Yuku free message boards

HerbivoresRule wrote:

---

the bold champ, you are funny man. Scientists do years of research on wild animals and come to the conclusion tigers are larger. tell me, what is your qualification on wild cats ? have you studied any wild cats ? have you gotten any hands-on-experience on wild cats ? have you atleast read one full book on wild cats ? Sunquist wrote in his book tigers are largest cat. I trust his book, unless new edition of his book come and say in different way. I read somewhere packer said with same diet condition, siberian tiger would be larger. Sorry again mate, I go with scientists. They are reliable and trustable. you ? what is your qualification on wild cats ?

herbivores, sunquist did indeed state tigers were larger....but, he was merely talking of record weights....and, even then, there is little verification. he told me in an email that lions and tigers were of equal size, and the statement by packer was what he stated in an email given to me, in which he said that the lions of the ngorongoro crater had chest girth measurements similar to those of siberian tigers....and then he goes on to stated that siberians, with a similarly rich diet, will be heavier. however, he lacks the studies to prove this, and, though his opinion is appreciated, it is without evidence.

and, i post sources upon actual measurements, which requires no qualification.

catlion, i do believe the tiger would put up a valiant struggle. but, the lion would be the usual victor. why?.....well, the lion is more combative, given the greater number of lions, per square kilometer, compared to tigers.......which means more confrontation. lions also must protect their young, something which male tigers take no part in, and may be, in fact, hazardous to the cubs` health. when a intrusive male lion invades in the territory of another, with the possibility of causing danger to the pride male`s cubs, the pride male will challenge the invaders even when outnumbered 4 to one.

also, lions have that mane of theirs, which offer some protection. when a tiger goes for an attack, he may, in certain instances, when going for a bite, misjudge the distance, and, instead of biting the neck, as intended, gets a mouthful of mane. lions also have higher levels of testosterone, which, according to packer, increases aggressive behavior. the lion would most certainly win, though the tiger, which is slightly faster and more agile, will certainly put up a great struggle, though in vain.

catlion, while you are right on some points....the lion doesn`t ALWAYS dominate, though, in the case of the lion, majority rules. in captivity, according to beatty, the tiger is indeed nervous and apprehensive around the lion. however, tiger`s are more agile than lions, and, when aroused can be quite aggressive. in a fair one on one fight, however, i would put my money on the lion.....though, they are so close in stature that it could go either way, and i believe the lion may win about 55% of the time, and indeed, i do have the evidence to back it up.

i am not saying you are wrong....just that you may be overestimating the ability of the lion. the lion, though an expert fighter and often relentless in his conquest to defeat an opponent, is not invincible, and the tiger is also likely to have his fair share of wins. also, the fight could go either way if one or the other should be injured early on in the battle, which would greatly impede his fighting. however, the lion is taller, with a large mane, which serves it`s purpose of intimidation. likewise, the protective qualities of the mane means the tiger`s greatest means of defense is attacking less protected areas, and, in this respect, it is not expert, and would surely look for a way out.

also, according to beatty, the tiger misses more than the lion, and leaves himself open more. the lion would most certainly win in the end. and, according to beatty, the lion, in a fair struggle, would win every time.