About Fady D. Isho Expertise I can answer questions relating to species interaction, as well as hypothetical faceoffs. Questions relating to hypothetical interaction can be answered as well, including other aspects of interspecies conflict.
Experience To date, I'm still finishing up high school. Although, I've had experience with animals both in and outside of the field. I've also read about animals (wild) most of my life.
Question QUESTION: it is said by many that tigers are bigger than lions, but, from the studies i`ve seen, there`s been no REAL difference in size.
listen to this; sorry if it`s too long, i just have a lot to say on the subject;
i can offer more proof to suggest that lions and tigers are of the same size. for my case, i`ll talk of us….humans.
in regards to people, men are usually bigger and stronger than women. the reason for such is simple; for many years, women have often completed tasks which require little size and strength. and of course, if you spend too much time without using your muscles, they dwindle. men are quite the opposite, and much more likely to pursue such strenuous activities as football or weight lifting. such activities also require more testosterone, which is more or less directly related to aggression.
humans are very group oriented, and in ancient times wars between separate parties were commonplace. again, the reason for such is obvious; people are individualistic, and different people often had conflicting ideas. they sought to settle such differences by fighting, and of course, men often took control of such situations….often to the exclusion of women, which may have been more by accident than natural selection. now obviously, fighting requires a certain level of aggression and fighting reqularly often left people quite agitated. as the years went by, such reactions became commonplace and a part of a man`s biology.
less intelligent animals react the same way. like us, lions are very group oriented an dvery individualistic, and, of course, this often leads to much quarreling. also, they live in close proximity with other lion prides where accidental invasion is much more likely. having to provide for an entire group, lions don`t take such lightly….and often settle such differences by fighting. and, like us, such quarreling leaves them quite agitated and they often feel inclined to take it out on the nearest neighbor….such as another pride member. and of course, like us, such happenings are commonplace, and they, by nature, have adapted accordingly….as their brains, viewing such hostility as ‘normal’, opted to see such as a ‘normal’ reaction.
lionesses, though smaller than males, are just as quarrelsome. however, being so group oriented as they are, being aggressive towards males wouldn`t be very benefitial to their future survival….so they direct such hostility toward OTHER female lions. so why then, are they smaller than the males? the reason for such, though unclear to scientists, is simple; though the males benefit from group living, they are, by comparison, loners, and usually only congregate with a few other males and of course usually leave the females to their own bussiness. females, being more group oriented, doesn`t need to be as big, and, by group hunting are still able to hunt large prey. animals in the wild often opt to hunting prey which are easiest to catch. for lions, big, slow animals offer less of a challenge because they are slower and offer less of a struggle in groups. however, for lions, the most numerous are wildebeast.
tigers, though loners by comparison, would also want to hunt the prey animals which offer less struggle or sacrafice. this is easily acheivable, as the most numerous prey animals happens to be deer, which are smaller than wildebeast. for lone animals, this makes sense, as they must provide for themselves and they msut conserve their energy for later hunts. that`s why they have developed shorter jaws an dlonger teeth, as such is only benefitial in the quick killing of small prey. a tiger`s teeth, which are it`s most deadly weapon, is very long and it`s shorter jaws mean the bite force in the canines is highened and enables ot`s teeth to fit more easily between the neck vertebrae of it`s prey….a technique which can only be attempted with smaller prey, as large animals have too thick a neck and must be subdued by strangulation, in which longer teeth is not needed. they are also faster than lions, though decidedly have a shorter rib cage; so they tire easily. this may be one of the reasons it lives in forests, as this provides the perfect cover for a shorter chase. also, longer teeth, as is typical of all things, are more brittle than shorter ones, so it makes more sense to hunt smaller prey, which of course may further explain it`s greater speed…..something which is not needed for the hunting of large animals, which are usually slower.
there is yet another reason why lions are group oriented; competition. with highened competition with either rivals or other predators which may endanger the cubs, such group living is than nesseccary for the future survival of it`s kind, as it offers more protection.
i`ll also give more reasons why tigers are less aggressive than lions. although male tigers, like lions, are territorial, their territories are far larger, due mainly to their lower preey densities, which means they must travel farther in search of prey. obviuosly, such a big expanse is harder to protect, so territorial incursions from invading males are often overlooked. they are much more aggressive in their fights over females. but, even then, fights between two males are often passive. living alone, tigers would want to avoid serious injury, and, on occasions where fighting is the only option, they opt to avoid the use of their teeth, as a way of preventing too serious an injury. this makes sense, as, unlike lions who must protect their cubs, males offer no help in the rearing of young and may not even recognize their own cubs. so…..they have less at stake.
also, i`ll give more reason as to why lions have more competitors. when a lion kills another competitor like a leopard or hyena, they rarely EAT the carcass, and only leave the kill after death is certain. scientists say this is due to pure hatred, in which hyenas return such hatred 100%. when tigers kill such animals as sun bears or leopards, they are often seen feeding from the carcass, or else found with trases of the dead animal in their scat droppings. therefore, tigers treat such animals as prey rather than competitors. and smaller predators know this, so they opt to stay out of areas where tigers are most abundant. competitors in africa also are usually more group oriented….so they are much more deadly. even single competitors like the leopard still posses a threat to their cubs survival.
if living alone means fighting for tigers is passive or else reduced, than it makes perfect sense that a lion`s mane should serve the same purpose, as it conveys a message of strength and power. for the open plains, such an adaptation is more easily noticed and helps to prevent confrontation. but, as i explained before lions often put themselves in situations where fighting is the only option. 50% of all male lions die this way. with such a high fatality rate, it`s obvious lions fight in a less than passive manner. when lions fight, they often use their teeth as their first line of defense in order to dish as much injury on such an irritable opponent as posible. as is obvious from play fighting, lions often target the necks of their foes. obviously, his opponent is vulnerable in such a position so they opt to turning on their backs and delivering many rabbit kicks to cause his opponent to release his grip. with such a defense, such an attack on an opponents neck is obviously risky, so they opt to go for less vulerable areas, like the front legs or rump. this is purely learned behavior, and smart, as by avoiding the neck they prevent the chance of instead misjudging the distance and biting the mane.
tigers, who hardly need use such a technique, clearly posses a less combative nature. in a fight with a lion, they may truly be at a disadvantage.
a tiger`s greater agility may play a key part in defeating a lion, so lions may only be succesful in such fights 55% of the time. all in all, they are both amazing creatures.
ANSWER: Hi, Jimmy
First of all, male humans are not larger than females because they "preform more physical activities". We are larger because of our much greater testosterone (six times more). And no, scientists do know why male lions are larger than female lions, which is also because of testosterone.
Now, studies in captivity show that lions give off higher testosterone readings than tigers, however, testosterone does not apply for size outside of the species, or subspecies. I.e. bull sharks have a monstrous testosterone level (the highest among vertebrates), however, it still be lacking greatly in size to great whites.
Growth genes also determine size, and it's confirmed and proven that tigers are genetically larger than lions. About the aggression issue, my experiences also lead me to believe that lions are more aggressive than tigers.
Though it should be noted that tigers will also kill other predators in its range to "get rid of the competition" and so will hyenas and leopards, it doesn't make lions more aggressive. Also, tigers fight seemingly as much as lions.
Also, let me say that lions as well as tigers, rarely target the neck of one another when fighting simply because its too dangerous to attack in this fashion. The mane is used to look as fierce and large as possible and attract females, Dr. Craig Packer's research confirms this.
In most fights in which both big cats get in, the claws are used as the primary weapons. You can find out how lions really fight in here-
Lions fight using their forepaws and their teeth. When two lions of equal strength fight they usually strike the other with their claws, often scratching the face. These blows can be very violent and cause serious injury. Usually, one of the lions will retreat before the fight gets worse (that is, when they start actually biting and trying to kill rather then injure or intimidate). When a lion feels it is at a disadvantage, it will adopt a defensive posture; it will lay on its back and use both the forepaws and the hind leg to kick at his rival. This is not a submissive sign, but rather a more advantageous fight posture since it allows the lion to use the claws on all four legs at the same time.
It is very rare that lions bite the throat of the rival simply because the rival will not let them reach it. Also, throat biting is more of a predatory technique rather than a fighting one. When lions die due to a fight with other lions, it is usually as a result of the wounds received during the battle.
Best regards,
Fady
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: you said "First of all, male humans are not larger than females because they "preform more physical activities". We are larger because of our much greater testosterone (six times more). And no, scientists do know why male lions are larger than female lions, which is also because of testosterone."
actually, testosterone has little effect in terms of size. it just means that the potential for growth is higher, sort of like protein in the body; in order for it to work, you must give it some PHYSICAL stimulation.
in terms of humans, men are bigger than women, which may have been more by accident than natural selection, because, women, as i said....(women have often completed tasks which require little size and strength. and of course, if you spend too much time without using your muscles, they dwindle.....humans are very group oriented, and in ancient times wars between separate parties were commonplace. again, the reason for such is obvious; people are individualistic, and different people often had conflicting ideas. they sought to settle such differences by fighting, and of course, men often took control of such situations….often to the exclusion of women, which may have been more by accident than natural selection. now obviously, fighting requires a certain level of aggression and fighting reqularly often left people quite agitated. the brain, which view fighting, from repiption, as a common accurance, opted to except such extremities as 'normal', thus.....more testosterone.
the same is true of lions. male lions, by nature, are generally less group oriented than the females, forming colaitions of from 2-5, and usually leave the females to their own bussiness. having to provide for an entire family, lionesses often hunt larger prey, and group hunting means that such is easier. it also means that, through teamwork, great size isn`t nesseccary.
in my studies, i`ve found that lions and tigers are of the same size. however, you should note that zoos on occasion only give estimates of their animals weight, which can lead some astray. look at this;
Gaia
Female
Born May 9, 1996 at Minnesota Zoo
Arrived at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo on April 1, 1998
Weight - 300 lbs.
Tatja
Male
Born March 29, 1986 at Baton Rouge Zoo
Arrived at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo on March 24, 2000
Weight - 400 lbs;
“The “Siberian Tiger Project”, which has operated from Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik since 1992, found that 215 kg (474 lbs) seemed to be the largest that they were able to verify, albeit from a limited number of specimens.”
“According to modern research of wild Siberian tigers in Sikhote-Aline, an average adult male tiger (>35 months) weighs 167,3 - 185,7 kg (the average asymptotic limit, computed by use of the Michaelis-Menten formula, gives 222,3 kg for male tigers) and an adult tigress - 117,9 - 122,6 kg, respectively. The mean weight of historical Siberian tigers is supposed to be higher: 215,3-226,7 kg for male tigers. [6] At least one authority suspects that this is the difference between real weights and hunter’s estimates.[7] Dale Miquelle, program director of the Siberian Tiger Project, writes that, despite repeated claims in the popular literature that the Siberian is the largest of all tigers, their measurements on more than fifty captured individuals suggest that body size is, in fact, similar to that of Bengal tigers.”
"The largest Indian tiger (P. t. tigris) known was the “Bachelor
of Powalgarh,” shot in 1930 in Kumaon; it measured 3228
mm (10 ft 7 in) “over curves” which equals about 3070 to 3100
mm measured “between pegs” (Corbett, 1961)."
"The heaviest Indian tiger weighed 258.2 kg (Hewett, 1938),
while the heaviest Ussurian male weighed 306.5 kg (Baudy, 1968;
Bouglione, in litt.). The weight of the mentioned male from the
Sungari River in Manchuria was “certainly not less than about
300 kg”"
lions, by instinct, opt to go for the closest target available in violent confrontations....like the neck. however, i agree that they do recognize that the neck, though tempting, puts these cats in a more vulnerable position, cause his opponent, in such a position, opts to turn on his back and deliver multiple kicks in order to release his adversaries grip. such tactics can be very effective, so they opt to attack less vulnerable areas like the front legs and rump. this is smart, as, in avoiding the neck, they prevent the chance of misjudging the distance and biting instead the mane. their claws also gets snagged in the mane, so they find it easier to attack less protected areas. instinct doesn`t teach this, and tigers may truely be at a disadvantage in a fight with a lion.
yeah, lions do use their claws...but, as i said, in defense of their young and the survival of their futhur generation, they would want to cause as much injury to their opponent as posible. check this out;
That's incorrect, and it's a well-known fact that the reason male lions are larger than females is because of their testosterone (and also the reason they have a mane). There's no point in refuting this, it's general knowledge and can be found seemingly anywhere.
Your explanation is simply wrong, actually men often had to recieve more education than women and thus used thier mind more than their hands, in contrast to women who had to do hard chores.
You can refer to your health teacher for this and second of all, you can't use wikipedia as a source.
Dale Miquelle is one of few experts who believes that Bengal tigers are perhaps larger than Siberian tigers, but still knows tigers are larger than lions. And while some reports do mention that the largest Indian tiger was under 300 kilograms, my data proves this to be wrong, and I can confirm this. A particular tiger in the Nepal Valley alone weighed 317 kilograms, and to date the tigers of India have been larger than those of Nepal.
Any great cat expert will tell you that tigers are larger than lions, and most (I've noticed many lion fanatics try to minimize the tiger by using the word of a single expert) will tell you that Siberian tigers are larger than Bengal tigers. Including myself.
I've already told you your next paragraph is incorrect, please read all of my post before writing again.
Best regards,
Fady
Ps- YouTube is a laughable source, I will not bother looking at the videos. Sorry, hope you understand.
