|
|
Post by sam1 on Dec 7, 2019 21:50:28 GMT 5
Yes, what's more, humans(of course, talking about the physical potential of a fit, trained runner, not the average overweight couch potato) are actually in the very top tier of long distance runners. The few animals capable of keeping up with the best ultra runners would possibly belong to wolves, sleigh dogs and some ungulates. In warm environments/hot weather, no carnivore could keep up with humans because of their limited cooling system. Like Theropod noted, indigenous hunters from Kalahari used to hunt down antelopes by basically running them to death..the animal would innevitably collapse due to sheer overheating exhaustion.(although it needs to be noted that the hunters need to carry water supply to pull this off). And it's not just the San people..it was the way of many ancient hunter gatherer cultures. youtu.be/Z1EZxFCWe6E |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 8, 2019 10:51:58 GMT 5
Lions are known to partake in hunts which can last several hours from actively chasing to making the kill. Observing an animal from a distance before deciding to give the chase, does not count (Tiger fandom very often mistake observation as a component of hunting). I can watch an animal for 2 hours straight from a distance but I cannot actively chase it for 2 hours straight if I have to - no human can (stamina factor). Humans can and often do run for several hours straight. In fact, humans did evolve to actively chase down prey over long distances (and some still do, e.g. the San people in the Kalahari). Unlike lions. Humans have far superior stamina to most other animals, certainly including big cats, for a variety of reasons (especially our very effective cooling mechanism through sweating, and the felids overreliance on white, fast-twitch muscle fibers). Ancient greeks used to use runners to deliver messages. Why? Because humans can run longer than horses (which themselves are far better endurance runners than cats). Depending upon the right mix of lifestyle, training and practice, humans can be very strong and capable. Athletic lifestyle will make difference without any doubt. Nevertheless, WE have exceptions to the norm. For instance: "After a few days, our mind gets tired and demands sleep. The world record for consecutive time spent awake is a staggering 264 hours (more than 11 days), set by Randy Gardner in 1964. But most people cannot achieve anywhere near this. After only 36 hours, our body’s sleep-wake cycle becomes arrhythmic and alters the release of specific hormones, dismantling our metabolism and appetite. After 72 hours, people may experience paranoia or hallucinations."Link: medium.com/@nikomccarty/how-far-can-humans-run-d5c97fb81a89TBH, FELIDS are lacking in the endurance aspect for actively chasing prey when compared to other forms such as CANIDS - latter group have superior locomotor specializations and resultant performance on average. "Canids have a more upright stance and straighter limbs with more stabilising features than felids (Andersson 2004). This may help to decrease the amount of muscle mass required for weight support and the metabolic costs of locomotion, thus improving the ability of canids to travel for longer distances at moderate speed. Felids, on the other hand, are proportionally heavier than canids, partly as they have more muscle to power acceleration (Fig. 2: Silva 1998), and thus, they are less capable of sustained running because of the extra muscle mass they are carrying. An exception to this rule, however, is the cheetah, which is relatively light for its body size and has a slightly more upright stance than the other felids (Day and Jayne 2007), enabling it to achieve higher top speeds. Cheetahs cooperate to a lesser degree than, for example, lions. Their ability to reach high top speeds means they can launch a successful full speed attack from further away (cheetah 125 m, lion 30 m; Schaller 1972). This may reduce the benefits of cooperating for the purpose of intercepting fleeing prey." - Bailey et al (2013) Individual variations in athletic performance is also an important consideration for any animal much like in the case of humans. "Individual preferences for particular hunting strategies may arise through variation in personalities, social status and athletic abilities (defined variously as burst or maximum speed, performance capacity, aerobic endurance and frequency of elevated activity bouts) combined with individual learning experiences over a lifetime (Sih et al. 2004; Bshary and Bergmuller 2008). The strategy individuals’ employ can vary from hunt to hunt, even when hunting the same prey type (e.g., lions: Scheel and Packer 1991). However, there is very little information for most species on the consistency or variation in roles or positions held by members of hunting groups during either lone or cooperative hunts, except in the case of preferences for certain roles (e.g., flanking or ambushing) in collaborative lion hunts (Stander 1992a) and consistent leadership by the dominant male in painted dog hunts (Creel and Creel 2002). Such data have never been considered in combination with data on physical ability. For example, female lions are lighter and, therefore, may be faster than the males, which are more powerful and, therefore, more suited to pulling prey down. More detailed information on the athletic abilities of individuals of different sex, age and weight in relation to hunting success and roles will be crucial to understanding the effects that individual physical variation may have on cooperative hunting behaviour." - Bailey et al (2013) There might be a few extremely capable Lions and Tigers out there, and people are drawing conclusions on the basis of achievements of individuals which are exception to the norm? Following revelation is very telling: "Published literature on consumption by tropical carnivores that has relied on linear biomass models is substantially biased. We demonstrate the nature of these biases by correcting diets of tiger, lion and leopard in recent publications. Our analysis suggests that consumption of medium-sized prey was significantly underestimated, while large prey consumption was grossly overestimated in large carnivore diets to date. We highlight that additional constraints of prey digestibility and utilization combined with escalating handling time and risks of killing large prey make prey larger than the predator size unprofitable for obligate carnivores." - Chakrabarti et al (2016) As a Social Scientist, I am SENSITIZED to difference between OBJECTIVE, SUBJECTIVE and CONSTRUCTED. Humans commonly tilt towards SUBJECTIVE and CONSTRUCTED at personal capacity. I completely understand that human accounts tend to be varied, subjective and/or sugarcoated with personal assumptions in relation to any topic. Look no further than evaluation of 9/11 event (official; unofficial). However, Tiger fandom does not get it - they will bombard YOU with ACCOUNTS of some observers in the wild in a potential exchange/debate; as if observers in the wild never lie, exaggerate, or sugarcoat with personal assumptions; as if observers in the wild are not human but WALKING CAMERAS when it comes to studying Tigers in the wild. Tiger fandom will want YOU to believe that Tiger is biggest, greatest, strongest, fastest, longest-lasting, highest-jumping, most athletic, elephant-spanking predator in the world. YAWN. You have footage that shows a lion being capable of running for hours without rest? That is not to say lions might not have better stamina than tigers, which seems logical given their lifestyle, but reliable scientific data on that would certainly be useful to people here. I would not say that Lions are capable of running for hours but they do partake in long-lasting hunts in which they devise a strategy to lure a herd to a particular spot from where they can catch a prey item or two. "The wild felid species are phenomenal athletes. Not only are they renowned for power, jumping and sprinting capabilities, but are masters of stealth and stalking.
Lions, the world’s second largest and only social felid, are primarily known for their brute strength. The average weight of an adult male can range between 180 to 225 kg (mean 190 kg), whereas the females average approximately 128 kg (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005). Although not the fastest land animal (reaching speeds of up to 70 km/h during short sprints), lions are known as fierce killers and can easily take down animals their own size. The female lions are the primary hunters whereas the males rarely aid in killing prey, but conserve themselves to defend the pride against other male lions. Lion physiology is designed to allow stalking prey for long periods of time, whereafter a short chase ensues. When hunting as a pride, female lions can take down zebra (± 300 kg), buffalo (± 600 kg), eland (± 1000 kg) and female elephants (± 4000 kg). This characteristic is largely a result of their ability to work together as a group rather than that of individual muscle strength. However, being physically fit is a requirement to stay part of the pride (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005)." - Kohn et al (2011) Related: "Minimum cost of transport (COTMIN) was 0.17 mlO2 kg−1 m−1 (3.42 J kg−1 m−1), as predicted for canids and other felids on the basis of body mass (Fig. 1C) (16). This includes large and small felids that stalk, pounce, and perform highspeed chases. Immature African lions, however, are outliers with a COTMIN that is 2.4 times that predicted for running mammals (18) and 2.1 times the value for pumas. If adults follow the trend for immature lions, then comparatively high locomotory costs of African lions may help to explain the tendency of this species to rely on cooperative hunting, which is unique among felids (6)." - Williams et al (2014) Habitats also influence hunting prowess. "Indeed single lions in the Serengeti National Park are more successful at hunting than single lions in the Etosha National Park, which has much less cover (Schaller 1972; Elliott et al. 1977; Stander 1992b). Correspondingly, lions in the Etosha National Park hunt cooperatively much more often, suggesting an increased benefit of group hunting for lions in open habitats (Packer and Ruttan 1988; Stander 1992a). Open habitat may also be more conducive to cooperative hunting, particularly in less vocal species, as it would allow group members to keep track more easily of each others’ movements visually and, therefore, coordinate their movements more effectively." - Bailey et al (2013) Very telling actually. Oh wait! Tiger fandom will want YOU to believe that African Lions will fail in environments inhabited by Tigers such as in India. They do not realize that Lions do better under COVER conditions actually. In fact: How likely are Tigers to formulate PRIDES of their own to cope with pressures of survival in open habitats if shifted there? - is a far more appropriate question. Tigers are not particularly renowned for being cooperative in the matters of predation - lack of temperament? lack of cognitive? "Many extant animal species live in social groups, showing plenty of advantages in reproductive efficiency, guard for rest, territorial competition, resisting natural enemies and so on." - Wei and Luo (2018) African Lions are very likely to outcompete Tigers in African environments and also do well in Indian jungles if shifted there. Lions - being very strong and social - have excellent adapting capabilities, and a far bigger threat to remote human populations than Tigers can ever hope to be. I would particularly caution that animals in captivity are not necessarily best representations of what they are capable of in the wild. For instance: "This group, however, showed that fiber diameter of fast and slow fiber was 40–80 mm in wild cheetahs, whereas captive cheetahs had a wider range of fast and slow fiber diameters (20–100 mm). It is possible that this variation in fiber diameter resulted from the change in lifestyle of captive cheetahs including limited habitat range and hunting demands." - Hyatt et al (2010) REFERENCESBailey, I., Myatt, J. P., & Wilson, A. M. (2013). Group hunting within the Carnivora: physiological, cognitive and environmental influences on strategy and cooperation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67(1), 1-17. Chakrabarti, S., Jhala, Y. V., Dutta, S., Qureshi, Q., Kadivar, R. F., & Rana, V. J. (2016). Adding constraints to predation through allometric relation of scats to consumption. Journal of Animal Ecology, 85(3), 660-670. Hyatt, J. P. K., Roy, R. R., Rugg, S., & Talmadge, R. J. (2010). Myosin heavy chain composition of tiger (Panthera tigris) and cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) hindlimb muscles. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological Genetics and Physiology, 313(1), 45-57. Kohn, T. A., Burroughs, R., Hartman, M. J., & Noakes, T. D. (2011). Fiber type and metabolic characteristics of lion (Panthera leo), caracal (Caracal caracal) and human skeletal muscle. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 159(2), 125-133. Williams, T. M., Wolfe, L., Davis, T., Kendall, T., Richter, B., Wang, Y., ... & Wilmers, C. C. (2014). Instantaneous energetics of puma kills reveal advantage of felid sneak attacks. Science, 346(6205), 81-85. Wei, K., Zhang, Y., & Luo, Y. (2018). Variance-mediated multifractal analysis of group participation in chasing a single dangerous prey. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 503, 1275-1287. |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 8, 2019 11:31:48 GMT 5
You have footage that shows a lion being capable of running for hours without rest? That is not to say lions might not have better stamina than tigers, which seems logical given their lifestyle, but reliable scientific data on that would certainly be useful to people here. I would not say that Lions are capable of running for hours but they do partake in long-lasting hunts in which they devise a strategy to lure a herd to a particular spot from where they can catch a prey item or two. "The wild felid species are phenomenal athletes. Not only are they renowned for power, jumping and sprinting capabilities, but are masters of stealth and stalking.
Lions, the world’s second largest and only social felid, are primarily known for their brute strength. The average weight of an adult male can range between 180 to 225 kg (mean 190 kg), whereas the females average approximately 128 kg (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005). Although not the fastest land animal (reaching speeds of up to 70 km/h during short sprints), lions are known as fierce killers and can easily take down animals their own size. The female lions are the primary hunters whereas the males rarely aid in killing prey, but conserve themselves to defend the pride against other male lions. Lion physiology is designed to allow stalking prey for long periods of time, whereafter a short chase ensues. When hunting as a pride, female lions can take down zebra (± 300 kg), buffalo (± 600 kg), eland (± 1000 kg) and female elephants (± 4000 kg). This characteristic is largely a result of their ability to work together as a group rather than that of individual muscle strength. However, being physically fit is a requirement to stay part of the pride (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005)." - Kohn et al (2011) Related: "Minimum cost of transport (COTMIN) was 0.17 mlO2 kg−1 m−1 (3.42 J kg−1 m−1), as predicted for canids and other felids on the basis of body mass (Fig. 1C) (16). This includes large and small felids that stalk, pounce, and perform highspeed chases. Immature African lions, however, are outliers with a COTMIN that is 2.4 times that predicted for running mammals (18) and 2.1 times the value for pumas. If adults follow the trend for immature lions, then comparatively high locomotory costs of African lions may help to explain the tendency of this species to rely on cooperative hunting, which is unique among felids (6)." - Williams et al (2014) Habitats also influence hunting prowess. "Indeed single lions in the Serengeti National Park are more successful at hunting than single lions in the Etosha National Park, which has much less cover (Schaller 1972; Elliott et al. 1977; Stander 1992b). Correspondingly, lions in the Etosha National Park hunt cooperatively much more often, suggesting an increased benefit of group hunting for lions in open habitats (Packer and Ruttan 1988; Stander 1992a). Open habitat may also be more conducive to cooperative hunting, particularly in less vocal species, as it would allow group members to keep track more easily of each others’ movements visually and, therefore, coordinate their movements more effectively." - Bailey et al (2013) Very telling actually. Oh wait! Tiger fandom will want YOU to believe that African Lions will fail in environments inhabited by Tigers such as in India. They do not realize that Lions do better under COVER conditions actually. In fact: How likely are Tigers to formulate PRIDES of their own to cope with pressures of survival in open habitats if shifted there? - is a far more appropriate question. Tigers are not particularly renowned for being cooperative in the matters of predation - lack of temperament? lack of cognitive? "Many extant animal species live in social groups, showing plenty of advantages in reproductive efficiency, guard for rest, territorial competition, resisting natural enemies and so on." - Kohn et al (2011) African Lions are very likely to outcompete Tigers in African environments and also do well in Indian jungles if shifted there. Lions - being very strong and social - have excellent adapting capabilities, and a far bigger threat to remote human populations than Tigers can ever hope to be.
Oh, so you are the only one here who is allowed to call other people fanboys, huh?
The double standards and irony is very strong here. The stuff you cherry pick and deliberately take out of context and misrepresent, proves absolutely nothing. Seems like you have brought no real proof that lions have more stamina than tigers.
In the Serengeti, it is still Savannah XD just more cover than it is in in Etosha. It is not a jungle where a tiger lives in. And that is not the reason why the lions were better hunters, it is because they were more individualistic and prefer to work alone. Craig Packer conducted studies in the Serengeti:
"Many extant animal species live in social groups, showing plenty of advantages in reproductive efficiency, guard for rest, territorial competition, resisting natural enemies and so on."
Another cherry picked quote, that have nothing to do with lions. You can't apply a generalization to an individual species that we are discussing here, which certainly and clearly does not imply to. Because it is true, that lions stand no chance in a tiger's jungle, because they will not be able to live in groups, or even hunt by themselves. Asiatic lions don't particularly live in jungles but it looks like they are clearly more adapted to living in India than African lions, looking at how they are more agile and more individualistic 
And talking about living in groups, lions only live in groups for the control of territory which in return is because the scarcity of resources, not because of anything else, as Craig Packer showed to us with his 40+ year long studies he conducted. Here is one about how lions are basically solitary cats who almost forced to live together.
If you actually give a shit about lions which you probably don't since you hate the real animal, go take a look at his presentations:
Guess what, you surely are not a scientist "lack of temperament? lack of cognitive?" lol, makes no sense what you say. Lack of temperament? How does that have to do with living in groups? Actually tigers are recorded to be very social in the wild, depending on the reserve, in reserves where food is more scarce female tigers are less territorial and help each other more. When prey densities recovered, they became more territorial. Tigers have been seen sharing food in the wild, and families of tigers (including the male) are seen together very frequently. You will never mention of these facts.
Your base argument is "I am right and you are wrong, and anybody who disagrees is a tiger fanboy", especially when you can't even prove anything and just cherry pick. There is simply no debating or discussion to be done with somebody like you with a clear obsession
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 8, 2019 11:34:10 GMT 5
Mass = VARIED "There is a popular notion that tigers are ‘bigger’ than lions (e.g. Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Hemmer (1974a) suggested that the tiger has a relatively smaller head (skull length) for its body size (headand-body length) than either the lion or the leopard, both of which possess similar head-to-body ratios. Therefore, the tiger’s relatively bigger brain size may reflect its bigger body compared with that of the lion, which has a bigger skull relative to its body size. However, careful re-evaluation of original field data and relatively well-documented hunting records does not support this popular notion. The modern wildliving tiger has an estimated average body weight (i.e. excluding stomach contents) of c. 160 kg for adult males and c. 115 kg for adult females, whilst modern wild-living lion weigh c. 175 kg (males) and c. 120 kg (females), where ‘average’ is the mean body weight of commonly recognized putative subspecies (Yamaguchi, 2005a, b; Kitchener & Yamaguchi, in press). Therefore, we conclude that the tiger has a relatively bigger brain than the lion’s (by c. 16%), given their very similar average body sizes." - Yamaguchi et al (2009) Although, it is true that African Lions are bigger and stronger than Indian Lions on average. African Male Lions are particularly renowned for their strength. Secondly, larger brain does not necessarily correspond to superior cognitive potential or intelligence in animals. "People have long been tempted to link brain size and cognition. The intuitive notion that a “big brain” means “more intelligent” was first threatened some time ago, when we discovered animals with larger brains than ours: elephants and whales. Sure as we were of humankind’s superior intelligence, we still felt the need to prevail, so we gamely parried: Perhaps it is the brain size relative to body size that makes our brains the biggest. Though humans come out well there, too, this measure is biased toward birds and other small animals that have relatively large brains for their bodies. After more deliberation, scientists finally offered up the so-called “encephalization quotient”: brain size relative to the expected brain size in related taxa. On top: humans. Phew.
Consider, though, the strange case of that growing child. Every infant’s brain develops through a period of synaptogenesis—wanton proliferation of synapses, which are the connections between neurons—in the first year or so of life. But one could argue that it is when this intense brain growth ends that the real growth of the child qua individual begins. The next phase of brain development occurs in large part through an increase in synaptic pruning: paring of those connections that are not useful for perceiving, considering or understanding the world the child is facing. In this sense, it’s by downsizing that an individual’s brain is born.
Brain size, or the size of brain parts, can be a reasonable indicator of skill, to be sure. In individuals with sensory deprivation other sensory inputs take over the cortical area lying dormant. In the case of blindness, auditory or tactile somatosensory areas may grow in size, and hearing or touching sensitivity will improve accordingly. Dramatic as that compensatory growth may be, in the end the correlation between brain size and brain function is fraught.
Consider the humble dog, Canis familiaris. The brain of a wolf-size dog is about 30 percent smaller than that of an actual gray wolf, its ancestor. Has the dog become less smart since it went its own evolutionary way thousands of years ago? Judge for yourself: When the mere gaze from the dewy eyes of a member of this species causes you to get up from the couch, repair to the refrigerator and retrieve a hunk of cheese for your charge—well, you tell me who is smarter.
The dog is successful not because of the size of its whole brain per se, but because domestication has led to subtle brain changes with a stunning result: the ability to live in the world of people.
To the brain reading this: You may grow as you process these words. But almost certainly, your growth will not be as simple as an increase in size. Synapse that!"Link: www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/REFERENCESYamaguchi, N., Kitchener, A. C., Gilissen, E., & Macdonald, D. W. (2009). Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 98(1), 85-93. |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 8, 2019 11:56:40 GMT 5
Mass = VARIED "There is a popular notion that tigers are ‘bigger’ than lions (e.g. Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Hemmer (1974a) suggested that the tiger has a relatively
smaller head (skull length) for its body size (headand-body length) than either the lion or the leopard, both of which possess similar head-to-body ratios. Therefore, the tiger’s relatively bigger brain size may reflect its bigger body compared with that of the lion, which has a bigger skull relative to its body size. However, careful re-evaluation of original field data and relatively well-documented hunting records does not support this popular notion. The modern wildliving tiger has an estimated average body weight (i.e. excluding stomach contents) of c. 160 kg for adult males and c. 115 kg for adult females, whilst modern wild-living lion weigh c. 175 kg (males) and c. 120 kg (females), where ‘average’ is the mean body weight of commonly recognized putative subspecies (Yamaguchi, 2005a, b; Kitchener & Yamaguchi, in press). Therefore, we conclude that the tiger has a relatively bigger brain than the lion’s (by c. 16%), given their very similar average body sizes." - Yamaguchi et al (2009) Although, it is true that African Lions are bigger and stronger than Indian Lions on average. African Male Lions are particularly renowned for their strength. Secondly, larger brain does not necessarily correspond to superior cognitive potential or intelligence in animals. "People have long been tempted to link brain size and cognition. The intuitive notion that a “big brain” means “more intelligent” was first threatened some time ago, when we discovered animals with larger brains than ours: elephants and whales. Sure as we were of humankind’s superior intelligence, we still felt the need to prevail, so we gamely parried: Perhaps it is the brain size relative to body size that makes our brains the biggest. Though humans come out well there, too, this measure is biased toward birds and other small animals that have relatively large brains for their bodies. After more deliberation, scientists finally offered up the so-called “encephalization quotient”: brain size relative to the expected brain size in related taxa. On top: humans. Phew.
Consider, though, the strange case of that growing child. Every infant’s brain develops through a period of synaptogenesis—wanton proliferation of synapses, which are the connections between neurons—in the first year or so of life. But one could argue that it is when this intense brain growth ends that the real growth of the child qua individual begins. The next phase of brain development occurs in large part through an increase in synaptic pruning: paring of those connections that are not useful for perceiving, considering or understanding the world the child is facing. In this sense, it’s by downsizing that an individual’s brain is born.
Brain size, or the size of brain parts, can be a reasonable indicator of skill, to be sure. In individuals with sensory deprivation other sensory inputs take over the cortical area lying dormant. In the case of blindness, auditory or tactile somatosensory areas may grow in size, and hearing or touching sensitivity will improve accordingly. Dramatic as that compensatory growth may be, in the end the correlation between brain size and brain function is fraught.
Consider the humble dog, Canis familiaris. The brain of a wolf-size dog is about 30 percent smaller than that of an actual gray wolf, its ancestor. Has the dog become less smart since it went its own evolutionary way thousands of years ago? Judge for yourself: When the mere gaze from the dewy eyes of a member of this species causes you to get up from the couch, repair to the refrigerator and retrieve a hunk of cheese for your charge—well, you tell me who is smarter.
The dog is successful not because of the size of its whole brain per se, but because domestication has led to subtle brain changes with a stunning result: the ability to live in the world of people.
To the brain reading this: You may grow as you process these words. But almost certainly, your growth will not be as simple as an increase in size. Synapse that!"Link: www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/REFERENCESYamaguchi, N., Kitchener, A. C., Gilissen, E., & Macdonald, D. W. (2009). Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 98(1), 85-93.
There is no tiger that is all 9 subspecies of tigers combined, you can only look at one subspecies at a time, so its useless to talk about average weight of all subspecies And a larger brain size is part of seeing if one animal is smarter than another animal, it is not the only way to determine intelligence. Just one way to look at it.
Unfortunately for you, lions are not stronger than tigers
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 8, 2019 12:12:51 GMT 5
Mass = VARIED "There is a popular notion that tigers are ‘bigger’ than lions (e.g. Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Hemmer (1974a) suggested that the tiger has a relatively
smaller head (skull length) for its body size (headand-body length) than either the lion or the leopard, both of which possess similar head-to-body ratios. Therefore, the tiger’s relatively bigger brain size may reflect its bigger body compared with that of the lion, which has a bigger skull relative to its body size. However, careful re-evaluation of original field data and relatively well-documented hunting records does not support this popular notion. The modern wildliving tiger has an estimated average body weight (i.e. excluding stomach contents) of c. 160 kg for adult males and c. 115 kg for adult females, whilst modern wild-living lion weigh c. 175 kg (males) and c. 120 kg (females), where ‘average’ is the mean body weight of commonly recognized putative subspecies (Yamaguchi, 2005a, b; Kitchener & Yamaguchi, in press). Therefore, we conclude that the tiger has a relatively bigger brain than the lion’s (by c. 16%), given their very similar average body sizes." - Yamaguchi et al (2009) Although, it is true that African Lions are bigger and stronger than Indian Lions on average. African Male Lions are particularly renowned for their strength. Secondly, larger brain does not necessarily correspond to superior cognitive potential or intelligence in animals. "People have long been tempted to link brain size and cognition. The intuitive notion that a “big brain” means “more intelligent” was first threatened some time ago, when we discovered animals with larger brains than ours: elephants and whales. Sure as we were of humankind’s superior intelligence, we still felt the need to prevail, so we gamely parried: Perhaps it is the brain size relative to body size that makes our brains the biggest. Though humans come out well there, too, this measure is biased toward birds and other small animals that have relatively large brains for their bodies. After more deliberation, scientists finally offered up the so-called “encephalization quotient”: brain size relative to the expected brain size in related taxa. On top: humans. Phew.
Consider, though, the strange case of that growing child. Every infant’s brain develops through a period of synaptogenesis—wanton proliferation of synapses, which are the connections between neurons—in the first year or so of life. But one could argue that it is when this intense brain growth ends that the real growth of the child qua individual begins. The next phase of brain development occurs in large part through an increase in synaptic pruning: paring of those connections that are not useful for perceiving, considering or understanding the world the child is facing. In this sense, it’s by downsizing that an individual’s brain is born.
Brain size, or the size of brain parts, can be a reasonable indicator of skill, to be sure. In individuals with sensory deprivation other sensory inputs take over the cortical area lying dormant. In the case of blindness, auditory or tactile somatosensory areas may grow in size, and hearing or touching sensitivity will improve accordingly. Dramatic as that compensatory growth may be, in the end the correlation between brain size and brain function is fraught.
Consider the humble dog, Canis familiaris. The brain of a wolf-size dog is about 30 percent smaller than that of an actual gray wolf, its ancestor. Has the dog become less smart since it went its own evolutionary way thousands of years ago? Judge for yourself: When the mere gaze from the dewy eyes of a member of this species causes you to get up from the couch, repair to the refrigerator and retrieve a hunk of cheese for your charge—well, you tell me who is smarter.
The dog is successful not because of the size of its whole brain per se, but because domestication has led to subtle brain changes with a stunning result: the ability to live in the world of people.
To the brain reading this: You may grow as you process these words. But almost certainly, your growth will not be as simple as an increase in size. Synapse that!"Link: www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/REFERENCESYamaguchi, N., Kitchener, A. C., Gilissen, E., & Macdonald, D. W. (2009). Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 98(1), 85-93. There is no tiger that is all 9 subspecies of tigers combined, you can only look at one subspecies at a time, so its useless to talk about average weight of all subspecies And a larger brain size is part of seeing if one animal is smarter than another animal, it is not the only way to determine intelligence. Just one way to look at it. Unfortunately for you, lions are not stronger than tigers Green part = SUBJECTIVE VIEW Lions also vary in size and strength across environments much like Tigers. Holistic average size of both types of FELIDS contradict your view unfortunately. Red part = Larger brain size is not a sound metric for evaluating intelligence! Sorry Blue part = Care to share biomechanical evaluation of the strength of two? I suppose you have conducted relevant experiments in person since you love to boast about your intellect and question that of others, and also question scientific content very often. Let us see your scientific credentials now. |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 8, 2019 16:53:33 GMT 5
Oh, so you are the only one here who is allowed to call other people fanboys, huh?
The double standards and irony is very strong here. The stuff you cherry pick and deliberately take out of context and misrepresent, proves absolutely nothing. Seems like you have brought no real proof that lions have more stamina than tigers. In the Serengeti, it is still Savannah XD just more cover than it is in in Etosha. It is not a jungle where a tiger lives in. And that is not the reason why the lions were better hunters, it is because they were more individualistic and prefer to work alone. Craig Packer conducted studies in the Serengeti: "Many extant animal species live in social groups, showing plenty of advantages in reproductive efficiency, guard for rest, territorial competition, resisting natural enemies and so on." Your arguments are primarily shaped by a false sense of superiority and attitude. You cannot address any point or perspective in a calm and calculated manner - you continue to insult other members for their views which might contradict your perceptions unfortunately. You go as far as to question intellect of other members while addressing their statements. Problematic portions in your post are highlighted in RED for all to see. These ad hominems will ruin cordial debating environment of this forum, and I cannot allow this trend to gain foothold in WoA - SORRY. If I am wrong about something, I will plainly/openly admit it - I am not like you. Lions have the capacity to stalk prey for a lengthy duration; this notion is reinforced in my post with relevant citations. I haven't drawn a comparison of Lions and Tigers in the endurance aspect due to lack of relevant biomechanical studies. Williams et al (2014) provide some clues: williams.eeb.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Instantaneous-energetics-of-puma-kills-reveal-advantage-of-felid-sneak-attacks-Willams-et-al-2014-Science.pdfAnother cherry picked quote, that have nothing to do with lions. You can't apply a generalization to an individual species that we are discussing here, which certainly and clearly does not imply to. Because it is true, that lions stand no chance in a tiger's jungle, because they will not be able to live in groups, or even hunt by themselves. Asiatic lions don't particularly live in jungles but it looks like they are clearly more adapted to living in India than African lions, looking at how they are more agile and more individualistic And talking about living in groups, lions only live in groups for the control of territory which in return is because the scarcity of resources, not because of anything else, as Craig Packer showed to us with his 40+ year long studies he conducted. Here is one about how lions are basically solitary cats who almost forced to live together. If you actually give a shit about lions which you probably don't since you hate the real animal, go take a look at his presentations: Guess what, you surely are not a scientist "lack of temperament? lack of cognitive?" lol, makes no sense what you say. Lack of temperament? How does that have to do with living in groups? Actually tigers are recorded to be very social in the wild, depending on the reserve, in reserves where food is more scarce female tigers are less territorial and help each other more. When prey densities recovered, they became more territorial. Tigers have been seen sharing food in the wild, and families of tigers (including the male) are seen together very frequently. You will never mention of these facts.
Your base argument is "I am right and you are wrong, and anybody who disagrees is a tiger fanboy", especially when you can't even prove anything and just cherry pick. There is simply no debating or discussion to be done with somebody like you with a clear obsession Excuse me? That is not a generalization. That statement is taken from this publication: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118310124 (about Lions) Lions do well in open habitats as well as in forested environments. I believe that African Lions will do well in Indian jungles as well, if shifted there, because COVER help lions in obtaining food. It is premature to argue that Tigers will prevent Lions from establishing a foothold in Indian jungles. Tigers have not displaced Leopards in Indian jungles, Lions are on another level in comparison in terms of offering competition. A lone Lion stand a chance against a lone Tiger in a potential bout let alone a whole PRIDE of Lions. Every mammal is social to an extent - this is not a big deal. Tigers are expected to be social (how will they reproduce and take care of their young otherwise?) but they are not social on the level of Lions and they are unlikely to formulate PRIDES in open habitats anytime soon. High level of sociability does not materialize out of the blue but is shaped by environmental pressures - very slow and long-term GAME. Sugarcoating 'normal behavior' does not make for a compelling argument. FYI: Lions, the world's second largest and only social felid, are primarily known for their brute strength. The average weight of an adult male can range between 180 and 225 kg (mean 190 kg), whereas the females average approximately 128 kg (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005). Although not the fastest land animal (reaching speeds of up to 70 km/h during short sprints), lions are known as fierce killers and can easily take down animals their own size. The female lions are the primary hunters whereas the males rarely aid in killing prey, but conserve themselves to defend the pride against other male lions. Lion physiology is designed to allow stalking prey for long periods of time, whereafter a short chase ensues. When hunting as a pride, female lions can take down zebra (±300 kg), buffalo (±600 kg), eland (±1000 kg) and female elephants (±4000 kg). This characteristic is largely a result of their ability to work together as a group rather than that of individual muscle strength. However, being physically fit is a requirement to stay part of the pride (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005). - Kohn et al (2011) Perhaps you need to revisit your benchmark for evaluating SOCIALIBILITY. Otherwise, how about making a case for sociability of sharks even? Sharks are also social animals - some noticeably more so than others. --- MODERATION ALERTI have deleted 3 of your posts in this thread alone because you make extensive use of ad hominems and continue to adopt insulting tone towards me even though your points are being adequately addressed. Does it occur to you why [only] you are being singled out from among all members here? I do not know you in person and I do not hold any form of grudge against you in person. You are allowed to critic my views without insulting me or questioning my intellect, or that of any member here. However, you have a false sense of superiority and your posting ethics are highly problematic. I allow all members to express their views in WoA including notable Tiger fans such as @mountainlion. At the least, HE is passionate in his argument-formation and have opened informative threads here in WoA. YOU on the other hand... You are taking my leniency for granted now. I will not put up with your insulting behavior for long. Consider this my 2ND WARNING to you. Learn how to address an argument without insulting or verbally assaulting someone. I do not recall when was the last time I moderated posts of a member in this forum - this is the level of my leniency. However, you are the FIRST in my RADAR in a long long time. This says a lot about you actually. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 8, 2019 18:11:16 GMT 5
Lions have the capacity to stalk prey for a lengthy duration; this notion is reinforced in my post with relevant citations. I haven't drawn a comparison of Lions and Tigers in the endurance aspect due to lack of relevant biomechanical studies. Williams et al (2014) provide some clues: "Minimum cost of transport (COTMIN) was 0.17 mlO2 kg−1 m−1 (3.42 J kg−1 m−1), as predicted for canids and other felids on the basis of body mass (Fig. 1C) (16). This includes large and small felids that stalk, pounce, and perform highspeed chases. Immature African lions, however, are outliers with a COTMIN that is 2.4 times that predicted for running mammals (18) and 2.1 times the value for pumas. If adults follow the trend for immature lions, then comparatively high locomotory costs of African lions may help to explain the tendency of this species to rely on cooperative hunting, which is unique among felids (6)." - Williams et al (2014) I may be misunderstanding the point you are trying to make, but weren’t you arguing for superior stamina in lions? That they have so much higher cost of transport for their mass would suggest the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 8, 2019 18:53:31 GMT 5
Life, so you mean Bengal tigers now average 160 kg? Interesting. Definitely leaning towards the lion now
|
|
smedz
Junior Member
Posts: 195 
|
Post by smedz on Dec 8, 2019 19:27:40 GMT 5
|
|
mountainlord
Member
Tiger - The Legendary Killer of Brown bears
Posts: 309
|
Post by mountainlord on Dec 8, 2019 19:36:37 GMT 5
@crocuta rufus
First of all, I never said that a lion would "always" lose to a tiger. My point is that in this particular match-up, the Asiatic lion is outmatched by the Bengal tiger, easily.
The so-called "wild" accounts you posted were all outright FAKE accounts. They never happened, there nothing but fiction tales. Valmik Thapar is a TIGER HISTORIAN for over 40 years now, he's talked about Asiatic lions in several of his books, one called "Exotic Aliens"....and he has NEVER mentioned a single instance of a fight between a wild tiger and a wild Asiatic lion before. According to all reliable records/books - there is not a single reliable account of a lion interaction, let alone a fight with a tiger in the wild, period. Not one.
The only confirmed account there was in the wild, was when Kesri Singh released WILD African lions into Tiger territory in India, and then one of his male lions was killed by a tiger in the jungle.
Kesri Singh also said - "There is no doubt that the tiger is much the stronger and more dangerous animal."
books.google.ca/books?dq=Kesri+Singh+it+was+morally+certain+that+his+death+was+the+work+of+a+tiger&hl=en&id=
Please, refrain from posting fake stories like that. Go to reliable experts. And yes, excluding the biased fraudster Clyde Beatty, I know there's other accounts of lions killing tigers, my point is that in majority of cases the tiger will win. Due to having more superior physical advantages. On top of that, most wildlife experts favour the tiger too.
Craig Packer - who's the worlds No.1 leading lion expert - also favours the tiger over the lion in a fight. Due to the tiger being overall, physically superior.
No, your totally wrong here. The only "purebred" Bengals are in INDIAN zoo's, which are mostly fed with crap like chicken carcasses. True Bengal tigers are not in captivity anymore. And its an established FACT, that the largest big cats in captivity are the Siberian tigers. Which can get much larger than the African lions. All the captive and wild size and weight records belong to the tiger.
Today, Bengal tigers are handsdown the worlds largest wild cats. They average over 200 kg and can reach weights to over 300 kg. No lion is touching these weights today. A Bengal tiger enjoys a significant weight advantage over an African lion. (Excluding the Sunderban Bengal tigers).
Dominant male Bengal tigers from central India, Nepal, Kaziranga, south India....REGULARLY reach and exceed the 500lb mark. Going up to 600+lbs too. You'd be hard-pressed to find even a dominant male lion that reaches the 500lb mark. Most are between 400 - 430lbs. The Bengal tiger is clearly bigger and more robust. This is simply undeniable.
@life
You keep saying that lions are specifically built to wrestle down large prey. Which I know their well capable off anyway, HOWEVER, you fail to mention the fact that the tiger is MORE ADAPTED and built for this purpose. Tigers are lone hunters, and specifically, they are true BIG GAME hunters. Numerous studies have shown that tigers deliberately always go after the largest prey available. Thats why Karanth observed that tigers routinely hunted and killed adult gaur.
Recent studies have shown that buffalo made up less than 1% of the lone male lions diet. I already TWICE posted this study to you. The lone lion usually picked smaller prey.
Now, watch this video on how lions choose their prey....
Kevin Richardson puts out a variety of cardboard prey animals, and you'll see when ONE lioness is let out to hunt, she, as expected, goes for the SMALLEST and easiest prey. But when the male lion is let out to join her, they go after the buffalo. This clearly shows that lions have more confidence to tackle large, dangerous prey when they have the strength in numbers.
Here's another perfect example....
The keepers put out a Giraffe pinata, and then let out a big black-maned lion. After SIX minutes, the lion still doesn't approach the Giraffe, then they let out his brother, which then gives him the confidence to attack it. - When they let out the single TIGRESS, she immediately approaches the animal pinata and then after 40 secs, she tears it apart. She showed much more confidence and courage than the male lion, when it comes to attacking or approaching an animal, single-handedly.
Go to the 3:35 mark:
In the tug-of-war challenge, we also see that the male lion is the much lazier animal. The tiger tugs and works for the food, the lion just lays over it and refuses to tug at all. Its a much more lazy mentality.
No other predator on the face of this earth regularly tackles and kills enormous, powerful prey up to 5 - 7 times its own weight, like the tiger does SINGLE-HANDEDLY, fact. When lions hunt large prey, they usually (Not always) hunt cooperatively in groups to subdue and kill large prey such as adult Cape buffalo, especially the bulls. - Also, there's not a single recorded case, ever, of a lone lion killing a healthy prime adult bull buffalo, not one! Whereas even FEMALE tigers hunt and kill massive Bull gaurs, weighing at least a tonne in weight ( 7 times the tigress's own weight )...whereas a lone lion has proven to be absolutely hopeless in a one-on-one predation against a prime Bull buffalo.
I posted this source to you before, which perfectly sums up what I'm saying:
archive.org/details/bigcatskingdomof0000brak
Here's what Colonel Kesri Singh ( Who had personal experience with tigers and lions ) had to say about the tiger as an animal:
archive.org/details/onemanandathousa007524mbp/page/n23?q=one+man+and+a+thousand+tigers
The tiger is the only land-carnivore on earth thats been known to charge and take down a full-grown male Elephant - one-on-one:
www.worldanimalfoundation.net/f/Tiger.pdf
There's also no conclusive evidence at all, which proves that lions have "superior stamina" than tigers. There's many, many accounts throughout history of tigers killing large powerful animals like adult Brown bears, adult elephants, large wild boars, lions, Bull gaurs, water buffaloes etc....after PROLONGED fights. The tiger's stamina didn't let it down on all these occasions. In fact, in most cases, when a prolonged struggle does happen, the tiger is still the usual winner and ends up killing the animal. That says it all.
|
|
mountainlord
Member
Tiger - The Legendary Killer of Brown bears
Posts: 309
|
Post by mountainlord on Dec 8, 2019 19:39:34 GMT 5
Life , so you mean Bengal tigers now average 160 kg? Interesting. Definitely leaning towards the lion now
Its a well known fact now, that Bengal tigers today, are the worlds largest and heaviest felines. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 8, 2019 19:45:37 GMT 5
Life , so you mean Bengal tigers now average 160 kg? Interesting. Definitely leaning towards the lion now
Its a well known fact now, that Bengal tigers today, are the worlds largest and heaviest felines. Didn't Life just give a recent study for it? |
|
smedz
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by smedz on Dec 8, 2019 20:51:19 GMT 5
Bengal tigers average around 220 kg, not 160 kg. Thats ridiculous.
Its a well known fact now, that Bengal tigers today, are the worlds largest and heaviest felines. Didn't Life just give a recent study for it? Check the size comparison I posted. |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 9, 2019 9:16:45 GMT 5
Oh, so you are the only one here who is allowed to call other people fanboys, huh?
The double standards and irony is very strong here. The stuff you cherry pick and deliberately take out of context and misrepresent, proves absolutely nothing. Seems like you have brought no real proof that lions have more stamina than tigers. In the Serengeti, it is still Savannah XD just more cover than it is in in Etosha. It is not a jungle where a tiger lives in. And that is not the reason why the lions were better hunters, it is because they were more individualistic and prefer to work alone. Craig Packer conducted studies in the Serengeti: "Many extant animal species live in social groups, showing plenty of advantages in reproductive efficiency, guard for rest, territorial competition, resisting natural enemies and so on." Your arguments are primarily shaped by a false sense of superiority and attitude. You cannot address any point or perspective in a calm and calculated manner - you continue to insult other members for their views which might contradict your perceptions unfortunately. You go as far as to question intellect of other members while addressing their statements. Problematic portions in your post are highlighted in RED for all to see. These ad hominems will ruin cordial debating environment of this forum, and I cannot allow this trend to gain foothold in WoA - SORRY. If I am wrong about something, I will plainly/openly admit it - I am not like you. Lions have the capacity to stalk prey for a lengthy duration; this notion is reinforced in my post with relevant citations. I haven't drawn a comparison of Lions and Tigers in the endurance aspect due to lack of relevant biomechanical studies. Williams et al (2014) provide some clues: williams.eeb.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Instantaneous-energetics-of-puma-kills-reveal-advantage-of-felid-sneak-attacks-Willams-et-al-2014-Science.pdfSo, saying that you cherry pick, and you accuse others of what you are exactly guilty of (calling people fanboys), is a ad hominem attack? Cherry picking is a normal part of a debate, its not a ad hominem attack. The fact you see it as a ad hominem attack already shows how frustrated you really are, looking at your words in CAPS shows the same.
You still cannot prove lions have more stamina than tigers. Lions and tigers have similar abilities, you guys act as if a lion will be able to fight 5x longer than a tiger or something so it would win, there is no proof that there is any real significant difference in stamina.
Another cherry picked quote, that have nothing to do with lions. You can't apply a generalization to an individual species that we are discussing here, which certainly and clearly does not imply to. Because it is true, that lions stand no chance in a tiger's jungle, because they will not be able to live in groups, or even hunt by themselves. Asiatic lions don't particularly live in jungles but it looks like they are clearly more adapted to living in India than African lions, looking at how they are more agile and more individualistic And talking about living in groups, lions only live in groups for the control of territory which in return is because the scarcity of resources, not because of anything else, as Craig Packer showed to us with his 40+ year long studies he conducted. Here is one about how lions are basically solitary cats who almost forced to live together. If you actually give a shit about lions which you probably don't since you hate the real animal, go take a look at his presentations: Guess what, you surely are not a scientist "lack of temperament? lack of cognitive?" lol, makes no sense what you say. Lack of temperament? How does that have to do with living in groups? Actually tigers are recorded to be very social in the wild, depending on the reserve, in reserves where food is more scarce female tigers are less territorial and help each other more. When prey densities recovered, they became more territorial. Tigers have been seen sharing food in the wild, and families of tigers (including the male) are seen together very frequently. You will never mention of these facts.
Your base argument is "I am right and you are wrong, and anybody who disagrees is a tiger fanboy", especially when you can't even prove anything and just cherry pick. There is simply no debating or discussion to be done with somebody like you with a clear obsession Excuse me? That is not a generalization. That statement is taken from this publication: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118310124 (about Lions) Lions do well in open habitats as well as in forested environments. I believe that African Lions will do well in Indian jungles as well, if shifted there, because COVER help lions in obtaining food. It is premature to argue that Tigers will prevent Lions from establishing a foothold in Indian jungles. Tigers have not displaced Leopards in Indian jungles, Lions are on another level in comparison in terms of offering competition. A lone Lion stand a chance against a lone Tiger in a potential bout let alone a whole PRIDE of Lions. Every mammal is social to an extent - this is not a big deal. Tigers are expected to be social (how will they reproduce and take care of their young otherwise?) but they are not social on the level of Lions and they are unlikely to formulate PRIDES in open habitats anytime soon. High level of sociability does not materialize out of the blue but is shaped by environmental pressures - very slow and long-term GAME. Sugarcoating 'normal behavior' does not make for a compelling argument. FYI: Lions, the world's second largest and only social felid, are primarily known for their brute strength. The average weight of an adult male can range between 180 and 225 kg (mean 190 kg), whereas the females average approximately 128 kg (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005). Although not the fastest land animal (reaching speeds of up to 70 km/h during short sprints), lions are known as fierce killers and can easily take down animals their own size. The female lions are the primary hunters whereas the males rarely aid in killing prey, but conserve themselves to defend the pride against other male lions. Lion physiology is designed to allow stalking prey for long periods of time, whereafter a short chase ensues. When hunting as a pride, female lions can take down zebra (±300 kg), buffalo (±600 kg), eland (±1000 kg) and female elephants (±4000 kg). This characteristic is largely a result of their ability to work together as a group rather than that of individual muscle strength. However, being physically fit is a requirement to stay part of the pride (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005). - Kohn et al (2011) Perhaps you need to revisit your benchmark for evaluating SOCIALIBILITY. Otherwise, how about making a case for sociability of sharks even? Sharks are also social animals - some noticeably more so than others. --- MODERATION ALERTI have deleted 3 of your posts in this thread alone because you make extensive use of ad hominems and continue to adopt insulting tone towards me even though your points are being adequately addressed. Does it occur to you why [only] you are being singled out from among all members here? I do not know you in person and I do not hold any form of grudge against you in person. You are allowed to critic my views without insulting me or questioning my intellect, or that of any member here. However, you have a false sense of superiority and your posting ethics are highly problematic. I allow all members to express their views in WoA including notable Tiger fans such as @mountainlion. At the least, HE is passionate in his argument-formation and have opened informative threads here in WoA. YOU on the other hand... You are taking my leniency for granted now. I will not put up with your insulting behavior for long. Consider this my 2ND WARNING to you. Learn how to address an argument without insulting or verbally assaulting someone. I do not recall when was the last time I moderated posts of a member in this forum - this is the level of my leniency. However, you are the FIRST in my RADAR in a long long time. This says a lot about you actually.
"Excuse me? That is not a generalization." Yes it was a generalization. You can read it again, and it says exactly what it is trying to say: "Many extant animal species live in social groups, showing plenty of advantages in reproductive efficiency, guard for rest, territorial competition, resisting natural enemies and so on."
Such a generalization of animals who live in social groups, proves nothing when it comes to what we are trying to discuss here.
Tigers have displaced Leopards in Indian jungles actually.
"Leopards are clearly socially dominated by tigers. and excluded from prime tiger areas as reported from Chitwan and Kanha meadows. ln Nagarahole. l have observed tigers chase leopards up trees."
"Leopards are socially subordinate to tigers and generally avoid encounters with the larger cats."
More stuff.
"Tigers are expected to be social (how will they reproduce and take care of their young otherwise?) but they are not social on the level of Lions and they are unlikely to formulate PRIDES in open habitats anytime soon." Once again, you have no proof for this. I have already showed how social tigers can be under pressure. Sunquist (biologist) even believed that tigers can live in groups in open habitats. Female tigers form family clusters like lionesses do, except they are not in groups. Who says they cannot easily adapt?
Don't doubt any animal's (especially a cat's) adaptability.
|
|
