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.
(12-31-2017, 11:49 PM)Garfield Wrote: Alright look I cant respond to everyone gettin mad at me on here, cuz Footballs on, but let me just say this to be fair. Yeah, like in the past cats were bigger, so ok an the siberian was the supreme cat of that time. Seen trainers even now on Quora sayin the Siberian is the biggest, so we have to give some respect to that cat, if that what they say than that what they say. Ya cant be like some of the lion fans who can't even concede that at least the Siberian is bigger ya gut hand that one over, it ok no ones gonna die to admit it. I always knew the Siberian was the biggest, cuz i seen a few, an cuz they gut so much of em around in places.
So yeah, so if ya think about it, on average I say a normal tiger ain't pullin down no buffalo, it just ain't likely to happen, maybe once in a blue moon. But the old Siberian he ain't eatin buffalo either. But guess the heck what bros, what is he eatin? I'll tell yas, he's eatin old world boars. Even an average boar now can take an average tiger on, they're tough mothers. But you take one of them big Russian old boars of the past. I mean that is one tough animal. so who's gonna bring it down, only a massive huge Siberian tiger, with big fangs, an a big head to go along with it. He needs that power, cuz the boars are just way too tough, so its gonna be a big fight, an if the Siberian is strong enough he's gonna kill that massive big tough boar and get a good meal to keep it fat an healthy through the super cold winter. Anyways, makes sense to me. But your average tiger isn't killin those super Russian boars. Aright games on, um out.
Tigers normally go for smaller (but still big enough) prey just like other carnivores. Difference is that they are much better hunting on their own, so it makes it that much more impressive when they successfully kill a large buffalo/gaur (which, of course, doesn't happen that often).
Boars in east Russia or Amur regions aren't as big as the ones in mid- or western- Russia/Romania, those ones are true giant boars and they will give even a larger tiger a hell of a fight. Luckily, Siberians evolved extra traction tools to dispatch heavy-coated animals more easily such as more curved claws and thicker, longer teeth.
(12-31-2017, 11:49 PM)Garfield Wrote: Alright look I cant respond to everyone gettin mad at me on here, cuz Footballs on, but let me just say this to be fair. Yeah, like in the past cats were bigger, so ok an the siberian was the supreme cat of that time. Seen trainers even now on Quora sayin the Siberian is the biggest, so we have to give some respect to that cat, if that what they say than that what they say. Ya cant be like some of the lion fans who can't even concede that at least the Siberian is bigger ya gut hand that one over, it ok no ones gonna die to admit it. I always knew the Siberian was the biggest, cuz i seen a few, an cuz they gut so much of em around in places.
So yeah, so if ya think about it, on average I say a normal tiger ain't pullin down no buffalo, it just ain't likely to happen, maybe once in a blue moon. But the old Siberian he ain't eatin buffalo either. But guess the heck what bros, what is he eatin? I'll tell yas, he's eatin old world boars. Even an average boar now can take an average tiger on, they're tough mothers. But you take one of them big Russian old boars of the past. I mean that is one tough animal. so who's gonna bring it down, only a massive huge Siberian tiger, with big fangs, an a big head to go along with it. He needs that power, cuz the boars are just way too tough, so its gonna be a big fight, an if the Siberian is strong enough he's gonna kill that massive big tough boar and get a good meal to keep it fat an healthy through the super cold winter. Anyways, makes sense to me. But your average tiger isn't killin those super Russian boars. Aright games on, um out.
I thought about it and a "normal" tiger is fully capable to do that. How much does a normal tiger weigh? 70 kg? Honestly at this point you are just simply a retard with no credibility. Tigers usually hunt boar, and even whatever the fuck you are talking about old world, tigers hunt whatever they see since prey was always pretty much scarce in the now over there.
SO thanks for the complinent i guess.
Can you please calm the tone down a little, Paul?
Garfield certainly doesn't know his animals very well (and looks eerily-similar to Boldchamp) and is making up mystical "trainers" and "biologists" like they are new Pokemon out of thin air, but there is no need to stoop down to his level and blast at him like that.
And @Garfield, there is plenty of info on this website about the questions you have. I didn't join this thread and start expressing my fanatic views about a particular animal, making many threads or making obtuse, opinionated statements out of the blue.
Like many others, I started to first read the info provided on this website on many, many different threads. Then I joined and started making educated questions from the combination of my personal experience and the information here. That is how it is done, usually. I suggest you do the same too, @Garfield.
01-01-2018, 10:50 PM( This post was last modified: 01-02-2018, 05:06 AM by peter )
(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.
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.
There are two claims about this paw. Some people say that this paw belongs to a Liger, someone shared last year, while others said that the paw was a lion, The original size was 6.9 cm , After pulling out part of the claw, more than 7cm.
