Question QUESTION: i think i asked this question before, but are tigers truely bigger? no offense, but i have to say i disagree.
let me explain:
lions are capable of amazing feats of strength. a 416 lb lion has been known to drag a 1000 lb carcass a distance of over 400 feet. that`s a weight differnece of about 60%, and lions, as such, would need a muscle mass of about 60% to achieve such a feat.
with a muscle mass of 60%, a 416 lb lion has about 250 lbs of muscle, with the strength of 10 men. the average 150 lb man has a muscle mass of about 40%. even though people have less than 1/10 the amount of muscle mass, a lion`s muscles, at similar wieghts, is about 40% stronger, which makes sense for an animal with such a hectic lifestyle.
muscle mass decreases at weights much above 416 lbs, which i deduce must be the average weight of a lion. so tigers, were they bigger, would posses a slower, less agile form.
tigers, living alone, have longer teeth and claws, an adaptation that suits a lone hunter. they are also faster, due mainly to their shorter legs.
example: limbs, when moved, fall in a curve pattern and a smaller limb has a smaller curve and so takes less time to reach it`s mark. also, the receptors that send the command to move has less distance to travel before the brain recieves the message. the quicker the message, the quicker the reaction. tigers are, on average, 15% faster than lions.
being shorter also means a tiger has a more compact form, which may also account for it`s speed.
lions live in groups. this makes sense as most of the animals it likes to hunt are in great abundance, and group hunting greatly enhances their hunting succes. also, most of the animals lions like to hunt live in groups and are often largely protective of their kin. group hunting is then a plus, as they are able to take down bigger prey. also, buffalos, reputed by most to be the most aggressive animals in africa, are very protective of their kind and a single lion on the hunt is fair game for any group of buffalos bent on revenge.
peter jackson, a big cat expert, says the heaviest lion in captivity weighed 930 lbs, while a captive tiger weighed 932 lbs. he calsims size wise there`s no difference.
it should be noted that the heaviest CONFIRMED napalese tiger weighed 227 kgs, while a tsavo lion tipped the scales at 272 kg.
mazak, a big cat expert, states that the record of that 857 lb tiger was likely an estimate and never confirmed. however, the largest wild lion weighed 702 lbs, and was 11 ft long, compared to the 10 ft 7 wild bengal.
the author of the book called "tiger in the snow" claims he knows of no wild tiger that weighed over 650 lbs, and his study of wild tigers was highly extensive.
also, i`ve noticed from zoos and documentaries that lions and tigers are usually the same size. listen to this:
a lion named moran from “planet carnivore” was said to weigh 500 lbs. it was said on ‘explorer that a male siberian weighed 500lbs. on ‘awesome pawsome’ it was stated that tigers usually weigh about 500 lbs in zoos. from a zoo mentioned in a previous post had a siberian tiger that weighed 600 lbs, and was very fat looking. a lion, similarly, at another zoo, weighed 600 lbs. one of clyde beatty`s lions weighed 650 lbs. a fight between a lion and tiger was mentioned that stated the lion weighed 500 lbs while the tiger weighed 450 lbs.
tigers, contrary to popular belief, are not much adapted to grow fat, and large individuals in the wild must often work extra hard to supply itself with enough food. it`s safe to say tigers are no bigger than lions.
ANSWER: Hi, Jimmy
Im sorry but the fact remains that Bengal and Siberian tigers ARE larger than lions on average, and that the largest wild cats measured have been tigers. I'm sorry, but that´'s the way it is.
By the way, please when you ask a question, let it be only the question, don´t write down all that data. I often have little time to answer and I find it difficult finding answers sometimes. Hope you understand.
Best regards
Malcolm
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: i still believe lions and tigers are of the same size. is it truely FACT that tigers are bigger?
i don`t want to sound rude, but i don`t think record sizes suggest tigers are larger on AVERAGE. first off, not many wild lions or tigers have been measured, and most of the time tiger weights are highly exaggerated and often far from the truth.
also, it`s literally impossible for an animal above 416 lbs to have a muscle mass over 60%. also, tests have been done on the girth sizes of lions and tigers of equal size, and the results were that lions and tigers have basically the same mass at equal weights.
that means that tigers, at equal weights, have relatively the same muscle mass as lions.
sorry if the post is long, i just have a lot to say. thanks for your time.
ANSWER: Hi again, Jimmy
Yes, it is a fact. Obviously, there are some lions that are larger than some tigers, but as I said before, on average tigers are bigger and the largest lions measured weren´t nearly as big as the largest tigers.
And I'm afraid you are mistaken; many lions and tigers have been captured and measured, and since tigers are now an endangered species and must be studied closely all the time, we have very reliable info on their size and other traits, and of course, no serious scientist or conservationist would exaggerate the size of a captured animal. That would be just nonsense.
So, once more, tigers ARE the largest living wild cats. This is a PROVED, CONFIRMED AND LONG KNOWN FACT and there is really no use in trying to refute it. You could equally claim that the African wild dog is the largest wild canid, but the wolf would still be the largest.
Best regards
Malcolm
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: i have info to prove otherwise on tigers being bigger than lions. i know i must seem persistant, but i just like to prove a point. don`t mean any disrespect by it.
both the heaviest lion and tiger weighed 930 lbs. also, tigers in the wild are particularly hard to study, not to mention expensive.
listen to this:
on "spy in the lions den", dave salmoni mentioned he was attacked by a '550 lb' lion. ron, a siberian/bengal mix, was said to weigh 550 lbs at adulthood. clyde beatty, famous lion tamer, had a lion that weighed nearly 700 lbs. none of his tigers, even his male siberians, reached that weight. the largest CONFIRMED nepalese tiger weighed 227 kg, compared to a 272 kg tsavo lion. there were reports of larger tigers, but, according to mazak, none were confirmed.
also, it`s literally impossible for a tiger to be stronger than a lion 'pound for pound'. niether a lion or tigers strength was measured, but based on info from average sized animals, it`s asfe to say both posses the strength of 10 men.
Answer Hi, Jimmy
I must say I'm surprised at your persistence, but, and I don´t mean to be disrespectful either, if you are trying to make me say that lions are bigger or even the same size than tigers, I'm afraid you are not going to succeed.
No cat expert will tell you that lions are bigger than tigers; it has been known for a long time that tigers are the largest and strongest (not pound by pound, but overall) cats, and this is a fact anyone could confirm if they went out and started catching and measuring Amur or Bengal tigers and lions (I wouldn´t recommend that, though).
Now, it seems obvious to me that you are fond of lions, and so am I, but as I said before, there is no use in trying to refute a well known truth.
Reports of huge tigers over 270 or even 280 kgs have been confirmed and the reports of 300+ kg tigers in the wild are regarded as reliable by most experts. In captivity, tigers reach these huge sizes quite often. You really can´t make conclusions out of cases where the lions were bigger than the tigers. One, or even fifty lions bigger than tigers prove nothing. The fact is TIGERS ARE GENETICALLY ABLE TO REACH LARGER SIZES THAN LIONS.
I'm not going to repeat what I've said before, and, still hoping that you don´t get offended, I would like to ask, why is it so important to "prove" that lions are larger, specially when all animal experts and most lay people know they aren´t? I really can´t find any use to this argument; lions and tigers are incredible and fascinating creatures regardless of their size and there are many things to learn about them. The things that we already know, we shouldn´t really insist about disproving them.
