ApexGladiatorCat wrote at 2010-09-19 22:24:23
I love it when some fanatics try to sound professional and calm collected and "impartial" as their blind fanatisicm will allow. A Lion has substantially larger muscles than a Tiger. The bone density is a function of the overall genetics which is a function of the species' evolutionary set of parameters (climatic, competitive, social, etc.). The Lion, for example, deals with Buffalo or larger---at times alone. Sometimes successfull occasionally the prey getting away. This builds enormous tourques, stress, and the foundation for future and even current muscle development which effect genetic mutation in eliminating undesired traits such as less strong muscle attachments, bone density, etc. as well as different types of muscles and body structure. How may times have we seen, for example, a Lion tossing a Tiger around?
A Lion, for example, has a sturduier bone set including it's shoulder muscles. One of the tell tale signs of a more rugged environment. The sheer evidence to just about any observer---which CANNOT be denied is the occasional(usually forced) interaction between these two cats whre the Lion shows it's dominance.
ApexBigCatWarrior wrote at 2010-11-06 21:15:43
The male Lion as compared to the male Tiger has substantially more of the following: 1) Robust skeletal structure---including bone density and joints most throughout the body; 2) muscles development overall with the shoulders, neck forelimbs, and chest leading the way; 3) height; 4) swipe strength; and 5) incomparable amount more ferocity. Overall the Lion has evolved, genetically to be a far superior warlike specimen whereas the Tiger is more balanced, although quite impressive in it's own right in muscularity it simply is not specialized over the eons to "take out" the adversary...only in hunting for food.
0803iia0001 wrote at 2010-12-13 02:59:10
A Lion's skeletal robusticity alone indicate a better support structure for significantly larger muscles than those of a Tiger. In some sample Lions iot is less evident and some more.Many other factors play into the Lion's strength advantage alone. These are a genetic evolution as it relates to lifestyle. This is an umbrella criterion. More specific object features such as types of muscle, those vessels serving the muscles, etc. Further, the so-called "expert" certainly does not seem neutral as the title of expert would imply to the average person. The comments seem to belie an amateur fascination with Felidea Tigris. I am not a so-called expert as such. My fascination with the Lion was similar to that of Clyde Beatty as was magnetized by it's exceedingly strong, fearsome, and aggressive nature.
Vikas wrote at 2015-02-16 06:59:36
Lions evolved in plains and tigers in dense jungle. Lions have slightly longer and wider bones. However, bones density of tigers are higher. Heavier bones means large muscles needed to do day to day activity. Tigers are bit longer and heavier on an average. Lions are taller.
This is just short explanation, I did quick google search and found this contain some great information and discussion about Tiger's and Lion's Bones, weight etc. http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-can-someone-explain-this
Anonymous wrote at 2015-08-17 09:43:11
Tigers and lions are very closely related and there are many elements of their anatomy/biology which are virtually identical. One of these elements is the concentration of red blood cells. In other words, there is no difference in the concentration of red blood cells amongst cultures of tigers and lions because of the species. There have been past studies on the difference in concentration of red blood cells between lions and tigers and scientists have found that any variation is most closely correlated with altitude not species. An excellent example is in the Gir Forest, India where lions and tigers co-exist and in this area both have similar concentrations of red blood cells.
Tigers and lions are also approximately equally active. Both will only ever expend large amounts of energy when hunting or fighting over territory or females. However, it is true that tigers have a lower success rate than lions due to the fact they are solitary hunters and lions are communal hunters.
The answer to question 1. is tigers have a muscle percentage of approximately 65%. Therefore the muscle mass depends on the size of the individual. Male Amur tigers (the largest tigers) average about 250kg and would therefore have an average muscle mass of about 162.5kg. Female Sumatran tigers (the smallest tigers) average about 100kg and would therefore have an average muscle mass of about 65kg.
Lions on the other hand have a muscle percentage of approximately 58%. The largest lions (male Transvaal lions) weigh in at an average of 200kg and would therefore have an average muscle mass of about 116kg.
In response to question 2. I will tell you that I am a Panthera genus biologist and I have seen many lions and tigers drag carcasses up to 2 or 3 times their weight. There was one case in Indonesia where I saw a 135kg Sumatran tiger drag a dead sambar dear, which we estimated at 390 - 500kg, directly up a tree.