|
|
Post by sam1 on Nov 27, 2019 22:11:08 GMT 5
"No terrestrial predator stand a chance against an experienced adult lion (male) in a fight; only an adult elephant or giraffe might manage to escape due to sheer size factor."
Sorry but this still remains by far the most outlandish and biased statement posted in this whole topic.
It is very specific so it can't be taken in any other but literal sense.
Sounds like something straight out of the biggest lions fanboys on yt.
The most formidable and powerful terrestrial predators belong to brown(Kodiak, Kamchatkan) and polar bear species.
A 600kg bear > 250kg lion, period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Nov 27, 2019 22:33:47 GMT 5
"No terrestrial predator stand a chance against an experienced adult lion (male) in a fight; only an adult elephant or giraffe might manage to escape due to sheer size factor." Sorry but this still remains by far the most outlandish and biased statement posted in this whole topic. It is very specific so it can't be taken in any other but literal sense. Sounds like something straight out of the biggest lions fanboys on yt. The most formidable and powerful terrestrial predators belong to brown(Kodiak, Kamchatkan) and polar bear species. A 600kg bear > 250kg lion, period. The most outlandish claim in this thread is that a lone tiger can kill a healthy adult elephant, and have. I know from documented evidence that this is a challenging task for an entire pride of lions, let alone a lone tiger. Is Tiger a freaking Tyrannosaurus rex now? Male lions are among the strongest predators in existence (a healthy male lion have sufficient strength to outwrestle an animal larger than itself to the ground, although it have limitations in this capacity). I have never seen another predator dominating a male lion in natural habitats - not even a pack of hyenas. But I have posted evidence of a Tiger being on the receiving end from a lone bear in the wild. Lions are known to wear other animals down in a sustained chase if they have to, and they are at the top of the food chain whereever they exist due to numerous factors including intelligence. Eloquently put: As a rule, lions rule supreme, both by virtue of their sheer physical strength, and because of the co-ordinated power of the lion pride. Through cooperative hunting efforts, lions are essentially the only predators capable of taking prey up to the size of Cape buffalo, hippos, giraffe, and even sub-adult elephants. It is a myth that only females can hunt - male lions are in fact very successful hunters, but they avoid it as far as possible as they must conserve energy to defend their territories. Typically, females do most hunting but are displaced from the kill by pride males; once the males are satiated, the females will feed, and cubs eat last.Link: www.classicafrica.com/Content/Predator_Hierarchy.aspAnd you clearly missed this statement: "Nevertheless, if I have misjudged strength of a male lion, I am open to evidence to the contrary. I am not egotistical about these matters."Selective judgement much? If you think that those bears are relatively stronger, be my guest. However, when I am trying to talk sense into a member, you (or any member) should not interject unless you want to make excuses for irrational judgements of a member on a consistent basis. Stay clear from the path of moderation. Nobody have infallible judgement but difference is that some are open to reason and some are not. If I allow fandom to flourish here then this forum will never have a constructive debating environment - debates will turn into an exchange of insults more often. If a member is openly insulting me in a debate in this very thread due to disagreements over credibility of cited sources, how will he treat others here? Sources wise; scientific publications + documented evidence > accounts. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 27, 2019 23:31:11 GMT 5
LifeThis may interest you; IIRC lions are capable of killing adult giraffes solo (lionesses too!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Nov 27, 2019 23:35:34 GMT 5
LifeThis may interest you; IIRC lions are capable of killing adult giraffes solo (lionesses too!) Give me the dirty details [smirk]... |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 27, 2019 23:39:59 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 28, 2019 3:27:58 GMT 5
LifeWell to be fair, lions don't coexist with any terrestrial predator their own size or larger, unlike tigers which coexist with brown bears. So there is little opportunity for them to get dominated by anything. Except potentially crocodiles, but the two have effective habitat partitioning and most interactions I have seen aren't really conclusive. Of course historically lions too have coexisted with bears as well as tigers, and of course there are accounts of more or less relevant staged interactions, some of which favour the tiger and othera the lion, just like there are interactions between tigers and bears that go either way.
|
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Nov 28, 2019 5:45:40 GMT 5
No no, you specifically said that Vaillants book had "touches of FICTION" in it, so tell me, where? Show me one example where Vaillant added even a slight bit of fiction? And yes, Vaillants book is a written documentary. Everything he stated was based off first hand testimonies from the experts he interviewed. Biologists like Dale Miquelle and George Schaller read it, loved it and thought it was a fabulous book and very informative. Vaillant never exaggerated anything. For you to claim that he added even a "touch" of fiction is a bold statement and you have to back that up with actual proof. You can't just accuse reputable authors of such things, period. Do you understand what a scientific work is? John Vaillant's book The Tiger is his ACCOUNT of a Tiger being responsible for killing two men in a remote part of Russia - a STORY. Whatever information he managed to collect in relation to these killings, he did not make this information public (a requirement of scientific works), and did not choose to write a scientific paper to be published in a journal - he decided to tell a story instead. When YOU are telling a story, you tend to take CREATIVE LIBERTIES in it in order to make it more interesting for potential readers (touches of fiction involved) - YOU do not have to adopt a critical lens to scrutinize information at hand and neither you have to conform to scientific dictums. Following are good reviews of the book: 1) www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/books/review/Lewine-t.html2) www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/books/the-tiger-john-vaillants-mesmerizing-tale-of-a-man-eating-tiger-vengeance-and-survival/If you think that Vaillant's ACCOUNT does not have touches of fiction in it and can be taken at face value like a genuine scientific work, then request him to disclose his materials for independent verification and scrutiny. Qualitative research is different:  Nobody claimed that Vaillant's work is scientific, but it is real  And is obviously of value, I guess, fortunately for you. Leading experts take Vaillant more seriously than Mr. Fanboy "Life" on here who claims to be a scientist, just like I am a scientist too  Your views are SUBJECTIVE. I clearly highlighted a scientific work in relation to evaluating intelligence of lions and tigers from a group of biologists, and you are choosing to dismiss it because it does not conform to your biased worldview which is heavily shaped by John Vaillant's ACCOUNT among others. As of Tiger fandom is not a thing... Solid research with sound reasoning: "They can solve puzzles that solitary leopards and tigers can’t—evidence that sociality promotes high-level cognition"The social intelligence hypothesis posits that having to navigate a complex communal life, which involves challenges such as keeping track of who is a friend and who is an enemy, has pushed group-living animals to evolve the mental machinery required to solve and remember mental tasks such as the box puzzle. In other words, social complexity leads to cognitive complexity.Researchers have long explored this idea by observing animals such as chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants, but biologist Natalia Borrego of South Africa's University of KwaZulu-Natal focuses on big cats. “You have a lot of closely related species with these diverse ecological challenges and different social systems,” she says. Borrego and her team presented the rope challenge to 12 captive lions at Florida's Lion Country Safari. Eleven of them successfully solved it: seven on their own and four after watching another lion do it. Ten of the 11 recalled the solution five to seven months later. The results were recently published in the journal Animal Cognition. “That they remember what they've learned isn't terribly surprising,” says Oakland University cognitive psychologist Jennifer Vonk, who studies cognition in bears. But she finds the social facilitation—the fact that some individuals figured it out after being paired with another lion—particularly exciting. “We don't always see those kinds of effects—even in primates,” she adds. In a follow-up experiment using a similar conceptual puzzle, lions outperformed leopards and tigers (which are both solitary big cats)— more evidence for the social intelligence hypothesis. But Borrego acknowledges that habitat and diet could also be factors in cognitive evolution. “The evolution of cognitive complexity is itself complex,” she says.LINK: www.scientificamerican.com/article/lions-are-the-brainiest-of-the-big-cats/Actual publication: dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6676324Scientific experiments clearly show which animals are smarter than the others. This is why mere ACCOUNTS are not as credible because theoretical underpinnigs are unclear. You focus entirely on ACCOUNTS of individuals who have worked with Tigers but offer nothing scientific here. This is why I advised you to exercise CAUTION in your judgement. Actually your "scientific experiment" is terrible science, and the author made so many mistakes on it. I'm not going to go in depth now because this is clearly not the thread for this, but what is weird is that the articles and stuff that reported the study (not the official research paper), completely misquoted the study. The original study even says the lions were NOT more exploratory than the solitary big cats. She then mentions the only reason the lions were able to open the boxes more, is because they simply were more interested in the boxes:
"Additionally, within Panthera, we did not observe a link between sociality and exploration. Although lions displayed the greatest exploratory diversity, they did not significantly differ from tigers and leopards (Fig. 4). In agreement with findings in other species, sociality was linked to lowered neophobia but not to exploratory behaviour"
"As expected, successful individuals spent a significantly higher proportion of time actively working on the puzzle-box. Once again, our overall statistical hypothesis, that innovative problem solving differs among species, was supported, and we observed a significant difference persistence among species. Social species spent the greatest proportion of time working on the puzzle-box."
What, so because tigers don't care about opening a box, means they are less intelligent? Hilarious. Not just that, but I actually have evidence from Borrego herself. She performed the study on the tigers at Big Cat Rescue, and Big Cat Rescue posted videos of this and of course Borrego is in it.
She states here the tiger were slow and relaxed during the study: The study said they did not feed the animals 24 hours before the test, however clearly that made no difference. Tigers in captivity are very docile animals, and wouldn't have any motivation to open any boxes that they wouldn't have to, when they can just go to the zoo keeper and chuff at them. As seen in this test trial, when the tiger did not care about the box and just walked to the zoo keepers:
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. You see something here? Why did Borrego never mention this in her study? She just shrugged it off, really weird for her to do that. She would at least mention this in the study and bring it up, but she didn't.
Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated. Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
This is another intelligence study, with test trials. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
The tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box. You telling me this wouldn't also be the case with Borrego?
Staged Lion versus Tiger scenarios are largely inconclusive and not reliable. I am more interested in natural developments and behavioral patterns. Tiger's approach is to invest a great deal of its strength in the initial killing blow - if this does not work then a Tiger is in for a lengthy fight (possibility of injuries increase manifold) and this does not bode well for a solitary hunting lifestyle. Lion will be patient and wear its enemy down on the other hand. Nevertheless, if I have misjudged strength of a male lion, I am open to evidence to the contrary. I am not egotistical about these matters. NOW THIS: YOUR NEXT RESPONSE TO ME SHOULD BE CAREFULLY ARTICULATED. You better control your ego while addressing others here. lol, what are you even saying here? Its not good, to make too accurate analysis, based off little evidence like that. Its very different in the real world and life is not black and white. Lions will be patient, I dont think so, lions go all in on fights, whereas tigers take hours to even start an all out fight in the wild. And I'm not sure how an animal investing a "great deal of its strength in the initial killing blow" even means, or how that would even play out in the real world, I'll just pretend that is just a fanboy's fantasy, no different to mountainlord. "No terrestrial predator stand a chance against an experienced adult lion (male) in a fight; only an adult elephant or giraffe might manage to escape due to sheer size factor." Sorry but this still remains by far the most outlandish and biased statement posted in this whole topic. It is very specific so it can't be taken in any other but literal sense. Sounds like something straight out of the biggest lions fanboys on yt. The most formidable and powerful terrestrial predators belong to brown(Kodiak, Kamchatkan) and polar bear species. A 600kg bear > 250kg lion, period. The most outlandish claim in this thread is that a lone tiger can kill a healthy adult elephant, and have. I know from documented evidence that this is a challenging task for an entire pride of lions, let alone a lone tiger. Is Tiger a freaking Tyrannosaurus rex now? Male lions are among the strongest predators in existence (a healthy male lion have sufficient strength to outwrestle an animal larger than itself to the ground, although it have limitations in this capacity). I have never seen another predator dominating a male lion in natural habitats - not even a pack of hyenas. But I have posted evidence of a Tiger being on the receiving end from a lone bear in the wild. Lions are known to wear other animals down in a sustained chase if they have to, and they are at the top of the food chain whereever they exist due to numerous factors including intelligence. Eloquently put: As a rule, lions rule supreme, both by virtue of their sheer physical strength, and because of the co-ordinated power of the lion pride. Through cooperative hunting efforts, lions are essentially the only predators capable of taking prey up to the size of Cape buffalo, hippos, giraffe, and even sub-adult elephants. It is a myth that only females can hunt - male lions are in fact very successful hunters, but they avoid it as far as possible as they must conserve energy to defend their territories. Typically, females do most hunting but are displaced from the kill by pride males; once the males are satiated, the females will feed, and cubs eat last.Link: www.classicafrica.com/Content/Predator_Hierarchy.aspAnd you clearly missed this statement: "Nevertheless, if I have misjudged strength of a male lion, I am open to evidence to the contrary. I am not egotistical about these matters."Selective judgement much? If you think that those bears are relatively stronger, be my guest. However, when I am trying to talk sense into a member, you (or any member) should not interject unless you want to make excuses for irrational judgements of a member on a consistent basis. Stay clear from the path of moderation. Nobody have infallible judgement but difference is that some are open to reason and some are not. If I allow fandom to flourish here then this forum will never have a constructive debating environment - debates will turn into an exchange of insults more often. If a member is openly insulting me in a debate in this very thread due to disagreements over credibility of cited sources, how will he treat others here? Sources wise; scientific publications + documented evidence > accounts. Male lions are among the strongest predators in existence? So are male tigers. You make zero real point here. I don't see tigers living in Africa competing lions.. oh, and, 5 Hyenas might do the job in terms of killing a male lion.
Your cherry picking sources don't really impress anybody In India, in the jungles, lions may very well not be able to even live in groups. Lions rule supreme where they live only. |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Nov 28, 2019 9:55:30 GMT 5
Nobody claimed that Vaillant's work is scientific, but it is real And is obviously of value, I guess, fortunately for you. Leading experts take Vaillant more seriously than Mr. Fanboy "Life" on here who claims to be a scientist, just like I am a scientist too Tiger fandom consider it a scientific work because Vaillant collected data beforehand but it is actually his ACCOUNT of an event in Russia. Yes, I can see this book of being of value to Tiger fans, but to advance it like an infallible piece of writing is plainly ill-advised. Those who take the book seriously, are of least concern to me. I simply pointed out the difference between an ACCOUNT and a genuine scientific work. ACCOUNTS can be very subjective fortunately or unfortunately. I haven't chosen to write a book about Tigers so those leading experts will not notice me. Your ad hominem is duly noted though. Perhaps your should consider taking a look at RULES of this forum? Actually your "scientific experiment" is terrible science, and the author made so many mistakes on it. I'm not going to go in depth now because this is clearly not the thread for this, but what is weird is that the articles and stuff that reported the study (not the official research paper), completely misquoted the study. The original study even says the lions were NOT more exploratory than the solitary big cats. She then mentions the only reason the lions were able to open the boxes more, is because they simply were more interested in the boxes:
"Additionally, within Panthera, we did not observe a link between sociality and exploration. Although lions displayed the greatest exploratory diversity, they did not significantly differ from tigers and leopards (Fig. 4). In agreement with findings in other species, sociality was linked to lowered neophobia but not to exploratory behaviour"
"As expected, successful individuals spent a significantly higher proportion of time actively working on the puzzle-box. Once again, our overall statistical hypothesis, that innovative problem solving differs among species, was supported, and we observed a significant difference persistence among species. Social species spent the greatest proportion of time working on the puzzle-box."
What, so because tigers don't care about opening a box, means they are less intelligent? Hilarious. Not just that, but I actually have evidence from Borrego herself. She performed the study on the tigers at Big Cat Rescue, and Big Cat Rescue posted videos of this and of course Borrego is in it.
She states here the tiger were slow and relaxed during the study: The study said they did not feed the animals 24 hours before the test, however clearly that made no difference. Tigers in captivity are very docile animals, and wouldn't have any motivation to open any boxes that they wouldn't have to, when they can just go to the zoo keeper and chuff at them. As seen in this test trial, when the tiger did not care about the box and just walked to the zoo keepers:
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. You see something here? Why did Borrego never mention this in her study? She just shrugged it off, really weird for her to do that. She would at least mention this in the study and bring it up, but she didn't.
Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated. Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
This is another intelligence study, with test trials. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
The tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box. You telling me this wouldn't also be the case with Borrego?
No scientific work is TERRIBLE actually. Of-course, animals are unlikely to try to open a box unless they feel motivated enough to do so. However, the experiment in question wasn't just about opening a box but that hyenas and lions managed to open it with a higher degree of precision than solitary cats on average, indicating a higher degree of skills and cognitive potential due to having a social lifestyle. Content that is available for independent viewership and scrutiny. An experiment is still better than Vaillant's ACCOUNT of smartness of a Tiger which managed to kill two men in a remote part of Russia. WE need access to his data to critically evaluate his ACCOUNT in this respect, or an independent research. However, if you think that this research is inconclusive, you are welcome to conduct your own since you claim to be a scientist as well. NOW;My point was to show something scientific in regards to assessing intelligence of a Tiger in this debate, not just Vaillant's ACCOUNT. Is this too hard to understand? Although, members are FREE to share ACCOUNTS, this forum value scientific approach over ACCOUNTS. FYI: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/19/reliability-informationStagedlol, what are you even saying here? Its not good, to make too accurate analysis, based off little evidence like that. Its very different in the real world and life is not black and white. Lions will be patient, I dont think so, lions go all in on fights, whereas tigers take hours to even start an all out fight in the wild. And I'm not sure how an animal investing a "great deal of its strength in the initial killing blow" even means, or how that would even play out in the real world, I'll just pretend that is just a fanboy's fantasy, no different to mountainlord. My statement wasn't directed towards you unless you are a SOCK of that member? Are you? Lions are patient - very patient. They have mastered the art of wearing other animals down; they are known to a chase a herd for HOURS. I do not have to support every statement of mine with clear evidence to convince a potential reader. If I have written something, it is based on a set-of-observations. You do your homework.
No need to lecture me about things not being so black and white. Animals learn from their experiences obviously but being social helps in this matter.
Male lions are among the strongest predators in existence? So are male tigers. You make zero real point here. I don't see tigers living in Africa competing lions.. oh, and, 5 Hyenas might do the job in terms of killing a male lion. Your cherry picking sources don't really impress anybody In India, in the jungles, lions may very well not be able to even live in groups. Lions rule supreme where they live only. Lion vs Bear scenario: Lion (male) not just have the strength to take on other large predators, but they can handle extremely tough situations due to being social: Lions are even known to kill cubs of hyenas in front of their mothers and get away with it. Lions will remain at the top of the food chain even if YOU introduce Tigers in Africa. Lion's strength, intelligence and lifestyle.... I wonder how solitary Tigers will cope with pressures of hyenas, let alone a pride of Lions. Tigers will fall in line much like Cheetah and Leopards. |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Nov 28, 2019 12:07:38 GMT 5
Nobody claimed that Vaillant's work is scientific, but it is real And is obviously of value, I guess, fortunately for you. Leading experts take Vaillant more seriously than Mr. Fanboy "Life" on here who claims to be a scientist, just like I am a scientist too Tiger fandom consider it a scientific work because Vaillant collected data beforehand but it is actually his ACCOUNT of an event in Russia. Yes, I can see this book of being of value to Tiger fans, but to advance it like an infallible piece of writing is plainly ill-advised. Those who take the book seriously, are of least concern to me. I simply pointed out the difference between an ACCOUNT and a genuine scientific work. ACCOUNTS can be very subjective fortunately or unfortunately. I haven't chosen to write a book about Tigers so those leading experts will not notice me. Your ad hominem is duly noted though. Perhaps your should consider taking a look at RULES of this forum? Writing a book about tigers wouldn't make anybody notice you. Vaillant went out to Russia and spent many years of his life talking to people in the know that live in mother Russia close to these animals. I never considered it a scientific work.
Ad hominem, I did not make any ad hominem attacks. Your level of competency and expertise simply doesn't match an expert like Dale Miqeulle or however the hell you spell his name, who takes this Tiger Fandom source seriously. I'm very sorry if that might offend you, we might just have to agree to disagree, and maybe ban me too.
Actually your "scientific experiment" is terrible science, and the author made so many mistakes on it. I'm not going to go in depth now because this is clearly not the thread for this, but what is weird is that the articles and stuff that reported the study (not the official research paper), completely misquoted the study. The original study even says the lions were NOT more exploratory than the solitary big cats. She then mentions the only reason the lions were able to open the boxes more, is because they simply were more interested in the boxes:
"Additionally, within Panthera, we did not observe a link between sociality and exploration. Although lions displayed the greatest exploratory diversity, they did not significantly differ from tigers and leopards (Fig. 4). In agreement with findings in other species, sociality was linked to lowered neophobia but not to exploratory behaviour"
"As expected, successful individuals spent a significantly higher proportion of time actively working on the puzzle-box. Once again, our overall statistical hypothesis, that innovative problem solving differs among species, was supported, and we observed a significant difference persistence among species. Social species spent the greatest proportion of time working on the puzzle-box."
What, so because tigers don't care about opening a box, means they are less intelligent? Hilarious. Not just that, but I actually have evidence from Borrego herself. She performed the study on the tigers at Big Cat Rescue, and Big Cat Rescue posted videos of this and of course Borrego is in it.
She states here the tiger were slow and relaxed during the study: The study said they did not feed the animals 24 hours before the test, however clearly that made no difference. Tigers in captivity are very docile animals, and wouldn't have any motivation to open any boxes that they wouldn't have to, when they can just go to the zoo keeper and chuff at them. As seen in this test trial, when the tiger did not care about the box and just walked to the zoo keepers:
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. You see something here? Why did Borrego never mention this in her study? She just shrugged it off, really weird for her to do that. She would at least mention this in the study and bring it up, but she didn't.
Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated. Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
This is another intelligence study, with test trials. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
The tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box. You telling me this wouldn't also be the case with Borrego?
No scientific work is TERRIBLE actually. Of-course, animals are unlikely to try to open a box unless they feel motivated enough to do so. However, the experiment in question wasn't just about opening a box but that hyenas and lions managed to open it with a higher degree of precision than solitary cats on average, indicating a higher degree of skills and cognitive potential due to having a social lifestyle. Content that is available for independent viewership and scrutiny. An experiment is still better than Vaillant's ACCOUNT of smartness of a Tiger which managed to kill two men in a remote part of Russia. WE need access to his data to critically evaluate his ACCOUNT in this respect, or an independent research. However, if you think that this research is inconclusive, you are welcome to conduct your own since you claim to be a scientist as well. NOW;My point was to show something scientific in regards to assessing intelligence of a Tiger in this debate, not just Vaillant's ACCOUNT. Is this too hard to understand? Although, members are FREE to share ACCOUNTS, this forum value scientific approach over ACCOUNTS. FYI: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/19/reliability-informationYou are right, I shouldn't have said terrible. Maybe I should have said inconclusive.
Yes, the experiment was about opening the boxes, which is exactly what you said which is literally the same thing, aka "hyenas and lions managed to open it [the fukin' boxes!] with a higher degree of precision than solitary cats on average", literally the same exact thing. The study did not prove that at all. Just because a tiger doesn't want to open a box doesn't make it less intelligent, certainly. I already showed the statements from Borrego about why the conclusions were that the lions were "smarter".. because they were more "persistent" than solitary cats, however that pertains to cognitive abilities.
Vaillant's account wasn't about the intelligence of a tiger, was it? The tiger being intelligent was our interpretation of the tigers behavior. The tiger was very vengeful, you can say, this is not the only known case of tigers holding a grudge against a certain individual animal. One could argue that is intelligence.
Stagedlol, what are you even saying here? Its not good, to make too accurate analysis, based off little evidence like that. Its very different in the real world and life is not black and white. Lions will be patient, I dont think so, lions go all in on fights, whereas tigers take hours to even start an all out fight in the wild. And I'm not sure how an animal investing a "great deal of its strength in the initial killing blow" even means, or how that would even play out in the real world, I'll just pretend that is just a fanboy's fantasy, no different to mountainlord. My statement wasn't directed towards you unless you are a SOCK of that member? Are you? Lions are patient - very patient. They have mastered the art of wearing other animals down; they are known to a chase a herd for HOURS. I do not have to support every statement of mine with clear evidence to convince a potential reader. If I have written something, it is based on a set-of-observations. You do your homework.
No need to lecture me about things not being so black and white. Animals learn from their experiences obviously but being social helps in this matter. Who says it was? I was responding to what you said about the animals. Oh, it looks like somebody (you) is using ACCOUNTS as evidence, is that the case here? If lions are patient, tigers are even more patient than lions. Plus fighting is not chasing herds either. All predators are selective on what prey they catch. I have read accounts on that too. Honestly, you can't really prove anything here. Male lions are among the strongest predators in existence? So are male tigers. You make zero real point here. I don't see tigers living in Africa competing lions.. oh, and, 5 Hyenas might do the job in terms of killing a male lion. Your cherry picking sources don't really impress anybody In India, in the jungles, lions may very well not be able to even live in groups. Lions rule supreme where they live only. Lion vs Bear scenario: Lion (male) not just have the strength to take on other large predators, but they can handle extremely tough situations due to being social: Lions are even known to kill cubs of hyenas in front of their mothers and get away with it. Lions will remain at the top of the food chain even if YOU introduce Tigers in Africa. Lion's strength, intelligence and lifestyle.... I wonder how solitary Tigers will cope with pressures of hyenas, let alone a pride of Lions. Tigers will fall in line much like Cheetah and Leopards.
Uh, what?
Idk why, but that transition to a fairly respectable guy to sounding like a typical fanboy in the youtube comment section is very strange. The first video was a tiny bear, and the 2nd and 3rd video are not even impressive because the first 2 aren't even real fights where they are trying to kill each other. Just a lion trying to get hyenas to back off. And the third video was a lion killing a tiny ass hyena and standing up to an animal less than half of its size. Wow, so impressive. I think I can do that with my bare hands too
And however that has to do with being "social". Lions stand no chance living in the jungles of India, they would probably starve to death, let alone be killed by tigers picking them off. Lions wouldn't be able to live in prides because its too inefficient. Africa is not where tigers are evolved to live in buddy, why even mention this? They are both evolved to live in their own habitats. And the lion's strength would be about equal with the tiger, most sources and info says tigers are smarter. Life style, like I said, neither are stronger, better, etc.. just different, evolved to their own habitats.
You not making any point |
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Nov 28, 2019 14:19:44 GMT 5
Life Well to be fair, lions don't coexist with any terrestrial predator their own size or larger, unlike tigers which coexist with brown bears. So there is little opportunity for them to get dominated by anything. Except potentially crocodiles, but the two have effective habitat partitioning and most interactions I have seen aren't really conclusive. One of the infamous Mapogo males was killed by a nile crocodile while drinking and in the company of his brothers. One of the rollercoaster males was also killed by a crocodile. |
|
mountainlord
Member
Tiger - The Legendary Killer of Brown bears
Posts: 309
|
Post by mountainlord on Nov 28, 2019 20:08:34 GMT 5
Life
I seriously don't know who you think you are. You claim your a "researcher" and "scientist"....In what? What have you contributed to the scientific community? What real scientists and experts even know of you?
And again, you completely FAILED to provide just a shred of evidence that shows Vaillant added some "fiction" in his book. All you did, as always, is give your assumptions, nothing but assumptions. That don't work in the real world, especially when you make bold outlandish claims like you did. You lied.
Here's a video of Vaillant talking about his book - And he says in his job, he's not allowed to lie because one single lie can destroy his career:
For the millionth time, John Vaillant went to the Russian Far East and PERSONALLY interviewed various experts and Russian authorities. Literally everything he wrote in his book was based off first hand testimonies and evidence told to him by all these experts. Even natives, hunters, forest rangers and locals.
You rambling on about "scientific journals and papers" is completely irrelevant because Vaillant wrote a book, telling a 100% factual story that happened. He's not a scientist, so he has no interest in writing a scientific paper. These are sad attempts from you, period.
LOL, "mere accounts"....So accounts told to him first-hand by the leading authorities in the field, specialists and professional investigators are just "mere accounts" to you? Is this your reality? How sad.
Whats this got to do with anything where talking about? It also proves nothing, as there's MANY accounts of tigers whooping and killing adult Brown bears, sloth bears and black bears in face-to-face fights anyway. That was a one-off exceptional case. I already showed you a video of a tiger that destroys a female sloth bear in seconds!
He did make it public, he wrote a damn book! - VARIOUS renowned biologists/experts read it, like George Schaller, Dale Miquelle, John Goodrich etc....and all thought that it was an excellent and very informative book.
The funny thing is, you haven't even read Vaillants book, and you still talk all this nonsense about it. Go read it before commenting on it.
LION AND TIGER INTELLIGENCE:
The video you posted was far from compelling. Just cherry-picked stuff. This is exactly why the tiger is more intelligent than the lion....
1) Tigers have a 16 - 18% bigger brain than lions.
2) Tigers have clearly shown their capable of ABSTRACT THINKING, can apply it to a source or being and react accordingly.
3) They have, in numerous cases, carried out premeditated attacks and killings, which NO LION has ever been shown to do.
4) Numerous animal trainers/big cat handlers have stated from experience and observations that the tiger is more intelligent than the lion. Antle Bhavagan stated that tigers figure out problems much quicker than lions and have more focus. Famous big cat trainer Pat Anthony stated that the lion has a "one track mind" whereas the tiger is cleverer and can think. Even Clyde Beatty (The Lionfan god) said that his tigers were the brainiest and most intelligent of all his big cats. They were also great escape artists.
You have presented nothing compelling that even comes close to proving lions are more intelligent than tigers, at all.
No, you should exercise caution in YOUR judgement because you ignorantly dispute CONFIRMED accounts reported by the actual REAL experts and authorities.
FACE PALM!! - Accounts of tigers killing adult elephants and Rhinos have been VERIFIED and confirmed by forest officials, deputy directors, biologists, park rangers, field directors and the forest veterinarians who carried out post-mortems to conclude what happened.
Seriously, what more "hard evidence" do you want? These are all CONFIRMED reports, documented and reported even in the news!
And what about all the elephants that have been shown to have a BLATANT FEAR of tigers? Why do you ignore all that evidence?
Numerous scientific studies have shown that even ROGUE Elephant herds (Even aggressive bulls) will immediately flee from an entire area, just from hearing the sound of tiger growls!
You can read all those studies/experiments in this thread here, as well the CONFIRMED cases of tigers killing adult elephants/Rhinos:
www.tapatalk.com/groups/animalfightclub/tiger-kills-adult-elephants-and-rhino-accounts-t99.html
Even a world respected biologist like Dr Mel Sunquist stated that tigers are capable of killing adult elephants and Rhinos, and you still ignorantly disputed it. These people are a MILLION times more qualified than you when it comes to this subject, period. You have no legs to stand on here.
Yes, this is a GROSS EXAGGERATION. Male lions are very strong cats, but the tiger is STRONGER, so is a Kodiak bear and Polar bear!
And you very clearly outright stated that "no terrestrial animal stands a chance in a FIGHT" against a male lion. Thats a joke. A completely outlandish claim.
And what about all the large animals that tigers wrestle to the ground? Tigers take down the worlds LARGEST and STRONGEST wild bovines. The Gaur and wild water buffalo. Even female tigers take the huge bulls of these bovines down, which can be seven times their own weight.
On a solitary basis, the tiger takes down FAR LARGER and more dangerous prey than any lion. Recent SCIENTIFIC studies have shown that buffalo literally made up less than 1% of the lone male lions diet.
www.sanparks.org/assets/docs/conservation/scientific_new/savanna/ssnm2015/lion-hunting-and-vegetation-structure.pdf
When lions hunt large, dangerous prey, this is PREDOMINANTLY done cooperatively. - Teamwork. The tiger takes down larger prey single-handedly, thats a big, big difference. For these reasons, the tiger has to be the larger, stronger and more powerful cat, period. And thats why tigers have even larger canines/claws!
Here, read this carefully...This basically refutes your claims about lions:
archive.org/details/bigcatskingdomof0000brak
No other land predator on the face of this earth routinely 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 mostly hunt cooperatively in groups to subdue and kill large prey such as adult Cape buffalo, especially the bulls. - Also, there's not a single verified 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 full-grown Bull buffalo.
Tigers possess almost every single physical advantage over lions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Nov 28, 2019 20:10:51 GMT 5
Writing a book about tigers wouldn't make anybody notice you. Vaillant went out to Russia and spent many years of his life talking to people in the know that live in mother Russia close to these animals. I never considered it a scientific work. Ad hominem, I did not make any ad hominem attacks. Your level of competency and expertise simply doesn't match an expert like Dale Miqeulle or however the hell you spell his name, who takes this Tiger Fandom source seriously. I'm very sorry if that might offend you, we might just have to agree to disagree, and maybe ban me too. John Vaillant is a journalist - journalists are known to travel to foreign locations to investigate events of interest. He was doing his job and wrote a book - nothing extraordinary. Now, I am not questioning his hardwork - he did a splendid job. My point is that his ACCOUNT (The Tiger) is based on true events but it is technically NARRATIVE. NARRATIVE = a spoken or written account of connected events; a story. Narrative is PERSONAL (SUBJECTIVE). WE do not have access to data collected by Vaillant for his work to examine independently so WE do not really know how accurate his interpretation of the events is. Now, book authors exercise Creative Liberties to create a compelling story for potential readers; verbatim descriptions of real events do not necessarily make for a compelling story. I am simply pointing out what type of work The Tiger is. Why this argument started? LINK 1: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/50721/threadThe member mountainlord is of this view: "For the last time, the John Vaillant book is a 100% FACTUAL book based on true events that happened in 1997. Even biologists like Dale Miquelle read his book and said it was great and very informative."No! NARRATIVE is never 100% factual, rather subjective. Based on true events does not imply that your retelling of them is 100% FACTUAL. A biologist might appreciate this kind of work - this does not make it 100% factual either. This is exceedingly bold claim. Therefore, I advice CAUTION in assessing ACCOUNTS of any individual. This is all. As for banning, I do not ban members unless they violate established rules of the forum. Even then, I exercise maximum restraint. I do not tolerate insulting behavior however. Some of the new members here haven't studied the rules of this forum - they think that they can insult anybody here and get away with it. No! WoA is different from typical forums out there. I do not have an issue with a member expressing his views, but I do have an issue with LABELING and INSULTING others. If both of us cannot reach an understanding in a debate - no issue. However, if you call me names and try to insult me for my views, you will be taken to the task. Here in WoA, you will have to respect others and their views. Very straightforward. You are right, I shouldn't have said terrible. Maybe I should have said inconclusive. Yes, the experiment was about opening the boxes, which is exactly what you said which is literally the same thing, aka "hyenas and lions managed to open it [the fukin' boxes!] with a higher degree of precision than solitary cats on average", literally the same exact thing. The study did not prove that at all. Just because a tiger doesn't want to open a box doesn't make it less intelligent, certainly. I already showed the statements from Borrego about why the conclusions were that the lions were "smarter".. because they were more "persistent" than solitary cats, however that pertains to cognitive abilities.
Vaillant's account wasn't about the intelligence of a tiger, was it? The tiger being intelligent was our interpretation of the tigers behavior. The tiger was very vengeful, you can say, this is not the only known case of tigers holding a grudge against a certain individual animal. One could argue that is intelligence.
Did you watched the footage which I shared? A tiger did open the box but could not do so with precision - lack of intelligence? You are being highly critical of the referred study at personal capacity. So this is OK? If I am being critical of Vaillant's book, not OK? You do the math. How dare somebody challenge established rules of Tiger fandom... Who says it was? I was responding to what you said about the animals. Oh, it looks like somebody (you) is using ACCOUNTS as evidence, is that the case here? If lions are patient, tigers are even more patient than lions. Plus fighting is not chasing herds either. All predators are selective on what prey they catch. I have read accounts on that too. Honestly, you can't really prove anything here. No, I am alluding to "documented evidence." Anyways, I do not discourage members from citing ACCOUNTS for an argument, just letting members know that ACCOUNTS are subjective content. Therefore, cite them but expect people to be critical about them as well. Idk why, but that transition to a fairly respectable guy to sounding like a typical fanboy in the youtube comment section is very strange. The first video was a tiny bear, and the 2nd and 3rd video are not even impressive because the first 2 aren't even real fights where they are trying to kill each other. Just a lion trying to get hyenas to back off. And the third video was a lion killing a tiny ass hyena and standing up to an animal less than half of its size. Wow, so impressive. I think I can do that with my bare hands too And however that has to do with being "social". Lions stand no chance living in the jungles of India, they would probably starve to death, let alone be killed by tigers picking them off. Lions wouldn't be able to live in prides because its too inefficient. Africa is not where tigers are evolved to live in buddy, why even mention this? They are both evolved to live in their own habitats. And the lion's strength would be about equal with the tiger, most sources and info says tigers are smarter. Life style, like I said, neither are stronger, better, etc.. just different, evolved to their own habitats. You not making any point Doesn't look like a tiny bear to me, sorry. Ignore the translation, just check the footage - it shows that bears will have to give ground to lions if these animals ever co-exist. Do you think those hyenas were toying with that lion? Are you kidding me? The hyenas would have killed that lion if another had not intervened. Third video show a male lion chasing away entire pack of hyenas but the footage is narrowed down to the lion catching and killing just one. Hyenas aren't tiny and they are deadly due to being pack predators. A male lion has to fend off entire pack of hyenas at times which is very risky and tedious task - male lions continue to deliver in these situations because of their extraordinary strength and capacity to kill. Life in Africa isn't easy for any animal. Your bottom statement is EPIC FAIL. Here you are trying to create an impression that you are very scientific and unbiased. Very scientific indeed. |
|
mountainlord
Member
Tiger - The Legendary Killer of Brown bears
Posts: 309
|
Post by mountainlord on Nov 28, 2019 20:14:19 GMT 5
And you talk about tigers in Africa. I would love to see a lone lion trying to survive in the jungle or forest alongside the tiger. With none of his buddies to back him up, just by himself in the same forest as a larger, stronger, more powerful and greater killing machine.
Lets see how long the lion lasts.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 28, 2019 23:30:38 GMT 5
I wonder how solitary Tigers will cope with pressures of hyenas, let alone a pride of Lions. Tigers will fall in line much like Cheetah and Leopards. They may deal with wolves IIRC, which could be a good analogue. Not to mention in India, lions and tigers coexist |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Nov 29, 2019 8:43:45 GMT 5
Writing a book about tigers wouldn't make anybody notice you. Vaillant went out to Russia and spent many years of his life talking to people in the know that live in mother Russia close to these animals. I never considered it a scientific work. Ad hominem, I did not make any ad hominem attacks. Your level of competency and expertise simply doesn't match an expert like Dale Miqeulle or however the hell you spell his name, who takes this Tiger Fandom source seriously. I'm very sorry if that might offend you, we might just have to agree to disagree, and maybe ban me too. John Vaillant is a journalist - journalists are known to travel to foreign locations to investigate events of interest. He was doing his job and wrote a book - nothing extraordinary. Now, I am not questioning his hardwork - he did a splendid job. My point is that his ACCOUNT (The Tiger) is based on true events but it is technically NARRATIVE. NARRATIVE = a spoken or written account of connected events; a story. Narrative is PERSONAL (SUBJECTIVE). WE do not have access to data collected by Vaillant for his work to examine independently so WE do not really know how accurate his interpretation of the events is. Now, book authors exercise Creative Liberties to create a compelling story for potential readers; verbatim descriptions of real events do not necessarily make for a compelling story. I am simply pointing out what type of work The Tiger is. Why this argument started? LINK 1: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/50721/threadThe member mountainlord is of this view: "For the last time, the John Vaillant book is a 100% FACTUAL book based on true events that happened in 1997. Even biologists like Dale Miquelle read his book and said it was great and very informative."No! NARRATIVE is never 100% factual, rather subjective. Based on true events does not imply that your retelling of them is 100% FACTUAL. A biologist might appreciate this kind of work - this does not make it 100% factual either. This is exceedingly bold claim. Therefore, I advice CAUTION in assessing ACCOUNTS of any individual. This is all. As for banning, I do not ban members unless they violate established rules of the forum. Even then, I exercise maximum restraint. I do not tolerate insulting behavior however. Some of the new members here haven't studied the rules of this forum - they think that they can insult anybody here and get away with it. No! WoA is different from typical forums out there. I do not have an issue with a member expressing his views, but I do have an issue with LABELING and INSULTING others. If both of us cannot reach an understanding in a debate - no issue. However, if you call me names and try to insult me for my views, you will be taken to the task. Here in WoA, you will have to respect others and their views. Very straightforward. Oh, I never insulted you at all. You don't make any point here, you will have to say that Vaillant completely made up that a tiger was vengeful, because that is very objective stuff. A tiger was injured by a hunter, and a few days later came and killed the hunter. You are right, I shouldn't have said terrible. Maybe I should have said inconclusive. Yes, the experiment was about opening the boxes, which is exactly what you said which is literally the same thing, aka "hyenas and lions managed to open it [the fukin' boxes!] with a higher degree of precision than solitary cats on average", literally the same exact thing. The study did not prove that at all. Just because a tiger doesn't want to open a box doesn't make it less intelligent, certainly. I already showed the statements from Borrego about why the conclusions were that the lions were "smarter".. because they were more "persistent" than solitary cats, however that pertains to cognitive abilities.
Vaillant's account wasn't about the intelligence of a tiger, was it? The tiger being intelligent was our interpretation of the tigers behavior. The tiger was very vengeful, you can say, this is not the only known case of tigers holding a grudge against a certain individual animal. One could argue that is intelligence.
Did you watched the footage which I shared? A tiger did open the box but could not do so with precision - lack of intelligence? You are being highly critical of the referred study at personal capacity. So this is OK? If I am being critical of Vaillant's book, not OK? You do the math. How dare somebody challenge established rules of Tiger fandom... Yea, I probably knew about the study long before you ever heard of it "A tiger did open the box but without precision", what? You literally just made that up 2 tigers opened the boxes, out of 7 tigers, all cats had similar "exploratory" behavior contrary to what the articles that quoted the original study said. The tigers weren't "persistent", because they were not motivated to open the boxes. How is that intelligence? Because possibly one of the most docile tigers there just wanted to eat. That tigers who successfully open the box (there is a literal video of it), did not even eat the meat afterwards, because he was started by the box opening. He was also startled on his 2nd trial, he did not like the box and wanted to stay away. You aren't being critical of the book, you are just denying that a tiger did not go out of his way to kill a hunter that injured him, which is quite frankly objective, what, he did made up that a hunter died???
Who says it was? I was responding to what you said about the animals. Oh, it looks like somebody (you) is using ACCOUNTS as evidence, is that the case here? If lions are patient, tigers are even more patient than lions. Plus fighting is not chasing herds either. All predators are selective on what prey they catch. I have read accounts on that too. Honestly, you can't really prove anything here. No, I am alluding to "documented evidence." Anyways, I do not discourage members from citing ACCOUNTS for an argument, just letting members know that ACCOUNTS are subjective content. Therefore, cite them but expect people to be critical about them as well.
Idk why, but that transition to a fairly respectable guy to sounding like a typical fanboy in the youtube comment section is very strange. The first video was a tiny bear, and the 2nd and 3rd video are not even impressive because the first 2 aren't even real fights where they are trying to kill each other. Just a lion trying to get hyenas to back off. And the third video was a lion killing a tiny ass hyena and standing up to an animal less than half of its size. Wow, so impressive. I think I can do that with my bare hands too And however that has to do with being "social". Lions stand no chance living in the jungles of India, they would probably starve to death, let alone be killed by tigers picking them off. Lions wouldn't be able to live in prides because its too inefficient. Africa is not where tigers are evolved to live in buddy, why even mention this? They are both evolved to live in their own habitats. And the lion's strength would be about equal with the tiger, most sources and info says tigers are smarter. Life style, like I said, neither are stronger, better, etc.. just different, evolved to their own habitats. You not making any point Doesn't look like a tiny bear to me, sorry. Ignore the translation, just check the footage - it shows that bears will have to give ground to lions if these animals ever co-exist. Do you think those hyenas were toying with that lion? Are you kidding me? The hyenas would have killed that lion if another had not intervened. Third video show a male lion chasing away entire pack of hyenas but the footage is narrowed down to the lion catching and killing just one. Hyenas aren't tiny and they are deadly due to being pack predators. A male lion has to fend off entire pack of hyenas at times which is very risky and tedious task - male lions continue to deliver in these situations because of their extraordinary strength and capacity to kill. Life in Africa isn't easy for any animal. Your bottom statement is EPIC FAIL. Here you are trying to create an impression that you are very scientific and unbiased. Very scientific indeed.
The bear is smaller than the lion, and they did not even hurt each other Its from a movie, Its known they deliberately set up animals to make it look like a fight. They were probably playing. Claiming a lion will defeat a bear is just madness. Bears are a lot more robust than lions, bigger, stronger animals than any big cat.
I always see fanboys wanking lions that they scare away hyenas. Big deal. The hyenas just want in for like some food, they don't want to kill the lion. Its not a serious fight, just bluffing. It takes no strength to do such a thing.
I am trying to create an impression? Nah, if that is really your impression that you get from me, maybe I really am scientific and unbias.
|
|
And is obviously of value, I guess, fortunately for you. Leading experts take Vaillant more seriously than Mr. Fanboy "Life" on here who claims to be a scientist, just like I am a scientist too 
