Morphology Comparison — Lion vs Tiger

[Vodmeister]

Pathera Leo vs Pathera Tigris
Credit to founder of initial study goes to Leofwin.

The following is a compilation of the best available data on the forelimb morphologies of the two animals. Data is the standard by which any claim ought to be judged, as it is with the following and the relative strengths of the lion and the tiger.


I. SCAPULAR SIZE:

Study: Christiansen and Adolfssen, 2007.
Metric: Scapular length.
Correlated With: Space for muscle attachment in the shoulders.
Sample Size: 17 lions, 15 tigers.
Lion: 210.2-288.4 mm.
Tiger: 199.1-241.3 mm.
Edge: Lion.


II. HUMERAL ROBUSTICITY BASED ON CIRCUMFERENCE:

Study: Christiansen and Adolfssen, 2007.
Metric: Least circumference of humeral diaphysis in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Overall resistance of humerus to stress.
Sample Size: 17 lions, 15 tigers.
Lion: 0.318.
Tiger: 0.303.
Edge: Lion.

Study: Christiansen and Harris, 2005.
Metric: Least circumference of humeral diaphysis in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Overall bending strength of humerus.
Sample Size: 3 lions, 5 tigers.
Lion: 0.314.
Tiger: 0.300.
Edge: Lion.


III. HUMERAL ROBUSTICITY BASED ON ML DIAMETER:

Study: Christiansen and Harris, 2005.
Metric: ML diameter of humerus at midshaft in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses along the ML axis.
Sample Size: 3 lions, 5 tigers.
Lion: 0.0897.
Tiger: 0.0870.
Edge: Lion.

Study: Bertram and Biewner, 1990.
Metric: ML diameter of humerus at midshaft in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses along the ML axis.
Sample Size: 4 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.0892.
Tiger: 0.0857.
Edge: Lion.

Study: Meachen-Samuels and Van Valkenburgh, 2010.
Metric: ML diameter of humerus at midshaft in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses along the ML axis.
Sample Size: 2 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.0824.
Tiger: 0.0909.
Edge: Tiger.


IV. HUMERAL ROBUSTICITY BASED ON AP DIAMETER:

Study: Christiansen and Harris, 2005.
Metric: AP diameter of humerus at midshaft in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses along the AP axis.
Sample Size: 3 lions, 5 tigers.
Lion: 0.1098.
Tiger: 0.1037.
Edge: Lion.

Study: Bertram and Biewner, 1990.
Metric: AP diameter of humerus at midshaft in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses along the AP axis.
Sample Size: 4 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.1278.
Tiger: 0.1137.
Edge: Lion.

Study: Meachen-Samuels and Van Valkenburgh, 2010.
Metric: AP diameter of humerus at midshaft in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses along the AP axis.
Sample Size: 2 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.1144.
Tiger: 0.1096.
Edge: Lion.

V. ML CORTICAL THICKNESS:

Study: Meachen-Samuels and Van Valkenburgh, 2010.
Metric: ML k-value.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses along the ML axis (inverse correlation).
Sample Size: 2 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.489.
Tiger: 0.561.
Edge: Lion.


VI. AP CORTICAL THICKNESS:

Study: Meachen-Samuels and Van Valkenburgh, 2010.
Metric: AP k-value.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses along the AP axis (inverse correlation).
Sample Size: 2 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.571.
Tiger: 0.610.
Edge: Lion.


VII. DISTAL BENDING STRENGTH OF HUMERUS:

Study: Christiansen and Harris, 2005.
Metric: Distal articular width of humerus in relation to humeral length.
Correlated With: Resistance of humerus to stresses at the elbow joint.
Sample Size: 3 lions, 5 tigers.
Lion: 0.1923.
Tiger: 0.1827.
Edge: Lion.


VIII. ROBUSTICITY OF RADIUS BASED ON ML DIAMETER:

Study: Bertram and Biewner, 1990.
Metric: ML diameter of radius at midshaft in relation to radial length.
Correlated With: Resistance of radius to stresses along the ML axis.
Sample Size: 4 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.0990.
Tiger: 0.0890.
Edge: Lion.


IX. ROBUSTICITY OF RADIUS BASED ON AP DIAMETER:

Study: Bertram and Biewner, 1990.
Metric: AP diameter of radius in relation to radial length.
Correlated With: Resistance of radius to stresses along the AP axis.
Sample Size: 4 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.0630.
Tiger: 0.0739.
Edge: Tiger.


X. ROBUSTICITY OF ULNA BASED ON AP DIAMETER:

Study: Christiansen and Adolfssen, 2007.
Metric: AP diameter of ulna at midshaft in relation to ulnar length.
Correlated With: Resistance of ulna to stresses along the AP axis.
Sample Size: 17 lions, 15 tigers.
Lion: 0.086.
Tiger: 0.098.
Edge: Tiger.

Study: Christiansen and Harris, 2005.
Metric: AP diameter of ulna at midshaft in relation to ulnar length.
Correlated With: Resistance of ulna to stresses along the AP axis.
Sample Size: 3 lions, 5 tigers.
Lion: 0.0736.
Tiger: 0.0830.
Edge: Tiger.


XI. OLECRANON LEVERAGE:

Study: Christiansen and Harris, 2005.
Metric: Olecranon length in relation to ulnar length.
Correlated With: Leverage of triceps muscle in extending the forearm.
Sample Size: 3 lions, 5 tigers.
Lion: 0.1852.
Tiger: 0.2081.
Edge: Tiger.

Study: Sorkin, 2006.
Metric: Olecranon length in relation to ulnar length.
Correlated With: Leverage of triceps muscle in extending the forearm.
Sample Size: 2 lions, 2 tigers.
Lion: 0.1986.
Tiger: 0.2575.
Edge: Tiger.


XII. GRIP:

Study: Iwaniuk, 1997.
Metric: MCP ratio.
Correlated With: Size of paw, strength of grip (inverse correlation).
Sample Size: 6 lions, 4 tigers.
Lion: 2.329.
Tiger: 2.072.
Edge: Tiger.


CONCLUSIONS:

The best data we have indicates that the lion has the following advantages over the tiger on average:

1. More space for shoulder muscle attachments.
2. Greater ML (2/3 studies) and AP (3/3 studies) diameter of humerus at equal humeral lengths.
3. Greater cortical thickness in the humerus at equal humeral widths.
4. Greater distal width of humerus at equal humeral lengths.
5. Greater ML diameter of radius at equal radial lengths.

The lion is slightly taller than the tiger, but the tiger's humerus makes up slightly more of its forelimb length than the lion. The result is that--despite the tiger's size advantage--the lion will have a humerus of approximately equal length to that of the tiger. Thus, the advantages of greater ML diameter of humerus, greater AP diameter of humerus, and greater distal width of humerus are all advantages in absolute terms, not merely on a pound for pound basis. These, combined with the lower k-values of the lion and the greater ML diameter of the radius, indicate that the resistance of the lion's forelimb bones to stresses along the ML axis will be somewhat greater on average than the resistance of the tiger's forelimb bones to the same stresses.

This indicates that there is some pressure for increased resistance to stress in the forelimb on the lion that is absent--or at least reduced in intensity--to the tiger. Whatever this pressure may be, if the bones need to be stronger to meet the demand, so will the musculature. For instance, if running is the factor requiring resistance to stress from the lion's bones, it will also require tremendous muscle force production for the purpose of attaining and maintaining high speeds. Now, running would place stress only along the AP axis, and thus is unlikely to be the factor we're looking for, but it illustrates the point quite nicely. Whatever produces a pressure for increased bone bending strength along a certain axis will also produce a pressure for increased torque production from the muscles powering the motions of the bone along the same axis.

The conclusion to be drawn from the best data we have, then, would be that the lion will tend to have greater strength than the tiger when moving the forelimb through the ML axis.


The best data we have also indicates that the tiger will have the following advantages over the lion on average:

1. Increased AP robusticity in the bones of the forearm.
2. Better leverage when extending the forearm.
3. Better grip.

Despite the lion's longer radius and ulna, the raw data (prior to calculating robusticities) shows that the AP diameter of the tiger's radius and ulna are greater than those of the lion in absolute terms. This indicates that the tiger's forearm bones, on average, will have greater resistance to stresses along the AP axis than the lion's. Therefore, as stated above, there is some pressure for increased bending strength along the AP axis placed on the tiger's forearm bones that is absent or reduced on the lion, and thus also a pressure for increased strength in the muscles powering the motions of the forearm along the AP axis. This, combined with the tiger's greater leverage when extending the forearm, would appear to indicate that the tiger will have greater strength in motions like pushing and pulling.

The conclusion to be drawn from the best data we have, then, would be that the tiger will tend to have greater strength than the lion in terms of motions of the forearm through the AP axis (eg, pushing and pulling), as well as in terms of strength of grip.

[Vodmeister]

Lion and Tiger limb girths
Credit goes to crazyfist for finding the initial study.

Lioness (n = 4):


Average fore arm girth: 14,04 inches. Average upper arm girth 18,67 inches. Ratio upperarm/forearm: 1,33.

Tigress (n = 5):


Average forearm girth is 15,4 inches. Average upperarm girth is 22 inches. Ratio: 1,43.

Tiger:
I used all the data of Cooch Behar (n = 43) and those out of the book "big game hunting" who aren't out of Cooch Behar (n = 6). I didn't used the data of which is discribed as forearm girth (2 foot 10 inches, 2 foot 3 inches, 2 foot 7 inches for example) but most likely refers to upperarm girth.

The average for Cooch Behar tigers is 18,93 inches in forearm girth and 26,79 in upper arm girth. Big game hunting tigers are 19,75 in forearm girth and 26,17 in upper arm girth. Notice that both figures match quite well. Combined the average of 46 measurements is 19,03 inches in forearm girth and 26,75 inches in upper arm girth. Ratio: 1,41 (nearly identical to the tigress)


Lion:
For the lion I first used the following figures. I didn't used measurements who are named as forearm girth but likely refer to upper arm girth (22 inches forearm girth for example).



The average for forearm girth is 16,96 cm (n = 7). For the upper arm it's 20,19 inches. Only for a single lion both measerements are given. Ratio: 1,27

First I didn't plan to add the following figures because it's not precisely stated that the forearm girth is taken below the joint but then I just added them:

Average girth is 18,33 inches. Combined we have now an average of 17,38 inches in forearm girth (n = 10). Because the figures were similar compared to 9 captive speciemens who averaged 16,5 inches I add them to the above figure. The new average for forearm girth is 16,96 inches (n = 19).

Study on captive lions:
The lions that were used are captive specimens from ranches in South Africa. 

Fore-leg girth ("just below the elbow"). Largest = ca. 46 cm / 18,1 inches


Weight: Largest was 230 kg.


Until yet all figures are based on measurements.

Because the figures on upper arm girth are only a few I decided to add the calculated ratio of the lioness on them but then I just used the tiger ratio.

Forearm girth x 1,41 = upperarm girth

The calculated average would be 23,91 inches in upperarm girth for the lion. (it would be 22,55 inches on lioness ratio and 21,46 inches on lion ratio).

[creature386]

This is an interesting therad. Here the respective sizes:
animalcreativity.webs.com/Weights%20and%20measurements%20of%20male%20bengal%20tigers.pdf
animalcreativity.webs.com/Weights%20and%20measurements%20of%20adult%20male%20african%20lions.pdf

[Vodmeister]

Jun 3, 2013 1:25:58 GMT 5 creature386 said:

This is an interesting therad. Here the respective sizes:
animalcreativity.webs.com/Weights%20and%20measurements%20of%20male%20bengal%20tigers.pdf
animalcreativity.webs.com/Weights%20and%20measurements%20of%20adult%20male%20african%20lions.pdf

I cannot seem to enter those links atm because the site is "frozen", appearantly. Nevertheless, thanks for the information.

[Vodmeister]

Heart and Lung Size
Credit goes to Boldchamp

Which animal has the greater stamina levels?....well, i am of the opinion that lions have the greater stamina, here is some records of the lung capacity (and heart sizes) of the lion and tiger, with info upon thyroid and adrenal glands as well;

Lions;




(Intelligence, power, and personality, by George Washington Crile)




(THE COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OP THE THYROID
AND ADRENAL GLANDS IN WILD ANIMALS By
ROBERT CRILE (pdf document) )

Tigers;


(A RECORD OF THE BODY WEIGHT AND CERTAIN
ORGAN AND GLAND WEIGHTS OF 3690 ANIMALS
GEORGE CRILE, M. D. (pdf document) )


(Brief description of the cardiac anatomy in a tiger
(Panthera tigris, Linnaeus, 1758): a case report
W. Perez, M. Lima (pdf document) )


(Mammals of the soviet union, Vladistav Mazak)

...now, some people could argue, that since most of the lions in the study was captive, that the measurements upon their heart sizes is not conclusive, as the study has shown the heart size of lions increase in captivity, but, not by much. only one study showed a wild tiger had a proportionately larger heart than a wild lion......however, in that particular study (shown above), the tiger was a museum specimen, whose frozen carcass weight was given, rather than his live weight, so statements of the relative heart size of this tiger is was not based upon his actual, live weight, which likely would have been greater. even when comparing captive animals, the lion had the larger heart sizes. in most cases, his lungs were MUCH larger than those of the tigers, suggesting an animal slightly more designed for stamina;


(Size, function, and life history - Google Books Result (William A. Calder, 1996))

Here is more data upon the outburst energy these animals are able to exert;






(Intelligence, power, and personality, by George Washington Crile)

Red blood cell count;



(PDF document, cannot yet find it)

...i would conclude the lion has the greater stamina. neither animal can run for long periods....yet, guggisberg (wild cats of the world) mentions a case where a lioness ran for 1600 ft, and then, directly afterwards, ran for 60 ft more. here`s the text "To my amazement, the lioness, on leaving the high grass, fell into a gallop and raced straight at the gazelles. They fled immediately, but she kept up the pursuit and it became apparent that she was after one of the fawns. The chase covered a distance of some 400 (1300 ft) to 500 m (1600 ft), the largest stretch i have ever seen a lion run flat out. The distance between the predator and quarry gradually narrowed."......he further mentions, after a particularly sharp turn by the young gazelle, the lioness chasing the animal for some 65 to 98 ft, an amazing performance.

a tiger, in the book 'tiger' by steven mills, ran a distance of 275 m, or 907.5 ft. the text goes as follows;

"perhaps the deer stopped for a moment to check whether he`d shaken off the tiger. If so, he made a fatal mistake because chips was right behind him and caught him. The tiger had covered at least 275 m (900 ft) flat out. In fact he was so tired that he just toppled the deer and lay on top of it for five minutes until he recovered his strength. Then he throttled it."

...it would seem the lion has greater stamina.

[creature386]

carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8561532&t=9348622

[creature386]

I will now post some data on the respecitve sizes of both animals.

First of all, here a table coherentsheaf has shown once on carnivora:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1980.tb01433.x/abstract

Note that the weights of the lion specimen in Kruger excludes stomach content. When they gave the average weight ranges, they also excluded the stomach content. On carnivora, chui said that this is not done in other cats, so this has to be kept in mind, when comparing it with the tiger.

Now the Amur tiger:

de.scribd.com/doc/55288084/BodyMass-AmurTiger-2013

The 189 kg average figure given there is very similar to the 187 kg average figure for African lions. I suppose the highest ones given in the weight range for male African lions (5-187 kg) are the average one for adult males, the average weight cited in Panthera leo was very similar. Here an explanation I gave on CF:
carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8481334&t=9348622

Now the Bengal tiger:

de.scribd.com/doc/55287778/BodyMass-BengalTiger-2011

It is larger at maximum and upper average weights, but it also has lower minimum weights than the lion.

Now a source directly comparing them (it also includes food intake explanations):
de.scribd.com/doc/15574755/Relative-Body-Mass-of-the-Lion-and-Tiger
^It also has a lot of morphological data, very informative.

[Supercommunist]

17:21 Lions and tigers anatomy is virtually the same under the skin.

[creature386]

Credit for this screenshot goes to Asadas:

Here the source: de.scribd.com/doc/19692355/Distinguishing-Skulls-of-Lions-Panthera-Leo-and-Tigers-Panthera-Tigris

[Vodmeister]