bringing the victim down. If it's down it is harmless, meaning you can start eating right away.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOLITARY AND SOCIAL BIG GAME HUNTERS
Hunting a large animal on your own is different from hunting a large animal in a group. A solitary hunter needs to adapt, whereas social cats do not. For a solitary hunters, specialisation pays.
So what are the results of hunting on your own and hunting in a group?
Groups first. When contact has been established, you use your canines to stay in touch and your body to restrict the victim and tire it. This means that lions need a body and a skull able to deal with severe stress for a considerable amount of time. As you can't lock on to a mountain of meat (referring to large herbivores) with a short snout (no penetration), you need a long one. You also need canines similar to icepicks; sharp-pointed, bended and not too long. You need strong limbs, but it is mostly about using your weight in an effective way. A bit like a bear (overwhelming the victim) would. Or a wolf (hanging on and pulling).
The result is a robust body with an elongated skull. In lionesses, the skulls, although elongated, is similar to the skull of other cats: smooth and functional. Male lions, however, need reinforced skulls in order to be able to deal with violence in the pride violence during exchanges with other coalitions. All in all, a male lion needs to be strong and fit. Apart from robustness, no significant adaptations are needed.
A solitary big cat hunting large animals can't rely on others. He first has to get close, than time his move to perfection. It is about targeting the best spot right away. A slight miscalculation can result in an injury or, worse, a loss of energy. As he is dealing with a heavier animal, he needs to know a few things about using the energy and mass of his opponent. Talking judo here. This is needed to topple him over. Could result in a broken neck, but you need to have a lot of experience to do it just right. Most tigers, for that reason, won't succeed in breaking necks. This means they need to wrestle their victim into a position that will result in a decisive advantage and a quick kill. When the opponent is a large herbivore, 'quick' is a few minutes at best.
The best option is the vertebrae of the neck, but when the opponent is big, the vertebrae-option is out. Strangulation is second best, but it's the only real chance when the animal they targeted is large. This takes a lot of strength, especially in the jaw muscles, the neck, the shoulder and the upper- and fore-arms. In order to get there as soon as possible, you don't need an elongated snout, but a rounded and powerful skull and long and strong canines to hold on and create a bit of collateral damage. Could be a major artery or a crushed windpipe. Holding on is important, but it is about penetration in the end.
All in all, a male tiger needs experience and a lot of power to succeed. The result is a vaulted, dense skull with big guns and wide arches. But not too large. Another result is a muscular body, especially up front. Large muscles are ok, but it shouldn't result in losing agility. When fighting an animal of similar size with more bulk, agility is of utmost importance. The reason is it will allow the tiger to get to an advantage first. For this reason, 450 pounds empty is quite a weight for a solitary hunter.
One would think that a male lion would be able to accomodate more weight, but it is the other way round. At least, if we include regions populated by large tigers. The reason is that hunting large animals on your own will result in a surplus of energy in the long run. As more protein will result in more size, this will allow him to target large animals all the time. Specialisation. It will also allow him to invest more energy in breeding and keeping the territory he conquered safe. Long enough to succeed. In the end, all conditions equal, a healthy ecosystem will result in more large animals. Upgrading is typical for healthy tiger societies.
In tigers, size pays. In lions, it doesn't. A coalition of two 475-pound males, all conditions equal, won't beat a coalition of three 400-pound males. It is about combined weight and teamwork. A clever 475-pound lion can, of course, create a situation favouring the larger animal, but it apaprently doesn't happen often.
MALE LIONS AND TIGERS IN NATURAL CONDITIONS
When a wild male lion meets a wild male tiger of equal size and age, conflict is likely. If both are capable, chances are the confrontation will develop into a situation often seen in India. Male tigers, like male lions, are very territorial animals. They will never accept a stand-off if they can help it. In India and the Russian Far East, male tigers use psychological warfare to create frequent exchanges. Tigers know about intimidation and stress.
When a serious fight erupts, I slightly favour the tiger. There are a number of reasons. At more or less equal size, tigers seem more balanced on their hind legs, a bit faster and more agile. This will result in more initiative. A wild adult male tiger also is a more experienced hunter who knows how to quickly get a decisive advantage in a struggle. More important is their make-up. Wild tigers are tenacious and very territorial animals often engaged in what seems to be psychological warfare. If male lions are experienced warriors, male tigers are experienced warmongers and hitmen, always planning their next move and always looking for a weak spot. When they engage, they seem to explode. Their energy is very different from the energy of other big cats. Lion posters often point to the apparently limited amount of energy of tigers, but culture is very different from content. Male tigers quite often engage in conflicts that can last for many hours. Not seldom, there seems to be no apparent reason. Based on what I saw, I'd say that wild tigers are a bit more aggressive than all other big cats.
In spite of that, the margins are small. A male lion also is very capable and he can take quite a bit of damage. With animals of this size, any mistake can have fatal consequences.
MALE LIONS AND TIGERS IN CAPTIVITY
In captivity, tigers, in constrast to lions, often quickly lose their 'tigerishness'. If a male tiger shares an enclosure with a male lion of similar size and age, chances are the lion, used to dealing with competition every day all day long, will try to boss the tiger around. Tigers are solitary cats not used to daily exchanges about food and all the rest of it. They're not going to invest their energy in managing their daily affairs, I mean. A male lion will, no matter what. Relentless pressure could be the best option for the lion to keep on top, but if he pushes his luck a serious fight can follow.
Although anything can happen, chances are that it's not going to develop into an all-out. Not when there's just the two of them. Conflict in captivity usually is about dominance, not the essentials. When one of the two has made his point, the fire is usually quickly extinguished. If the fight isn't about dominance but a result of a deep-rooted grudge, it can have fatal consequences. This type of conflict, however, is more often seen between members of the same species. Tigers and bears are the exception, so it seems.
Although they may seem eternal enemies, tigers and lions don't seem to do that bad when they share a large enclosure. If the numbers are equal, serious fights seldom erupt. According to the poster who saw the Everland videos (see below), only alpha males engage in fights about dominance. The outcome of these fights is accepted by most other animals. When the lion prevails, stability is the usual outcome. If the tiger wins, turbulance can be the result.
Many do not seem to know that tigers also know how to cooperate. Not in a circus, but in a large enclosure. They don't quite compare to lions for teamwork, but the Korean poster said it's good enough to keep a kind of balance.
Large enclosures inhabited by both lions and tigers could be the future for zoos and other facilities. In order to prevent problems often seen in captive big cats, they are now encouraged to 'work' for their food. It has an effect. The next step is a daily training to keep (mentally) fit. In the end, however, animals want to interact. With other animals, if possible. I would advice against mixing tigers with bears or donkeys, but Everland says lions and tigers could, perhaps, co-exist. To a degree, of course. They would need a supervisor driving around all day every day in order to prevent problems. Warmongers need to be removed. Same for extra-large individuals out for blood.
DEBATES ABOUT FIGHTS AT WILDFACT
We could talk a very long time about the most likely outcome of a fight between a male tiger and a male lion, but chances are it won't produce a satisfying result. Based on what I saw, read and heard, I got to a conclusion, but it only is an opinion and I'm sure it will be contested by many. As all debates about lions and tigers I saw produced a bad climate at best, we decided against it. Anyone ignoring this decision will be banned.
We could do a comparison, but you will never get the real deal. Not happening.
ADVICE
I had one good debate about lions and tigers some years ago. One good debate in a period of about 10 years (...). The poster involved, apart from producing good arguments and sound reasoning, was the only one able to exchange ideas about a hot topic in a respectful way. My advice is to contact Lion Claws at Carnivora. Give him my regards.
I can also recommend reading the lion-tiger thread at that forum. Do it from start to finish. There's one post from a poster able in Korean. He had seen a lot of Everland videos. His post is long, but interesting.
Most forums need versus-debates, but they come at a cost. Carnivora is one of the few that survived. If you really like a versus-debate, visit that forum. When you're done debating, you could contribute to the comparison thread.
One more thing. Although it may seem different, I do not distinguish between both species. To see a wild tiger in a forest, is quite something. To see a wild male lion in the high grasses, is as great. Both cats are the splendid result of a long evolution. The thing is that I was born with a tiger on my bed. For this reason, I'm very interested in tigers. There is a connection, but I also know about teamwork. Humans and lions are very similar in many respects. They could tell us quite a bit about things we do not seem to understand.
The canine tooth looks like a Southeast Asian tiger.
As far as I know, many claws and canines belong to the Southeast Asian tiger, the Siberian tiger's paws and canines are extremely rare.
Those healthy adult male Siberian tigers usually got 12-13 cm canines, and those 15-16 cm giant canines also belong to them, which are significantly larger than other big cats.
But the current wild male Siberian tigers have much smaller canines, since I often saw 10 cm canines from those illegal traffickers.
