Ussuri Brown Bear vs Siberian Tiger

[DonaldCengXiongAzuma]

Nov 25, 2019 23:54:36 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

Polar bears still generally grow larger than their captive counterparts. Since there are only four accounts of tigers killing captive polar bears, I guess tigers usually avoid these bears even in captivity.

"When accidents happen, when strange animals are placed together and a fight starts, always try to protect the weaker animal, regardless of his species. You will hear it said that a tiger can kill a lion, or vice versa. In my experience i have seen all theories exploded. Tigers have killed lions, lions have killed polar bears, a small leopard has killed a large tiger. usually a polar bear can kill any of the big cats, but i have seen a lion kill a polar bear", Louis Roth, forty years with jungle killers, page 204-205.



More interactions between tiger and brown bear:

Some bears emerging from hibernation seek tigers in order to steal their kills.240 However, in the Russian Far East brown bears, along with smaller Asiatic black bears constitute 5–8% of the diet of Siberian tigers.

books.google.com.au/books?id=5hS-vzTHU5oC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=Project+Director+Doug+Smith+wrote:+%E2%80%9DIt%27s+not+a+matter+of+if+the+bears+will+come+calling+after+a+kill,+but+when.+...+Some+bears+emerging+from+hibernation+seek+tigers+in+order+to+steal+their+kills.240+However,+in+the+Russian+Far+East+brown+bears,+along+...&source=bl&ots=1Lq_BhVZ3J&sig=ACfU3U0MpK8Euy6HOcimuo8bCqKAcskcfQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibi8rWl4_mAhWFaCsKHWNhCREQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Project%20Director%20Doug%20Smith%20wrote%3A%20%E2%80%9DIt's%20not%20a%20matter%20of%20if%20the%20bears%20will%20come%20calling%20after%20a%20kill%2C%20but%20when.%20...%20Some%20bears%20emerging%20from%20hibernation%20seek%20tigers%20in%20order%20to%20steal%20their%20kills.240%20However%2C%20in%20the%20Russian%20Far%20East%20brown%20bears%2C%20along%20...&f=false

That is still less than ten percent. Can hardly be called regular.

enough to challenge the bear. They are equal in fighting at first. When they get fatiqued, the tiger usually runs away for a rest. The bear in a rage, however, keeps on striking a tree or something else nearby. The tiger comes back to fight again ...

books.google.com.au/books?id=1zUyAAAAMAAJ&q=the+tiger+usually+runs+away+for+a+rest.+The+bear+in+a+rage

A huge 600 pound Siberian tiger is capable of killing a male brown bear at weight parity by ambush (and even face to face). In a face to face fight, the same brown bear wins slightly. A male Ussuri brown bear between 600 to 700 pounds is still considered large. Brown bears being plantigrades (of an animal walking with the entire sole of the foot on the ground)  are stronger tigers being digitigrades (an animal walking on the toes, putting the weight of the body mainly on the ball of the foot, with the back of the foot, or heel, raised):

Walking on our heels, a feature that separates great apes, including humans, from other primates, confers advantages in fighting, according to a new study. Although moving from the balls of the feet is important for quickness, standing with heels planted allows more swinging force, suggesting that aggression may have played a part in shaping our stance.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170215084113.htm








Brown bears fall victim to tigers more often, since white-breasted bears usually live in hollows or among close-set rocks and are thus less accessible. ... In 1913 on the Bol'shoi Sinanche Rivera large brown bear knocked down a tiger. In 1960 ...

books.google.com.au/books?id=UxWZ-OmTqVoC&pg=PA177&dq=tiger+taking+down+brown+bear&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOvvzyn4_mAhWCdn0KHe1kB7IQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=tiger%20taking%20down%20brown%20bear&f=false



Apart from humans, the Amur tiger is its main enemy throughout its range in the Manchurian-type forests. ... According to Bavkov, tigers can handle bears, black or brown, of almost their own weight, stalking them or ambushing them from a cliff or fallen tree. ... Should the black bear escape it will try to take refuge in a nearby tree, in which case the tiger may feign a departure and hide up nearby until the ...

books.google.com.au/books?id=SoAM4GvUsooC&pg=PA115&dq=tiger+taking+down+brown+bear&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOvvzyn4_mAhWCdn0KHe1kB7IQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=tiger%20taking%20down%20brown%20bear&f=false



The brown bears almost the same weight as the Siberian tiger seems to be female.

Also female brown bears (as well as cubs) are more capable of climbing trees being lighter than their much heavier male counterparts.

[mountainlord]

GreenArrow

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that tigers "avoid" Polar bears in captivity. Thats just your assumption. Going off the evidence that does exist, its clear that the tiger is FAR MORE dominant over the Polar bear in captivity. There's not a single fight account of a Polar bear ever defeating a tiger in a fight, let alone killing one. Every single fight account was a tiger victory, fact.

Animal trainer "Tiede" in his book also mentioned several accounts of tigers killing large Polar bears in fights in his circus. As far as captive specimens go, the tiger is clearly superior and dominant over the Polar bear. The proof is in the pudding. And some Polar bears get HUGE in captivity. I already posted several pictures confirming this.

Also, bears (Both Brown and Black) can make up to 31% of the tigers diet. Bears (Especially in Primorye) are REGULARLY hunted and killed by tigers. Some tigers become habitual bear-killers, that kill and eat nothing but bears! I already posted scientific studies/data that outright state that bears constitute a large significant portion of the tigers diet, especially in summer months.

Claws of ADULT bears were also found repeatedly in the excreta of tigers.

Now, as far as face-to-face fights go, I have posted very conclusive evidence that clearly shows the tigers sheer dominance and supremacy over the Brown bear in a fight. There's not one single fight statistic where Brown bears won more often than not. Not one. That speaks volumes to the tigers fighting prowess over the Brown bear.

You can make all the assumptions, made-up theories and speculations you want. But that doesn't prove anything whatsoever. You have to go with the actual documented fight statistics reported by the Russian authorities, biologists, naturalists etc...

Russian biologist, Rukovsky, who's one of the leading authorities regarding tigers and bears in the wild, has reported a fight statistic where the tiger completely dominated the Brown bear, 11 - 2 in fights. Rukovsky also stated that in fights between large tigers and large Brown bears, only in RARE cases does the tiger lose. 

Rukovsky personally interviewed 42 local hunters regarding tigers and Brown bears, and here's what they said....

To clarify the relationship between these two predators, I interviewed 42 local hunters, old-timers Primorsky Krai. Of these, 7  people responded that the tiger specifically hunts for a bear; one man said that the bear walks in the footsteps of a tiger, collecting the remnants of its food; ( Scavenging left-overs ) 14 described the tiger-bear fights without a tragic outcome; 2 remembered when a bear strangled a tiger; 11 claimed that the tiger killed the bear, and, finally, 2 hunters assured that the bear leaves the grounds where the tiger appeared.

Fights between large tigers and brown bears occur only in the hungry years, unfavorable for the bear in relation to food, when the connecting rods collide with tigers near the preyed animals. And only in rare cases can a tiger become a victim.

www.piterhunt.ru/Library/rukovskiy/po_sledam_lesnih_zverey/9.htm

Thats straight from the horses mouth. Tigers are clearly more dominant over Brown bears, even when all-out fights occur over kill-disputes. I also posted a video numerous times, where another Russian biologist states that AS A RULE - THE TIGER WINS! Again proving that in general, the tiger will defeat the Brown bear in a fight. You can't just ignore or deny all this conclusive evidence. 

And this is one of the reasons why the Russian people, widely regard the tiger - not the larger Brown bear - but the tiger to be the undisputed LORD and master of the taiga.

At the end of the day, your opinion and my opinion means nothing. We have to go to the reliable evidence documented by Russian experts and biologists, and all the evidence clearly shows and proves that the tiger is the usual winner in a fight against a Brown bear.

[brobear]

Claws of ADULT bears were also found repeatedly in the excreta of tigers.

*occasionally the claws of an adult she-bear - but not often.

At the end of the day, your opinion and my opinion means nothing. We have to go to the reliable evidence documented by Russian experts and biologists, and all the evidence clearly shows and proves that the tiger is the usual winner in a fight against a Brown bear.

*True, the tiger usually wins ( not always ) after he ambushes a grizzly she-bear.

[mountainlord]

Dec 3, 2019 17:25:32 GMT 5 brobear said:

Claws of ADULT bears were also found repeatedly in the excreta of tigers.

*occasionally the claws of an adult she-bear - but not often.

At the end of the day, your opinion and my opinion means nothing. We have to go to the reliable evidence documented by Russian experts and biologists, and all the evidence clearly shows and proves that the tiger is the usual winner in a fight against a Brown bear.

*True, the tiger usually wins ( not always ) after he ambushes a grizzly she-bear.

There you go again Brobear, completely ignoring all the blatant evidence I posted numerous times, and still repeating and spamming the same lies and made-up stuff you always do. Why do you behave this way?? Honestly, why are you so afraid to address my fight accounts and statistics? This only looks bad on you.

You claimed:

*occasionally the claws of an adult she-bear - but not often.

LIES, LIES, LIES....as usual from you. I have posted the predation data where it OUTRIGHT CLEARLY STATES that "Claws of adult bears were found REPEATEDLY in the excreta of tigers." 

Here, look on this thread, which exposes your lie:

theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/3105/tiger-predation-on-bears

Not only does scientific studies show that tigers OFTEN kill adult bears, but it also showed that bears are a VERY IMPORTANT food item for tigers, especially in summer months, and that bears can make up to 31 % of the tigers diet. - A large significant portion, as stated by the biologists.

You also made-up this lie and claimed this:

*True, the tiger usually wins ( not always ) after he ambushes a grizzly she-bear.

Again, why do you deliberately lie and make up stuff? Are you seriously that desperate?

Russian biologist/undisputed authority, Rukovksy clearly stated that in fights between LARGE tigers and LARGE Brown bears, only in RARE cases does the tiger lose. Which clearly means that when big tigers fight against big Brown bears, the tiger is the usual winner! (AS A RULE).

He also clearly stated that these fights mostly occur over KILL-DISPUTES!! He never mentioned anything, not a thing, about tigers "ambushing" Grizzly she-bears. You just blatantly made that shit up. You have absolutely NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE for all your blatant lies and made-up claims that you spew.

1) "Large" or "Big" brown bears are usually referred to full-grown adult males. Not females.

2) Its a well known fact, that in most, if not ALL cases of Brown bears challenging tigers for their kills, these cases consist of large adult male bears doing so. Not females. This has been established countless times over the years by evidence and expert accounts.

So Rukovsky's statements clearly show and prove that even when adult male tigers fight against adult male Brown bears over kill-disputes, the tiger is the GENERAL winner, period. This is not just my conclusion, but its also the conclusion of the Russian experts and undisputed authorities.

And don't forget there's also this video, where Russian biologist; Timofei Bazhenov states that when the tiger MEETS, NOT AMBUSHES, BUT MEETS the Brown bear in the taiga, who wins? AS A RULE, THE TIGER WINS. That says it all. Even he stated that in general the tiger is the winner in a fight.



He also mentioned NOTHING, and I repeat...nothing about "ambushes" at all. He said when the tiger "MEETS" the Brown bear. Which very clearly suggests a FACE-TO-FACE encounter.

Brobear, honestly, you barely know anything about this debate. I've exposed your lies countless times and even posted screen-shots showing all your contradictory statements which exposed your two-faced personality and hypocrisy in this debate. You are not credible at all.

You even thought that "Dale" is "Misha" and that Dale only killed TWO adult female Brown bears, when in reality, he killed at least FOUR adult females and one full-grown adult male black bear. I even posted the direct evidence confirming all of this to you, and you still ignorantly refused to address or admit that you were clearly wrong.

Misha killed two large adult female Brown bears, about his size, with no problems, and Dale slaughtered at least FOUR large adult female Brown bears, about his size, and only ONE gave him a tough fight but he still managed to kill and eat the bear. Dale was never seriously injured, fact. That was a lie created by bear fanatics like you. 

[mountainlord]

I found even more undeniable evidence from Russian biologist/authority - Matjushkyn, once again proving that tigers DOMINATE bears over kill-disputes.


Matjushkyn reported that when adult tigers encounter bears, the bears almost always surrender their meal to the tiger:





books.google.co.uk/books?id=c7gRAQAAMAAJ&q=When+adult+tigers+encounter+bears,+surprisingly,+Matjushkyn+reported,+the+bear+almost+always+surrenders+its+meal+to+the+tiger.+Before+he+hold+me+that,&dq=When+adult+tigers+encounter+bears,+surprisingly,+Matjushkyn+reported,+the+bear+almost+always+surrenders+its+meal+to+the+tiger.+Before+he+hold+me+that,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8-fWv8qbmAhXST8AKHdcHBv4Q6AEIKzAA


Biologist, Matjushkyn followed tiger tracks for several winters on ski's, so he's very experienced in this regard.


Here's another source stating that Brown bears are known to give up their kills to tigers, rather than fight:





archive.org/details/beachamsinternat00walt?q=Beacham%27s+Guide+to+International+Endangered+Species%2C


Every single fight statistic, reported by biologists, that happened over kill-disputes confirms that the tiger is the GENERAL (As a rule) winner in a fight against a Brown bear. Brown bears are even known to surrender their kills to tigers. 

This shows clear dominance from the tiger over the Brown bear. Even in face-to-face fights over kills, where it matters most, Brown bears usually lose the fights, and almost always give up their kills to the tiger.

So now the question is, Brobear, when will you finally admit the truth and acknowledge the tigers supremacy and dominance over the Brown bear??....

[dinosauria101]

mountainlord, just thought I'd mention it may be because the bears have had their fill and would not like to risk a fight.

[mountainlord]

Dec 9, 2019 20:00:41 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

mountainlord , just thought I'd mention it may be because the bears have had their fill and would not like to risk a fight.

What you said sounds reasonable. But it still shows the tigers dominance over the Brown bear even over a kill-dispute.

Not only does statistics and accounts from Russian authorities confirm that tigers win most fights against Brown bears over kill-disputes, but observational evidence from Russian biologists also shows that the Brown bear will almost always surrender its meal to the tiger.

Now adding all this to the fact that tigers regularly kill and eat Brown bears (Including adult bears) and that in general, bears have an innate FEAR of tigers, then this is what you call sheer dominance from the tiger over the Brown bear.

[dinosauria101]

Just out of curiosity, do you know of any face to face fights where the tiger won but the bear was a good bit larger? You may have posted some, but it's a bit hard to keep up with all the stuff in the thread

[mountainlord]

Dec 10, 2019 23:53:19 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Just out of curiosity, do you know of any face to face fights where the tiger won but the bear was a good bit larger? You may have posted some, but it's a bit hard to keep up with all the stuff in the thread

Most of the fight statistics don't specifically give details about the size of the tigers and bears, but what we do know, is that in most cases of fights over kill disputes, these fights involve adult animals. Remember, Rukovsky stated that in fights between large brown bears and large tigers, only in RARE cases does the tiger lose. And that these battles mostly happen over kill disputes, when the Brown bears collide with the tigers over preyed animals.

But I posted this account where a tiger challenged a large Brown bear (Most likely an adult male bear) for its kill and killed the bear after a fierce fight:

We heard one story about how a large brown bear having taken on a wild boar and covered it with scat and brushwood to make some “stewed boar, bear style,” suddenly got paid a visit by a hungry tiger. Oh how much blood got shed! The owner of the kill died from terrible wounds."

www.wf.ru/tiger/book/The%20Amur%20Tiger.pdf

Your right, too much information has been posted on this thread, which is hard for viewers to keep up with. I'll make a thread specifically about the fight statistics and interactions between Amur tigers and Ussuri brown bears, then people can see all the facts easily.

[elosha11]

@moutainlord, I appreciate the citations, rare videos, and accounts. I may even be inclined to agree with you in a broad sense of this conflict. But we cannot act like this is a "no contest" The very source you cite in the quote above goes on, and you shouldn't selectively choose only the portions favorable to your position. The tiger may have "won" but it was a Pyrric victory as it may well have died later from the wounds inflicted by the bear.

What results is a noticeable, heightened competition with the tiger for food. Adults of both species are
equal in strength. We heard one story about how a large “brown,” having taken on a wild board and covered it
with scat and brushwood to make some “stewed boar, bear style,” suddenly got paid a visit by a hungry tiger.
Oh how much blood got shed! The owner of the kill died from terrible wounds and the disfigured tiger, moving off like a drunk, didn’t even bother with the fresh spoils of the kill. Snow covered the tiger’s tracks, and
the king of the jungle was never seen again in those lands. Apparently, both animals finished their fight in the
world beyond.

.

Pretty close fight if you ask me.

[mountainlord]

Dec 11, 2019 11:10:56 GMT 5 elosha11 said:

@moutainlord, I appreciate the citations, rare videos, and accounts. I may even be inclined to agree with you in a broad sense of this conflict. But we cannot act like this is a "no contest" The very source you cite in the quote above goes on, and you shouldn't selectively choose only the portions favorable to your position. The tiger may have "won" but it was a Pyrric victory as it may well have died later from the wounds inflicted by the bear.

What results is a noticeable, heightened competition with the tiger for food. Adults of both species are
equal in strength. We heard one story about how a large “brown,” having taken on a wild board and covered it
with scat and brushwood to make some “stewed boar, bear style,” suddenly got paid a visit by a hungry tiger.
Oh how much blood got shed! The owner of the kill died from terrible wounds and the disfigured tiger, moving off like a drunk, didn’t even bother with the fresh spoils of the kill. Snow covered the tiger’s tracks, and
the king of the jungle was never seen again in those lands. Apparently, both animals finished their fight in the
world beyond.

.

Pretty close fight if you ask me.

Of course it was a close fight. I was just showing the main part, where the tiger killed the bear. Also, I've never claimed that this match-up is a "no contest". I know that a large male Brown bear, even an average sized male Brown bear is a formidable opponent for any feline or land predator.

I just overall, strongly favour the tiger to be the usual winner in this battle, and the fight accounts/statistics and statements from Russian experts, confirm this to be a fact.

[mountainlord]

Kodiak and Brobear


First of all, Dale Miquelle is by far NOT the "best expert" on tigers and bears. LOL... Who told you guys that? Miquelle is one of MANY other renowned experts that study tigers and bears in the wild. Biologists like Kerley, Goodrich, Schleyer, Rukovsky, Kucherenko, Matjushkyn, Heptner, Sludskii etc....are all as qualified as Miquelle is. 

In fact, the Russian biologists like Rukovsky, Kucherenko, Matjushkyn, Heptner and Sludskii have FAR MORE experience in the topic of Tigers vs Brown bears, fact. These people have lived in the Russian far east their whole life and have studied and observed tigers and bears in the wild for decades! 

Miquelle is an American biologist/researcher who studies and works with Amur tigers. The Russian biologists actually live their and have studied both these animals way before Miquelle even got started. So get your facts right. American Amur tiger biologists like Kerley and Goodrich are just as qualified as Miquelle, and who also live and work in the Russian far east.

Now, I wanna expose the blatant deceit and lies of both you Bear fanatics. - You posted this statement from Miquelle, where he stated this:

It is clear that brown bears reap greater benefit from the presence of tigers because tigers killed animals - a source of protein food for bears. Therefore, not surprisingly, bears commonly use this source, even if it requires a direct clash with the Tigers., Tigers, it seems unable to prevent adult male brown bears away from their food.

Dale Miquelle.

But you never showed the full CONTEXT to Miquelle's statement! - The context is very important, otherwise any idiot can put their own made-up spin on it. 

Here's the FULL CONTEXT to Miquelle's statement, which Bearfanz will never show people:

Right after Miquelle states that, he also says....


"However some tigers have learned to hunt bears, and therefore not all brown bears win in clashes with tigers."



translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f


Either you guys deliberately left out that part to try and fool people or you never even read Miquelle's article and haven't got a clue what your talking about, period.

You guys deliberately take Miquelle's words OUT OF CONTEXT to make it look like that adult male brown bears just "dominate" in kill-disputes, which is bullshit. Especially considering the fact that every single fight statistic which records direct clashes between tigers and Brown bears over kill-disputes, shows that the tiger wins most of the fights. Its the tiger that dominates fights over kill-disputes. Confirmed by statistics documented by undisputed Russian authorities and biologists.

This statement from Miquelle also clearly suggests that even adult male Brown bears are killed over kill-disputes, and thats one of the reasons how tigers learned to hunt bears.

Now that I've exposed you for twisting Miquelle's words and taking his statement out of context to suit your agenda. Lets move on....

Kodiak, seriously, are you really that stupid? This wasn't Bernhard Grzimek's words! CAN YOU READ PROPERLY?? Grzimek was personally told this by Russian biologist, Matjushkyn. Who also works with and studies Amur tigers and Brown bears in the wild.

This account was reported by Russian biologist, Matjushkyn, which was based off his own personal observations, and he observed that the bear ALMOST ALWAYS surrenders its meal to the tiger! This is a undisputed fact you simply cannot deny. Unless you wanna desperately resort to calling a renowned and respected tiger biologist a "liar".


Here, read the account again, properly! - This is not Grzimeks words, they are biologist, Matjushkyn's words who told this to Grzimek himself:





Note - Grzimek also said that before Matjushkyn told him that, he favoured the bear to win. But after Matjushkyn told him what he's observed, he changed his mind.

So fight statistics and clear observational evidence from Amur tiger biologists, clearly shows that the tiger overall, usually DOMINATES the Brown bear over kill-disputes. I have posted way too much conclusive evidence for anyone to think otherwise.

[Life]

Nov 28, 2019 20:08:34 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

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.

Larger brain does not translate into superior intelligence by default.

FYI:

www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/
www.livescience.com/32142-are-big-brains-smarter.html
www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-arent-animals-with-larger-brains-more-intelligent-than-us/

For the remainder;

Lions are much harder to train and tame than Tigers. This reality might explain biases in assessing intelligence of both Felids.

Anyways:-

"4. Big cats as a comparative framework for the study of the evolution of intelligence

4.1. Learning and memory

Compared to their asocial counterparts, selective pressure on social animals memory and learning systems may be two-fold. In addition to ecological pressures, which often require remembering the location of recourses, how to acquire resources, and learning to extract food from novel or difficult matrices, social animals are also faced with navigating social relationships that require constant monitoring, accurate prediction, and appropriately timed behavior (Byrne 1997; Byrne and Bates, 2006; Byrne and Whiten, 1988). Thus, the selective force of sociality may also operate on nonsocial domains, acting as an additional evolutionary stimulus to nonsocial cognitive abilities, e.g., learning and memory.

Lions face selective pressures stemming from the need to remember social relationships as well as remember the locations of resources. Unsurprisingly, lions demonstrate impressive longterm memory and remember the solution to a novel problem for at least seven months (Borrego and Dowling, 2016). Although direct comparisons of learning and memory between lions, leopards and tigers have not yet been performed, comparisons between spotted hyenas (hierarchical social structure) and leopards (solitary) reveal that, in accordance with the domain general hypothesis, spotted hyenas outperform leopards on a task requiring learning and memory (Balme et al. unpublished data). In this study, we compared the behavioral responses of wild leopards and hyenas to foot snares and found that the rate of capture for hyenas significantly decreased, whereas leopard capture rates remained constant (Balme et al. unpublished data). Notably, leopards were always alone at snares, while the majority of hyenas appeared in groups.

4.2. Innovative problem solving

Currently, the only direct comparison of cognition among big cats is an investigation of lions’,tigers’, and leopards’ ability to solve an innovative, novel problem, a puzzle-box (Borrego and Gaines, 2016). Puzzle-boxes are a standard method for testing cognition and are an effective means of testing innovation and other cognitive processes associated with problem-solving (reviewed by Griffin and Guez, 2014). Innovation can be defined as “a solution to a novel problem or a novel solution to an old problem”(Kummer and Goodall, 1985). Innovation is associated with cognitive complexity, and in primates, innovation is positively correlated with relative brain size (Lefebvre et al., 2004; Manrique et al., 2013; Sol et al., 2005). Innovation applies to non-social contexts and enables animals to exploit novel resources, use existing resources more efficiently, expand their niche, and adapt to changing environments (Day et al., 2003; Huebner and Fichtel 2015; Lefebvre et al., 2004; Reader and Laland 2001). In accordance with the domain-general hypothesis, lions significantly outperformed their asocial counterparts (leopards and tigers) on the nonsocial task, indicating that sociality operates on the evolution of general cognition and not just cognition adapted to social domains."

5. Conclusions

The evolution of cognitive complexity is itself complex and not attributable to a single selective force. Rather, complex cognition is likely driven by the interplay of social and ecological forces. Currently, carnivores, and big cats in particular, are vastly underrepresented in cognitive literature, despite being an ideal model system for tests of social and ecological intelligence hypotheses. The few comparative studies of carnivore cognition rely on broad-scale comparisons and indicate that cognition is not solely bolstered by sociality. For example, two studies that included several species of carnivores found social complexity was not associated with performance on tasks that required nonsocial cognitive abilities,i.e., problemsolving and self control(Benson-Amramet al., 2016; Maclean et al., 2014). Further supportfor ecological complexity as a powerful force in cognitive evolution comes from studies evidencing advanced cognition in black bears (Ursus americanus), a species that faces complex ecological challenges but lacks social complexity (Vonk and Beran, 2012; Vonk et al., 2012; Zamisch and Vonk, 2012). Although these studies support ecological complexity as an equally powerful force in cognitive evolution, they do not address whether sociality operates on general or domain-specific cognition.

Interestingly, when the scale of comparison is narrowed and restricted to closely related species that differ primarily in social complexity, social species outperform their asocial relatives on tasks that require nonsocial cognition. Lions outperform leopards and tigers on solving a puzzle-box task (Borrego and Gaines, 2016), spotted hyenas significantly outperform their solitary counter parts (Striped hyenas [Hyaena hyaena]) on the same puzzle-box task used in the study comparing 39 carnivores (Holekamp et al., 2015), and spotted hyenas outperform solitary leopards in a natural experiment requiring learned avoidance of an aversive stimulus (Balme et al. unpublished data). Thus, the sparse research that does exist supports a domain-general view of cognitive evolution.

Social intelligence hypotheses were originally proposed to explain the remarkably advanced cognitive abilities of primates, focusing early efforts on an exclusively social taxon. Although, the past decade has seen a proliferation of research investigating cognition in social non-primates, studies maintain a narrow focus on exclusively social taxa or rely on proximate measures of cognition (de Waal and Ferrari, 2010; Vonk, 2016). It is only within the past few years that research has expanded to include experimental comparisons of cognition among socially diverse taxa (BensonAmram et al., 2016; Borrego and Gaines, 2016; Maclean et al., 2014). Most notably, the emergence of cognitive comparisons in the socially diverse but grossly understudied family: Carnivora. However, within Carnivora, cats remain an understudied system; many cat species have not been studied at all with regard to cognitive capacities, but see Vitale Shreve and Udell’s (2015) review of domestic cat (Felis catus) cognition. A comparison of lion, leopard, cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), and cougar (Puma concolor) brain volume showed female lion anterior cerebrums (the area containing the frontal cortex) were larger than the other felid species and also larger than males of their own species, which further highlights the value of comparing cognition within Felidae, as these comparisons may reveal variations not detected on broader scales (Sakai et al., 2016). Continuing cognitive comparisons of big cats and including currently unrepresented felid species will enable research aimed directly at disentangling the role of social complexity from the role of ecological complexity in the evolution of intelligence. - Borrego (2017)

+

"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 (head-and-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." - Yamahaguchi et al (2009)

Nov 28, 2019 20:08:34 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

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.

Hmm.

"Tigers occasionally take rhinoceros calves (Seidensticker 1976b) and elephant calves (Johnsingh 1983), but adult rhinoceroses and elephants are too big for adult tigers to kill. These megaherbivores can form an enormous proportion of the mammalian herbivore biomass in south and south-east Asian habitats (Table 3). Tigers do take the largest suids, bovids and cervids. In Kanha National Park in central India, Schaller (1967) found that tigers killed gaur and swamp deer when they were part of the ungulate assemblages. Karanth (1988) reported heavy prédation on solitary adult gaur in Nagarahole National Park in southern India. Tigers obviously kill prey as encountered, including prey in the smaller size classes (Table 2), but they seek and kill large ungulate prey, thereby gaining access to a considerable portion of the mammalian biomass that is maintained by relatively few individuals." - Seidensticker and McDougal (1993)

Link: repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/4410/Seidensticker1993.pdf

+

"Tiger predation on Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) and one-horned rhinos (Rhinoceros unicornis) is rare and restricted to small calves." - Karanth and Nichols (1998)

Link: repository.ias.ac.in/89442/1/3-P.pdf

+

"We investigated whether wild elephants could discriminate the aggressive growls of tigers and leopards. Tigers are known to opportunistically prey on elephant calves, whereas there is no mention, either in the literature or anecdotally, of elephants being a part of leopards’ diets [7–9]. Elephants themselves produce guttural growls while communicating with conspecifics [10,11] and may possess a broad, low-frequency acoustical-assessment ability useful for differentiating similar growls of other species. Therefore, we predicted that elephants would discriminate the acoustically distinct growls of tigers and leopards and would display stronger antipredator behaviour to the more dangerous tiger-growl playbacks." - Thuppil and Coss (2013)

Link: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0518

+

"When combined, the four numerically dominant ungulates (chital, sambar, gaur and wild pig) provided 96% of the biomass consumed by tigers, 88% by leopards, 97% by dholes, clearly establishing the importance of role of large and medium ungulates for maintaining high densities and viable populations of tigers and other large carnivores as shown by earlier workers (Karanth & Stith, 1999; Karanth et al., 2004). Even in terms of the relative number of prey animals taken, these four ungulate species constitute a high proportion of predator diets. Very large prey such as elephants (only calves are killed by tigers), or low-density ungulates such as muntjac and four-horned antelope, do not appear to be important in predator diets. Among nonungulate prey, only langur monkeys appear to be of some importance to leopards." - Andheria et al (2007)

Link: www.conservationindia.org/wp-content/files_mf/51.-Andheria-et-al_2007_Journal-of-Zoology_Dietprey.pdf

+

"Apart from that, being the most primitive herbivorous mammals, the Indian rhino possess some important behavioural features that directly or indirectly related to its survival perspectives measure. Again, some of the behaviours of Indian rhino are itself responsible to victim of poachers. During mating display, female normally runs up to a higher distance of 2-3 kms or even more. In doing this, both the individuals often receive severe injury. Since mating take place throughout the year, physical injury is a common phenomenon of Indian Rhino, which occasionally resulted to death. Again, the predation of Rhino calf by tiger is a common phenomenon in Rajiv Gandhi Orang National Park as the Rhino calfs are found throughout the year. This predation effect on rhino calf by tiger was also reported by Talukdar (2002) in Kaziranga National Park of Assam." - Hazarika and Saikia (2010)

Link: www.researchgate.net/profile/Prasanta_Saikia2/publication/314176555_studies_on_the_behaviour_of_great_Indian_Rhinoceros/links/58b8729caca27261e51cdc61/studies-on-the-behaviour-of-great-Indian-Rhinoceros.pdf

+

"Twenty-seven deaths were recorded during the study period: six of them due to poaching, which was confined almost entire11 to the first year. lntraspecific fighting, particularly among males, accounted for six (almost 30°!i) of the deaths due to causes other than poaching. Three calves were recorded killed by tigers and other cases of tiger predation were suspected. Minimum annual mortality rates were estimated as 5.6% perinatal, 8.5% for calves. 1.2'%) for sub-adults and 3-.1O/0 for adults." - Laurie (1981)

Link: www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Laurie/publication/227668370_Behavioural_ecology_of_the_Greater_one-horned_rhinoceros_Rhinoceros_unicornis/links/5a5c7b2daca2727d608a82db/Behavioural-ecology-of-the-Greater-one-horned-rhinoceros-Rhinoceros-unicornis.pdf

So?

I do not rule out the possibility of a Male Tiger taking its chances with an adult one-horned rhino or elephant of either sex but these could be sick or injured individuals at the time. SCAVENGING is absolutely expected on top.

Therefore; ACCOUNTS = SUBJECTIVE (need I say more?)

Nov 28, 2019 20:08:34 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

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.

See above.

That [single] statement was in poor taste from me but your entire post is filled with GROSS EXAGGERATIONS.

Consider an excellent study about Tiger's GLOBAL dietary preferences from Hayward et al (2011):-

[1]

"Tigers Panthera tigris continue to decline despite the best efforts of the worldwide scientific and conservation communities. Prey depletion has been linked to this decline, but a clear definition of what constitutes preferred prey and preferred prey weight range does not exist. This is critical information if we are to assess tiger reintroduction potential, monitor unforeseen poaching of predators and prey, and successfully conserve the species. Here we reviewed the available literature on tiger diet and prey availability and calculated Jacobs’s electivity index scores from 3187 kills or scats of 32 prey species. We found that wild boar and sambar deer are significantly preferred by tigers, with red deer and barasingha likely to be significantly preferred also with a larger sample size. Prey body mass was the only variable that related to tiger prey preference with species weighing between 60 and 250 kg preferred by tigers yielding a ratio of predator to preferred prey of 1:1, which is similar to other solitary felids. This information can be used to predict tiger diet, carrying capacity and movement patterns, as it has been for Africa’s large predator guild, and has important implications for tiger conservation throughout its distribution." - Hayward et al (2011)

[2]

"Tigers are solitary, ambush hunters that also actively search for prey (Wilson & Mittermeier, 2009) and require >5 kg of meat daily to maintain body condition (Sunquist, 1981). They are capable of capturing and killing large prey, including adult male gaur Bos gaur (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995), but also take prey as small as hares (Johnsingh, 1983). Tiger diet is biogeographically diverse (Miquelle et al., 1996, 1999; Sunquist, Karanth & Sunquist, 1999). Based on the breadth of their diet across their range, one might infer that tigers are non-selective predators; however, it seems likely that the species’ morphology and solitary hunting strategy imposes limitations on the prey it can capture most efficiently with minimal risk.

Solitary leopards P. pardus, cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus and Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx preferentially prey on species at or just below their own body mass (Jedrzejewski et al., 1993; Hayward et al., 2006a,b), whereas group hunters, like lions P. leo and African wild dogs Lycaon pictus preferentially prey on species much larger than themselves (Hayward & Kerley, 2005; Hayward et al., 2006c). Sunquist (2010) has suggested that the size of prey preferred by tigers is approximately their own size, as has been found with other solitary carnivores. Consequently, we aimed to determine the preferred prey of tigers from throughout the species’ range and then test whether these preferred prey species conformed to the prediction that solitary hunters preferentially prey on species of similar body mass to themselves."

[3]

"There are three major benefits of this kind of meta-analysis. Firstly, it is not biased by the results from one particular area. Secondly, it is not influenced by the available prey community because for a species to be significantly preferred or avoided, it must be so at several sites. Lastly, it is not biased by predation of particular sexes or age classes as the data arise from hunting by tiger populations that consist of both sexes and all age classes. The number of species with relatively small sample sizes (i.e. few studies recording them as prey) means that significant preference and avoidance is less likely because at least five Jacobs’s index values are required to obtain a significant result using the sign test, hence it is a conservative measure of prey preference. Nonetheless, plots of Jacobs’s index with error bars illustrate which species are likely to be significantly preferred or avoided with a larger sample size, assuming the existing trend continues."

[4]

"This study provides information on the key requirements necessary for a source population of tigers to persist; namely, a viable population of large deer (e.g. sambar, barasingha or red deer) and/or wild boar. Tigers prefer preying upon species similar in body mass to themselves akin to the preferences of other solitary predators (Gittleman, 1985; Vezina, 1985; Jedrzejewski et al., 1993; Carbone et al., 1999; Hayward et al., 2006a,b). These preferences are reinforced throughout the predatory behavioural sequence (Creel & Creel, 2002; Hayward et al., 2011) and have theoretically evolved, through optimal foraging (Goss Custard, 1977; Bertram, 1978; Krebs, 1980), to maximize energetic returns while minimizing injury risk (Hayward & Kerley, 2005). The preferred prey species supports the theory that tiger evolution followed the Pleistocene radiation of cervids in south-eastern Asia as the evolution of large ungulates created a niche for a large-bodied forest-edge predator (Sunquist et al., 1999) and largely quantifies Sunquist’s (2010) preferred prey weight range of tigers.

This preferred prey weight range also includes the young of larger species, which are frequently preyed upon, such as rhinoceros calves (Talukdar, 2002) as well as Pere David’s deer Elaphurus davidianus whose behaviour suggests it may have been an important prey item of tigers before its 1200 years of captivity (Li et al., 2011). The preferred prey weight range also accords with that found at well-studied individual sites, like Nagarhole (Karanth & Sunquist, 1992, 1995)."



Link: zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00871.x

---

REFERENCES

Andheria, A. P., Karanth, K. U., & Kumar, N. S. (2007). Diet and prey profiles of three sympatric large carnivores in Bandipur Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Zoology, 273(2), 169-175.

Borrego, N. (2017). Big cats as a model system for the study of the evolution of intelligence. Behavioural processes, 141, 261-266.

Hazarika, B. C., & Saikia, P. K. (2010). A Study on the Behaviour of Great Indian One-horned Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis Linn.) in the Rajiv Gandhi Orang National park, Assam, India. NeBIO, 1(2), 62-74.

Hayward, M. W., Jędrzejewski, W., & Jedrzejewska, B. (2012). Prey preferences of the tiger P anthera tigris. Journal of Zoology, 286(3), 221-231.

Karanth, K. U., & Nichols, J. D. (1998). Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology, 79(8), 2852-2862.

Seidensticker, J., & McDougal, C. (1993). Tiger predatory behaviour, ecology and conservation. In Symposium of the zoological society of London.

Thuppil, V., & Coss, R. G. (2013). Wild Asian elephants distinguish aggressive tiger and leopard growls according to perceived danger. Biology letters, 9(5), 20130518.

Yamaguchi, 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]

Dec 12, 2019 3:24:02 GMT 5 Life said:

Nov 28, 2019 20:08:34 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

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.

Larger brain does not translate into superior intelligence by default.

FYI:

www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/
www.livescience.com/32142-are-big-brains-smarter.html
www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-arent-animals-with-larger-brains-more-intelligent-than-us/

For the remainder;

Lions are much harder to train and tame than Tigers. This reality might explain biases in assessing intelligence of both Felids.

Anyways:-

"4. Big cats as a comparative framework for the study of the evolution of intelligence

4.1. Learning and memory

Compared to their asocial counterparts, selective pressure on social animals memory and learning systems may be two-fold. In addition to ecological pressures, which often require remembering the location of recourses, how to acquire resources, and learning to extract food from novel or difficult matrices, social animals are also faced with navigating social relationships that require constant monitoring, accurate prediction, and appropriately timed behavior (Byrne 1997; Byrne and Bates, 2006; Byrne and Whiten, 1988). Thus, the selective force of sociality may also operate on nonsocial domains, acting as an additional evolutionary stimulus to nonsocial cognitive abilities, e.g., learning and memory.

Lions face selective pressures stemming from the need to remember social relationships as well as remember the locations of resources. Unsurprisingly, lions demonstrate impressive longterm memory and remember the solution to a novel problem for at least seven months (Borrego and Dowling, 2016). Although direct comparisons of learning and memory between lions, leopards and tigers have not yet been performed, comparisons between spotted hyenas (hierarchical social structure) and leopards (solitary) reveal that, in accordance with the domain general hypothesis, spotted hyenas outperform leopards on a task requiring learning and memory (Balme et al. unpublished data). In this study, we compared the behavioral responses of wild leopards and hyenas to foot snares and found that the rate of capture for hyenas significantly decreased, whereas leopard capture rates remained constant (Balme et al. unpublished data). Notably, leopards were always alone at snares, while the majority of hyenas appeared in groups.

4.2. Innovative problem solving

Currently, the only direct comparison of cognition among big cats is an investigation of lions’,tigers’, and leopards’ ability to solve an innovative, novel problem, a puzzle-box (Borrego and Gaines, 2016). Puzzle-boxes are a standard method for testing cognition and are an effective means of testing innovation and other cognitive processes associated with problem-solving (reviewed by Griffin and Guez, 2014). Innovation can be defined as “a solution to a novel problem or a novel solution to an old problem”(Kummer and Goodall, 1985). Innovation is associated with cognitive complexity, and in primates, innovation is positively correlated with relative brain size (Lefebvre et al., 2004; Manrique et al., 2013; Sol et al., 2005). Innovation applies to non-social contexts and enables animals to exploit novel resources, use existing resources more efficiently, expand their niche, and adapt to changing environments (Day et al., 2003; Huebner and Fichtel 2015; Lefebvre et al., 2004; Reader and Laland 2001). In accordance with the domain-general hypothesis, lions significantly outperformed their asocial counterparts (leopards and tigers) on the nonsocial task, indicating that sociality operates on the evolution of general cognition and not just cognition adapted to social domains."

5. Conclusions

The evolution of cognitive complexity is itself complex and not attributable to a single selective force. Rather, complex cognition is likely driven by the interplay of social and ecological forces. Currently, carnivores, and big cats in particular, are vastly underrepresented in cognitive literature, despite being an ideal model system for tests of social and ecological intelligence hypotheses. The few comparative studies of carnivore cognition rely on broad-scale comparisons and indicate that cognition is not solely bolstered by sociality. For example, two studies that included several species of carnivores found social complexity was not associated with performance on tasks that required nonsocial cognitive abilities,i.e., problemsolving and self control(Benson-Amramet al., 2016; Maclean et al., 2014). Further supportfor ecological complexity as a powerful force in cognitive evolution comes from studies evidencing advanced cognition in black bears (Ursus americanus), a species that faces complex ecological challenges but lacks social complexity (Vonk and Beran, 2012; Vonk et al., 2012; Zamisch and Vonk, 2012). Although these studies support ecological complexity as an equally powerful force in cognitive evolution, they do not address whether sociality operates on general or domain-specific cognition.

Interestingly, when the scale of comparison is narrowed and restricted to closely related species that differ primarily in social complexity, social species outperform their asocial relatives on tasks that require nonsocial cognition. Lions outperform leopards and tigers on solving a puzzle-box task (Borrego and Gaines, 2016), spotted hyenas significantly outperform their solitary counter parts (Striped hyenas [Hyaena hyaena]) on the same puzzle-box task used in the study comparing 39 carnivores (Holekamp et al., 2015), and spotted hyenas outperform solitary leopards in a natural experiment requiring learned avoidance of an aversive stimulus (Balme et al. unpublished data). Thus, the sparse research that does exist supports a domain-general view of cognitive evolution.

Social intelligence hypotheses were originally proposed to explain the remarkably advanced cognitive abilities of primates, focusing early efforts on an exclusively social taxon. Although, the past decade has seen a proliferation of research investigating cognition in social non-primates, studies maintain a narrow focus on exclusively social taxa or rely on proximate measures of cognition (de Waal and Ferrari, 2010; Vonk, 2016). It is only within the past few years that research has expanded to include experimental comparisons of cognition among socially diverse taxa (BensonAmram et al., 2016; Borrego and Gaines, 2016; Maclean et al., 2014). Most notably, the emergence of cognitive comparisons in the socially diverse but grossly understudied family: Carnivora. However, within Carnivora, cats remain an understudied system; many cat species have not been studied at all with regard to cognitive capacities, but see Vitale Shreve and Udell’s (2015) review of domestic cat (Felis catus) cognition. A comparison of lion, leopard, cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), and cougar (Puma concolor) brain volume showed female lion anterior cerebrums (the area containing the frontal cortex) were larger than the other felid species and also larger than males of their own species, which further highlights the value of comparing cognition within Felidae, as these comparisons may reveal variations not detected on broader scales (Sakai et al., 2016). Continuing cognitive comparisons of big cats and including currently unrepresented felid species will enable research aimed directly at disentangling the role of social complexity from the role of ecological complexity in the evolution of intelligence. - Borrego (2017)

+

"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 (head-and-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." - Yamahaguchi et al (2009)

We have already talked about the puzzle box studies from Borrego, which were clearly not valid.

And the 2nd source is wrong, lol. We are not talking about absolute brain size, but brain size relative to size. If lions, leopards and tigers are the same size, tigers have larger brains than lions and leopards. That is what supposedly determines intelligence, how big the brain is relative. Skull size is NOT related to brain size, which is the mistake they are making, thinking that they are related. Tigers skulls are wider and more vaulted than lion skulls, that is how their bigger brain fits in a slightly shorter skull.

Nov 28, 2019 20:08:34 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

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.

Hmm.

"Tigers occasionally take rhinoceros calves (Seidensticker 1976b) and elephant calves (Johnsingh 1983), but adult rhinoceroses and elephants are too big for adult tigers to kill. These megaherbivores can form an enormous proportion of the mammalian herbivore biomass in south and south-east Asian habitats (Table 3). Tigers do take the largest suids, bovids and cervids. In Kanha National Park in central India, Schaller (1967) found that tigers killed gaur and swamp deer when they were part of the ungulate assemblages. Karanth (1988) reported heavy prédation on solitary adult gaur in Nagarahole National Park in southern India. Tigers obviously kill prey as encountered, including prey in the smaller size classes (Table 2), but they seek and kill large ungulate prey, thereby gaining access to a considerable portion of the mammalian biomass that is maintained by relatively few individuals." - Seidensticker and McDougal (1993)

Link: repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/4410/Seidensticker1993.pdf

+

"Tiger predation on Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) and one-horned rhinos (Rhinoceros unicornis) is rare and restricted to small calves." - Karanth and Nichols (1998)

Link: repository.ias.ac.in/89442/1/3-P.pdf

+

"We investigated whether wild elephants could discriminate the aggressive growls of tigers and leopards. Tigers are known to opportunistically prey on elephant calves, whereas there is no mention, either in the literature or anecdotally, of elephants being a part of leopards’ diets [7–9]. Elephants themselves produce guttural growls while communicating with conspecifics [10,11] and may possess a broad, low-frequency acoustical-assessment ability useful for differentiating similar growls of other species. Therefore, we predicted that elephants would discriminate the acoustically distinct growls of tigers and leopards and would display stronger antipredator behaviour to the more dangerous tiger-growl playbacks." - Thuppil and Coss (2013)

Link: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0518

+

"When combined, the four numerically dominant ungulates (chital, sambar, gaur and wild pig) provided 96% of the biomass consumed by tigers, 88% by leopards, 97% by dholes, clearly establishing the importance of role of large and medium ungulates for maintaining high densities and viable populations of tigers and other large carnivores as shown by earlier workers (Karanth & Stith, 1999; Karanth et al., 2004). Even in terms of the relative number of prey animals taken, these four ungulate species constitute a high proportion of predator diets. Very large prey such as elephants (only calves are killed by tigers), or low-density ungulates such as muntjac and four-horned antelope, do not appear to be important in predator diets. Among nonungulate prey, only langur monkeys appear to be of some importance to leopards." - Andheria et al (2007)

Link: www.conservationindia.org/wp-content/files_mf/51.-Andheria-et-al_2007_Journal-of-Zoology_Dietprey.pdf

+

"Apart from that, being the most primitive herbivorous mammals, the Indian rhino possess some important behavioural features that directly or indirectly related to its survival perspectives measure. Again, some of the behaviours of Indian rhino are itself responsible to victim of poachers. During mating display, female normally runs up to a higher distance of 2-3 kms or even more. In doing this, both the individuals often receive severe injury. Since mating take place throughout the year, physical injury is a common phenomenon of Indian Rhino, which occasionally resulted to death. Again, the predation of Rhino calf by tiger is a common phenomenon in Rajiv Gandhi Orang National Park as the Rhino calfs are found throughout the year. This predation effect on rhino calf by tiger was also reported by Talukdar (2002) in Kaziranga National Park of Assam." - Hazarika and Saikia (2010)

Link: www.researchgate.net/profile/Prasanta_Saikia2/publication/314176555_studies_on_the_behaviour_of_great_Indian_Rhinoceros/links/58b8729caca27261e51cdc61/studies-on-the-behaviour-of-great-Indian-Rhinoceros.pdf

+

"Twenty-seven deaths were recorded during the study period: six of them due to poaching, which was confined almost entire11 to the first year. lntraspecific fighting, particularly among males, accounted for six (almost 30°!i) of the deaths due to causes other than poaching. Three calves were recorded killed by tigers and other cases of tiger predation were suspected. Minimum annual mortality rates were estimated as 5.6% perinatal, 8.5% for calves. 1.2'%) for sub-adults and 3-.1O/0 for adults." - Laurie (1981)

Link: www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Laurie/publication/227668370_Behavioural_ecology_of_the_Greater_one-horned_rhinoceros_Rhinoceros_unicornis/links/5a5c7b2daca2727d608a82db/Behavioural-ecology-of-the-Greater-one-horned-rhinoceros-Rhinoceros-unicornis.pdf

So?

I do not rule out the possibility of a Male Tiger taking its chances with an adult one-horned rhino or elephant of either sex but these could be sick or injured individuals at the time. SCAVENGING is absolutely expected on top.

Therefore; ACCOUNTS = SUBJECTIVE (need I say more?)

Nov 28, 2019 20:08:34 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

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.

See above.

That [single] statement was in poor taste from me but your entire post is filled with GROSS EXAGGERATIONS.

Consider an excellent study about Tiger's GLOBAL dietary preferences from Hayward et al (2011):-

[1]

"Tigers Panthera tigris continue to decline despite the best efforts of the worldwide scientific and conservation communities. Prey depletion has been linked to this decline, but a clear definition of what constitutes preferred prey and preferred prey weight range does not exist. This is critical information if we are to assess tiger reintroduction potential, monitor unforeseen poaching of predators and prey, and successfully conserve the species. Here we reviewed the available literature on tiger diet and prey availability and calculated Jacobs’s electivity index scores from 3187 kills or scats of 32 prey species. We found that wild boar and sambar deer are significantly preferred by tigers, with red deer and barasingha likely to be significantly preferred also with a larger sample size. Prey body mass was the only variable that related to tiger prey preference with species weighing between 60 and 250 kg preferred by tigers yielding a ratio of predator to preferred prey of 1:1, which is similar to other solitary felids. This information can be used to predict tiger diet, carrying capacity and movement patterns, as it has been for Africa’s large predator guild, and has important implications for tiger conservation throughout its distribution." - Hayward et al (2011)

[2]

"Tigers are solitary, ambush hunters that also actively search for prey (Wilson & Mittermeier, 2009) and require >5 kg of meat daily to maintain body condition (Sunquist, 1981). They are capable of capturing and killing large prey, including adult male gaur Bos gaur (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995), but also take prey as small as hares (Johnsingh, 1983). Tiger diet is biogeographically diverse (Miquelle et al., 1996, 1999; Sunquist, Karanth & Sunquist, 1999). Based on the breadth of their diet across their range, one might infer that tigers are non-selective predators; however, it seems likely that the species’ morphology and solitary hunting strategy imposes limitations on the prey it can capture most efficiently with minimal risk.

Solitary leopards P. pardus, cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus and Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx preferentially prey on species at or just below their own body mass (Jedrzejewski et al., 1993; Hayward et al., 2006a,b), whereas group hunters, like lions P. leo and African wild dogs Lycaon pictus preferentially prey on species much larger than themselves (Hayward & Kerley, 2005; Hayward et al., 2006c). Sunquist (2010) has suggested that the size of prey preferred by tigers is approximately their own size, as has been found with other solitary carnivores. Consequently, we aimed to determine the preferred prey of tigers from throughout the species’ range and then test whether these preferred prey species conformed to the prediction that solitary hunters preferentially prey on species of similar body mass to themselves."

[3]

"There are three major benefits of this kind of meta-analysis. Firstly, it is not biased by the results from one particular area. Secondly, it is not influenced by the available prey community because for a species to be significantly preferred or avoided, it must be so at several sites. Lastly, it is not biased by predation of particular sexes or age classes as the data arise from hunting by tiger populations that consist of both sexes and all age classes. The number of species with relatively small sample sizes (i.e. few studies recording them as prey) means that significant preference and avoidance is less likely because at least five Jacobs’s index values are required to obtain a significant result using the sign test, hence it is a conservative measure of prey preference. Nonetheless, plots of Jacobs’s index with error bars illustrate which species are likely to be significantly preferred or avoided with a larger sample size, assuming the existing trend continues."

[4]

"This study provides information on the key requirements necessary for a source population of tigers to persist; namely, a viable population of large deer (e.g. sambar, barasingha or red deer) and/or wild boar. Tigers prefer preying upon species similar in body mass to themselves akin to the preferences of other solitary predators (Gittleman, 1985; Vezina, 1985; Jedrzejewski et al., 1993; Carbone et al., 1999; Hayward et al., 2006a,b). These preferences are reinforced throughout the predatory behavioural sequence (Creel & Creel, 2002; Hayward et al., 2011) and have theoretically evolved, through optimal foraging (Goss Custard, 1977; Bertram, 1978; Krebs, 1980), to maximize energetic returns while minimizing injury risk (Hayward & Kerley, 2005). The preferred prey species supports the theory that tiger evolution followed the Pleistocene radiation of cervids in south-eastern Asia as the evolution of large ungulates created a niche for a large-bodied forest-edge predator (Sunquist et al., 1999) and largely quantifies Sunquist’s (2010) preferred prey weight range of tigers.

This preferred prey weight range also includes the young of larger species, which are frequently preyed upon, such as rhinoceros calves (Talukdar, 2002) as well as Pere David’s deer Elaphurus davidianus whose behaviour suggests it may have been an important prey item of tigers before its 1200 years of captivity (Li et al., 2011). The preferred prey weight range also accords with that found at well-studied individual sites, like Nagarhole (Karanth & Sunquist, 1992, 1995)."



Link: zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00871.x

You just cherry pick the sources you like without giving the full details. Many reserves in India, lack larger prey like buffalo and even large species of deer, which is why studies especially like the first one you showed will be bias towards smaller prey, but this is completely wrong. If you look at many individual reserves and studies, tigers do prefer larger prey like Sambar and buffalo over smaller prey.

These are also scat studies, meaning it includes every tiger, not just male. Nobody said tigresses are equal to the male tigers abilities to take down large prey, so this is just a unfair comparison.

[/quote][/quote]

[Life]

^^^

Again with the 'cherry picking' remark.... beep. My post contains HOLISTICALLY meaningful information about Tigers from 8 scientific references in total, from renowned researchers/experts who have worked with big cats around the world - THE BIGGER PICTURE.

All you do is handwave/dismiss scientific information, and accuse others of cherry picking in their argumentation. This isn't debating but a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

CAPTIONED

"The term "Tiger fandom" trigger you? Tiger fandom = immature Tiger fans who have rigid views about the animal and its capabilities, and not flexible enough to entertain perspectives which might challenge or contradict their perceptions about the animal. Tiger fans in this thread continue to validate my position about them. For instance, you continue to dismiss any perspective or source that does not conform to your views about Felids in general and accuse others of cherry picking in their argumentation. You are mistaking the practice of 'making use of quotes from sources to inform an argument' for cherry picking - problematic thought process. Otherwise, virtually all members of the forum are guilty of cherry picking in their argumentation at some point in time. Will you accuse other Tiger fans of cherry picking as well or is this accusation only reserved for members with whom you have potential disagreements?"

Read more: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/3137/indian-lion-bengal-tiger?page=5#ixzz67s5uBIeN

You have 1 WEEK to clear your head, and I will continue to evaluate your responses after your temporary ban expires, to see if you are FIT to post in this forum. Mark my words.

This forum is not about QUANTITY but QUALITY in conversations. People like you offer nothing meaningful here! Neither manners, nor substance.