Talk:Tiger

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Archives

Liger refernces

The article makes some statements about growth inhibiting and growth promoting genes in the development of ligers, but references "Sequence analysis in a nutshell". I think a better reference for this could be found. Does sequence analysis in a nutshell have a discussion about ligers? Even if it does, is there a more easily accessible reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.0.18 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Why not also mention cross breeding experiments between tiger and leopard in captivity, and the possibility that tiger/leopard hybrids may exist in the wild? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

tigers vs bears

It's reasonable to mention that brown bears also killed tigers (including adult male tigers). Otherwise this section is looking somewhat biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.12.80 (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No because that isn't a common occurance at all, and when this does occur this is mainly because of a fight over food or protecting cubs. However, the opposite can be said as adult siberian tigers have killed adult brown bears. There are some that even put bear cubs as a prey item of tigers because this tigers killing bear cubs isn't out of the ordinary.Mcelite (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite

What does your "no" mean? There is an account of tigers killed by brown bears (including male adult tigers). Your "no" means that you want to favor only one side of the conflict. Did you read any original research paper on this subject?

My no means that it doesn't happen often enough to mention. Yes adult male tigers have been killed by brown bears and vice versa. I do study all big cats including the small cats. There has been some research done on this, but not extensively. You could even watch Animal Planet or Discovery Channel programs which sadly at times out due scientific journals because you can visually see what's going on.Mcelite (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

"Did you read any original research paper on this subject?" -> Written like the "Kron650" has read all resaech papers and reseach paper has more evidence than 24hr live Animal Planet / Discovery /National Geographic Channel.Hey... Even children knows better than you. Bears are [Brown/Black/White.. Yellow,red what ever ] are slow and less aggressive than tiger/lion. Definitely the bear ave to accept death or ran away when fight occurs . Even a much smaller big cat, cougar can expel a large grizzly [1]. If you check youtube you can see more.. Tigers/Lions/Leopards killing Bears,Crocodiles, Elephants,Rhinos [Much bigger than bear and have bigger tooth],...

"I do study all big cats including the small cats." -> Who are you? Are you a brown bear family member? or a cat family member who knows all these childish comments. --59.93.7.13 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In Peter Matthiessen's book, Tigers in the Snow , he writes that fights have gone both ways, and that both species avoid the adult male of the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kron650 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true especially since cats often try there hardest to avoid fights which is an actually reason why house cats run away from dogs. They try to avoid confrontation as much as possible.Mcelite (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

"My no means that it doesn't happen often enough to mention". Killing adult brown bears by tigers does not happen often enough, however, it's mentioned. The other way around happens as well, I don't see any reason to hide this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.77.99 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it has to be cited from a reliable source that shows that the fights do go both ways and that it is not biased.Mcelite (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

+1--Altaileopard (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Tiger/Archive 2#brown bear as prey--Altaileopard (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For instance, russian scientist Kostoglod examined all reliable encounters (until 1977) and found that in 9 cases a brown bear has killed a tiger and in 11 cases the other way around.

Kostoglod V.E. Relations between Amur tiger and Brown and Black Asiatic Bears in the Primorsky region // Rare mammal species and their conservation. Moscow, "Nauka", 1977

Another modern scientist, I. Seredkin, has mentioned 12 known cases when a tiger was killed by a brown bear.

Seredkin, Ivan. The ecology, behavior, management and conservation status of brown bears in Sikhote-Alin (in Russian). Far Eastern National University, Vladivostok, Russia, pp. 1-252

There is no modern or historical evidence of male fully-grown brown bears killed by tigers. The largest one (see Geptner and Sludsky) is a 170 kg male adult bear which is far from being a big Ursus arctos lasiotus. Brown bears are also known to kill adult male tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.12.80 (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

page can not open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharohxz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"There is no modern or historical evidence of male fully-grown brown bears killed by tigers."

Did you not read the wikilink?: Talk:Tiger/Archive 2#brown bear as prey.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

THAT ALtaileopard link doesn´t prove anything ( it has no scientific reports for example) is biased and full with the participation of a tiger fan that posts there what he wants. Well, tiger wikipedia link is full of BIASED SUPOSITIONS too, by the way. Is a sad true, why tiger and cat fans destroy the reality and beauty of tigers and felines in general with fantasy stories and hoaxes.I work here with fauna too, I´m a researcher and a protectionist. We are trying to protect the iberian lynx btw. But let´s separate facts from preferences,please. Is very well known that the biggest brown bear ever confirmedly killed by a siberian tiger was only a small brown bear with 170 kgs ( Kaplanov) ( Amur full grown male brown bears ( Ursus arctus lasiotus) stay at between 300-360kgs when over 15 years old). Is very well known that, on the other hand, full grown male tigers were already reportedly killed and eaten by adult brown bears ( Kostoglod,Sysoev, and many others,reported that, I can provide more scientists names and reports for whoever wants it...). People have a lot of overestimation on tigers, but lack a lot of scientific sense: First- anatomically, brown bears have denser bones, are stronger, have thick fur, much bigger stamina, than siberian tigers. Brown bear claws are no joke can reach 9 inch and teeth maybe not as long as tiger ones, when compared animals of around the same size. Though really big bears ( 1500 pounds or more) have bigger teeth and stronger bite.However bite strenght doesn´t matter for animals that use much paw strikes. And brown bears have much stronger paw striking. In californian pitfights, a grizzly bear killed male lions with few paw strikes ( I can provide the descriptions of that happening)and even bulls. Tigers are agile ( but for that they have weaker bones), have strong paws, hook shape claws ( like polar bear and american black bear), strong bite and big teeth. These are also excelent weapons. But let´s say a tiger with 500 or really big at 600 lbs, would have an hard time to fight with an adult full grown brown bear that can be on the 700, 800, 1000, 1500, or even over 2000 pounds mark ( very rarely). Russian scientists gathered data of tigers taking brown bears, and only observed female and cub killings by tigers and one young male with 170 kgs ( with an half the size of a full grown bear....). On the other hand and differently there are reports of brown bears killings and taking full grown male tigers (not to say many cubs and females). Also siberian tigers are a part of the diet of brown bears ( or were because tigers are very rare now), because brown bears were already seen killing a tiger that defend his killing carcass and after eating the carcass start to eat also the tiger. ( I can give more info about this for whoever wants it). Also there is some informations on Interspecies conflict link(http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/) and forum ( http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/) ( on which is debatable who´s the ultimate predator for example or who has advantage on a fight) that´s runned by scientists, zoologists and experts, and they all agree that big bears ( brown and polar) have an advantage over tigers. Some of them are cat specialists,by the way. So I hope that the tiger wikipedia should refer this too, and not saying, with no backup, just that tigers take black and brown bears, whenever they want. These 8 % of their diet ( that´s only true if you gather both brown and black bear) and regarding brown bears is only for juvenile and small bears, show a false pretending in favor of tigers. So this wikipedia sound like an hoax for every scientist, I´m really sorry. Tigers are also part of the menu of brown bears but is stupid to argue that they are part of their diet. Both species have more rather territory dispute than properly a prey-predator relationship, of course, specially when we talk about adults relations. The defecation act on the kills is made by both species which clearly indicates a dispute not a stupid joke like some say of prey-predator relation... So do as you wish. Interestingly, is that there are more than one tiger wikipedia, each one show different facts, as the same for bears. And contradiction is vulgar on all of them. So we should believe in which?? I believe in scientific reports, I´m afraid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.201 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oviously you've never seen a tiger up close but if you want to see one in person one day I suggest you think that again - their stealth and power is amazing. A tiger can kill an adult person in just a matter of seconds!--96.232.59.59 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that sounds very scientific SineBot. Powley (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A bear can kill a person with just one full paw swipe, I don´t care if a tiger kill a person in seconds... Irrelevant. A brown bear isn´t a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Now is impossible to edit this joke of wikipedia informations...LOL. So you tiger or cat fans jokes now must feel really happy... LOL. Interestingly is that your joke about tigers and bears is denied by several web links. So people find your info somewhat biased, not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Male tigers vs. male lions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is all very interesting but has nothing to do with improving the article. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Any further discussion on this should be taken off-Wiki. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as much as it is true that the biggest male tigers are about 100 pounds heavier than the biggest male lions (400 vs. 500 pounds) one should not forget to mention that tigers live in colder countries and that therefore they are quite adipose compared to lions as they are made almost solely of muscles and bones. And also one should mention the dense mane is a superb protection of the endangered neck and throat area. Tigers have a naked neck and lack this protection. Regarding all this a male lion is much stronger and a better fighter than a male tiger. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, biggest of tigers can out grow biggest of lions by 150 to 200 pounds. Secondly most tigers live in India and India is a very hot place. Bangal Tigers are like lions build in muscles and bones. Amur tigers have thick fat laylers. So, your argument that tigers are adipose is false. I think you have never seen a tiger-versus-tiger fight. They usually fight to the end. And who said that lions are stronger than tiger. Tiger are symbol of power for a reason and that's because they are very, very powerful and much stronger than lions. So in an epic battle between an adult male tiger and adult male lion, the tiger would win but the fight would be really close and to the end.Upol007 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Male lion is called king of the jungle he dosn't even live in the jungle; they live in grass lands. The male tiger is the biggest of all the big cats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.15.160 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact the male tiger is the biggest cat found in the wild, but the biggest cat of all is the Liger. They can weigh as much as 1000 lbs, twice as much as a very big lion Upol007 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a real species though. So it doesn´t count as it doesn´t occur naturally in the wild. It's rather a human-made experiment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.183.20.76 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting to know who the winner of this big fight would be but considering some research I did, the tiger would win most of the time. In fact, the only time the lion was a winner was in a unfair male lion vs. tigrees fight and even then it bearly won (thanks to its big mane). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.93.76 (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't such a close fight as some people may think. Rather, the tiger is a clear winner in my mind, and, when statistics are counted, which cannot be ignored, give it the edge. This argument is mainly based on the fact that tigres are larger than lions. In fact, much larger than lions sometimes. They will weigh about 160-210 pounds more campared to the African lion (the Siberian tiger was the one compared), so I think this can make all the difference. However, body mass is not the only major weapon that the tiger has. Tigers have larger paws as well, with which by the way they will swipe faster than lions. The canine teeth of an average tiger can grow as long as four [4] inches, while a lion has canines that measure 3.1 or 3 inches (this can make a difference whent it comes to the fatal bite), and speaking of the final bite, I may say that the bite of a tiger has more pressure as its skull structure is wider rather than longer as opposed to that of the lion. Agility is without doubt a factor ... and the tiger has it too.

SOME MORE ARGUMET:

Largest lion in the wild -- 690 lbs. [male man-eater shot dead in Africa]

Largest Siberian [Amur] tiger in the wild -- 840 pounds

Largest Bengal tiger in the wild -- 870 pounds

Largest lion in captivity -- named Simba. It weighed it at more than 820 ponds

Largest tiger held in captivity -- forgot its name. Was of the Siberian subspecies and had a mass of about 1,024 pounds.

So, I hope a good idea is created - TIGER IS THE STRONGER FIGHTER ! - --96.232.63.175 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am loving seeing people try to outright throw it down. Please don't state things as fact and pretend like you actually know what you are talking about. This is all theory. And there has been discussion about size. First of all that is not all that matters especially when there are other contributing factors TO size (and otherwise for that matter) such as climate and fat content. Carrying on- to people who say Bengal Tigers are heavier (which they are, BTW)...150-227 KG for a male lion...180-248 KG for a male Bengal Tiger. (except in colder climates where they will have more FAT)Powley (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Tiger's poor fate

To me tigers are mysterious,dangerous, and adorable ...of course ppl would think why do you find an animal that can rip your face off so adorable?

Well if you knew as much as I did about tigers you would know that as cubs their fathers will sometimes attack and possibly even kill their cubs just because of pure jealousy...of course if the mother were to interfere then they would die as well...

Because of their beautiful coats they are able to hide in their environment....but are also hunted because of it...of the many types of tigers 5 are extinct just because of this...and now all of the tigers are highly close to being extinct...they are very endangered.

I'm sure those have heard that there are people that tearing down trees...where if you look at it over 3 billion species live...including the tiger in these areas...this is why the zoos have been taking special

== Headline textBold text

Block quote

Block quote

==

care of them and why there are secret locations on where they are trying to regain the loss of tigers.

Many people in China have a belief that various tiger parts have medicinal properties killing them for purposes of medicine. There is no proof to support these beliefs. The use of tiger parts medicine use in China is already banned, and the government has made it clear that if they were to be caught this would be punishable by death. This has been banned in China since 1993. Still, there are a number of tiger farms in the country where they are breeding the cats for MONEY. It is estimated that between 4000 and 5000 captured, wild animals live in these farms today.China's wealthy businessmen are known to eat tiger penis as they feel it is a must do thing.

As you can see some people are sick...truly sick...but its in there heritage and though we have laws,there is somehow still animal cruelty and there is nothing we can do as hard as we try...fortunately there are people who but their lives in danger not only by being around these ferocious cats but because people are still hunting them and yet as they put their lives in danger they take care of these big cats and usually create a special bond with them appears...

I find hippos adorable and people often ask me, "Jay, why do you find hippos so adorable when they could rip your face off?" All fun aside, there's a good book about the use of tigers in Chinese medicine called "Tiger Bone & Rhino Horn" and the IUCN and WWF operate a program called TRAFFIC which monitors illegal trades in the animals. traffic.org. Both would be good sources for improving this article's coverage of those topics, imo. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiger (6 votes) is the collaboration for April-May 2008

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

1. .Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
3. --Altaileopard. Looks good. Some more citations in the text would be nice... and I will expand the range a little more.
4. -- Bobisbob (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
5. -- Anaxial (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
6. -- Shyamal (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Like cheeeeeeeeeeeeetoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee was last year, large and a bit of a mess. A few have poked into it a bit but would really need a concerted push and a collaboration would facilitate this. Also instrumental in making a Big Cats Featured Topic. A con is we have a number of cat articles so it may be good to do something really different....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Visibility/importance. This article gets viewed over 200,000 times a year! --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. Bobisbob (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Time for another high profile animal - and they don't come much higher than this. Anaxial (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it's useful, my sister is a tiger expert at ZSL. I'd be happy to contact her to try to get pointers to sources needed, if that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I agree with you. I love tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo81001 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[[Media:How long can they live?

I wanted to know how tigers can live but it is not written in the article. Is their average life span comparable to the average life span of lions? --Tubesship (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tigers and lions have similar life spans, but cosidering the "royal" fight some male lions have for power, they only live up to ten years in the wild, while tigers tend to live slightly longer. In captivity, both lions and tigers live up to 25 years, but most tipically bettween 18-22.

The record for a tiger living in captivity is 26 years. Lions can live up to 35 years. 20 is extremely old for a tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I think that poor old lion in Kabul Zoo lived to be 38. He was born in a German zoo. PLEASE DO MODIFY THIS! DONT MIND THE RED TEXT SAYING DON'T!

==

Headline text

==

Headline text

==
==

Max. weight recorded

It says, "The heaviest wild Siberian tiger on record weighed in at 384 kg..." but according to the Record's World Book, the largest male of this sub-species surpassed the 1,000-pound mark, which was almost 20 years old and held in captivity. Should we check this and maybe have some cleanup or additional info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.93.76 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording could be improved but I suspect there is no need to remove the 384 kg thing. While unclear, it appears to be referring to a tiger in the wild. Animals in the wild are generally smaller and don't live as long, and their characteristics in the wild are usually of greatest interest when it comes to studying of them. Of course there's nothing wrong with also mentioning a record in captivity Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, once I went the Bronx Zoo in the Bronx section of New York City and I watched how the zoo keepers were taking care of a couple of Siberian tigers. The zoo keepers stated that the 9-year-old male was 420 pounds (now, at age of 12, he's 460). I asked why that tiger was so light compared to other amur tigers. She said that captive tigers aren't being fed to the max. because they want them to have a trim figure, so I guess we won't be seeing a lot of 700-lb Siberians until people start paying a lot of money for that, as they did before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.82.81 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tiger's name in Arabic

I suggest that this paragraph should be deleted : "Nimer" (tiger) is a common Arabic male first name,[85] fulfilling a similar function (i.e. calling a man by the name of a strong and powerful animal) as "lion" names such as Leon, Leo or Leonard in various European languagues.

since "Nimer" is not the arabic name for tiger, thats a common mistake most people make, the name Nimer means Leopard in arabic, the true arabic name for tiger is actually "Babr", thats the same as the persian name. Nimer comes from an arabic adjective "Anmar" or "Nimar" which means spotted, which in turn refers to the leopard ( check the arabian leopard sceintefic name ). The arab first knew the tigers from north iraq and from their trades with india, they couldn't have possibly called it nimer since the name doesn't describe it as it is.. I just wanted to make this point clear, thanks. MoeFe (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article ?

I am a tiger fan and I really like these animals a lot. So, my goal is to make this article a featured article, but I'd need some help to identify the weaker parts of this article, what should be done to feature it.--71.190.82.81 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, use Peer review. Thanks ;) --MakE ^shout! 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed media

I was checking out some older versions of this article, and i have to say that great things are done here. Before it sounded so bad, really! Today, it flows so well. However, I noticed some videos at the end of the old article, which can also be used here.--96.232.61.201 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics

I deleted all of the descriptions from the subspecies list, and then put a table in the physical characteristics section, with the lengths, weights and descriptions of each of the subspecies.

Also, I took the weights and lengths from "Tiger Territory", www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger. I don't like using a single source (particularly from the internet) but I thought this was best for consistency, and the site is a pretty good resource. I've referenced the website.

So...what do you think of the changes? I'm not very experienced with using tables on wikipedia, so please clean it up if you think it looks too messy. Alphard08 (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not that sure if I like the table format. It is good that the information about physical characteristics is now in the correct section, but the table format is probably not the best solution to present it. I strongly disagree with the use of the website in favor of written books about the length and weight of some of the species, except you can explain why the author of Tiger Territory is of equal reliability as the authors of the books. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken into account what you've said, and got rid of the table format. I have to admit, I think it looked a little...unaesthetic, too, as a table! As for using a website, I agree that generally written scientific texts make better resources than sites. Unfortunately, I haven't got access to a book that contains weight ranges and lengths for each of the tiger subspecies, and from what I've seen, Tiger Territory does seem to be better than most other websites - it's certainly very comprehensive. I think someone who has a scientific textbook with information on each of the subspecies should definitely verify the weights and lengths though, to make certain that they're correct. Alphard08 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

changes in big cats most people failed to notice

this is true facts.as cubs of most big cats grow older, the colour of their eyes changes from blue to yellow. i've been searching on wikipedia, but only to found this fact is true after doing some own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.152.21 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It generally takes about three months or so for the eyes of lion and tiger cubs to turn amber. However, quite a lot of animals have blue eyes at birth - the same goes for humans, too, I think - so this fact isn't specific to big cats. Alphard08 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cross Eyed White Tigers

White tigers do not have crossed eyes because of inbreeding. In 40 years I have never heard of a single case of a white tiger having a cleft palate, have you? Golden tabby tigers carry the white gene. They are usually born in litters which have white tiger cubs. If inbreeding caused white tigers to have crossed eyes orange tigers born in the same litters as white tigers would also have crossed eyes. White tigers have been reported from the wild in the Siberian tiger subspecies as well as the Bengal, according to Richard Perry writing in "The World Of The Tiger." He said that white tigers were found in northern China and Korea. White tigers are also part of the folklore in Java and Sumatra so they must have existed there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.5 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS Richard Perry's book is one of the sources for the Tiger wikipedia article.

Cross eyed white tigers occur only in captivity, and are generally all descended from a specimen kept in a harem two centuries ago. White cubs can occur in normal, wild litters, its just that the zoo specimens all descend from very limited captive bred stock.Dark hyena (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Actually being descended from a small captive stock has nothing to do with it. If it did orange siblings of white tigers would also be cross eyed. The crossed eyes are directly linked to the white gene. White tigers have a visual pathway abnormality. This causes some to be cross eyed. Read the white tiger wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"In 40 years I have never ever heard of a single case of a white tiger having a cleft palate but have you?"

I certainly have. See this: http://www.bigcatrescue.org/cats/wild/white_tigers_fraud.htm Alphard08 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. You're right about the crossed eyes being unrelated to inbreeding though (I think the error in the article was my fault - I've just corrected it, at any rate. Thanks for pointing that out). Alphard08 (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider the bigcatrescue website credible. Do you have any other source for a white tiger having a cleft palate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC) The bigcatrescue website does'nt seem very accurate. If that's your only source I must conclude there is no record a white tiger having a cleft palate. That website is the worst.

Well, there were photographs of a white tiger with a cleft palate in that website...(To be clearer, there were two tigers with facial deformities: one with a hairlip and cleft palate, and the other with a brachycephalic face.)

Anyway, here are other sources that mention a cleft palate as a possible consequence of inbreeding in tigers. For instance:

http://www.indiantiger.org/tigers-around-the-globe/indo-chinese-tiger.html

If you want a more scientific resource, however, there is a book called "Tigers of the World" by Ronald Lewis Tilson (a Google search will find it, and you'll be able to peruse certain pages of it). On page 196, the following may be found:

"Congenital problems have been reported, and in some instances, may be related to inbreeding. Thymic hypoplasia and lymphopenia which has caused immunodeficiency and the death of one cub (DeMartini 1974), possibly due to inbreeding, is reported in Siberian tigers. Two cardiac defects have been seen in white tiger cubs, a patent ductus asterosis and atrial septal defect (Houck pers. comm.). A survey of congenital defects reported the following defects in tigers: cleft palate, diaphragmatic hernia and umbilical hernia (DeMartini 1974, Leipold 1980). The presence of congenital cataracts has been mentioned previously. White tigers have been investigated for the Chediak-Higashi syndrome, but certain criteria could not be fulfilled to draw a correlation (Anon. 1978)."

White tigers tend to be extremely inbred, so it is highly likely that some are born with cleft palates, since it has been linked to inbreeding in tigers. Alphard08 (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I will go back and look. I do not recall anything in Tigers Of The World about a white tiger having a cleft palate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at the bigcatrescue website and it says that 80% of white tigers are stillborn ! This is absolute rubbish. This is why I don't consider them credible. I have also never heard of any other white tiger having a deformed face and there are around 600 white tigers in captivity now. There is nothing typical about a white tiger having a deformed face. The bigcatrescue website also says that white tigers have an 80% infant mortality so I wonder which is it-80% stillborn or an 80% infant mortality. Either way it's untrue.

Bigcatrescue does appear to have a tendency to exaggerate, so I don't doubt that the 80% mortality rate is a myth. However, I still posted the link simply because there were photographs of a white tiger with a cleft palate (and another with facial deformities), demonstrating that such cases do in fact occur, in response to your statement that in 40 years you have never heard of a single case of this happening.

The other website you mentioned only refers to cleft palates in "Corbett's tiger", not in a white tiger.

I know, but as I said, it made the point that inbreeding can result in deformities such as cleft palates in tigers, just as "Tigers of the World" did. Ergo, white tigers, as the most inbred of tigers, are the most likely to be born with such features. That's the point I was trying to make. Alphard08 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2008 (UT

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I know we've spent enough time on this, and you've been kind enough to indulge me, but I had a look at the wikipedia article on cleft palates and it says that cleft palates occur in one in 600 births. By coincidence there are estimated to be 600 white tigers alive in the world. That would mean that if there is one white tiger with a cleft palate (and I'm not convinced there is one) that's exactly what should be expected if it has nothing to do with inbreeding, just like the crossed eyes have nothing to do with inbreeding. I don't think that white tigers are any more inbred than purebred dogs, but since they do tend to be inbred there should be a lot more white tigers with cleft palates if that was caused by inbreeding. At one time the Sumatran tigers in North American zoos were more inbred than white tigers. They were all descended from a single pair-I think at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The Amur tigers in zoos are also inbred and I suspect that the wild Amur tigers are also inbred.

That is a good point. First of all, I think that the figure of 1 in 600/800 births was meant to apply to humans, and I don't actually know if the same can be said of tigers. Secondly, that 1 in 600 births figure applies to a general population, which includes both inbred and other births. White tigers, however, consist of a far greater proportion of inbred individuals than a natural population, so one could expect the figure to be substantially higher. At any rate, I'm not sure that the 1 in 600 figure can be applied accurately here.

I also wonder whether that white tiger with the deformed face (Kenny) may not have that deformity because of poor nutrition or a severe injury rather than inbreeding. Since white tigers are inbred why would'nt there be more white tigers with deformed faces? Why just one out of 600? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It has indeed been speculated that poor diet could result in the tiger being born with a brachycephalic face. The wikipedia article on cephalic disorders mentions that both genetic conditions and nutritional deficiencies can give rise to this deformity. However, I personally believe that the former is more likely, considering the amount of other physical defects that white tigers may have (scoliosis, shortened tendons, abnormal kidneys, more likely to die from cancer, etc...) The messybeast page does consider the possibility of overfeeding potentially causing the "bulldog", albeit very briefly, but still lists brachycephaly as a genetic anomaly in white tigers. Alphard08 (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the other physical defects you list are well documented. There is no record of any white tiger ever having a cleft palate with the possible exception of Kenny. I think if white tigers had cleft palates Tigers Of The World would have mentioned it. Tiger Of The World does mention a single case of a white tiger having central retinal degeneration. It was a male white tiger in the Milwaukee County Zoo. There's no mention of white tigers having cleft palaltes from any credible source. The figure I gave for white tigers-600-is the estimate of how many are alive today. You could add to that all of the white tigers which have ever been born in captivity and it would be hundreds more, and there's still no record of even one having a cleft palate, again with the possible exception of Kenny, who does'nt live at Big Cat Rescue. Big Cat Rescue's own white tiger is normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you why 1 in 600 can not be a reliable estimate of the proportion of white tigers with cleft palates. To be honest though, I'm getting rather tired of this argument. If you want to dismiss every single link that I post, you can always do a thorough search in a library yourself and see if you can find a list of the physical defects of every single white tiger born in captivity over the last 50 years, or even contact a tiger expert. Alphard08 (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you've already told me why 1 in 600 cannot be a reliable estimate, and to be honest I did'nt realize we were having an argument. I thought this was a friendly discussion. My mistake. I have looked at lists of every physical defect of every single white tiger ever born in captivity over the past fifty years. I had already done this long before you made your suggestion. I am sure you can guess that cleft palates are not on any list. That was kind of my point from the very beginning. It has never been my intention to engage in an argument with you. If I had known this was an argument, as opposed to a friendly conversation, I would never have answered, because it would'nt be worth my time. Believe me I have no interest in having an argument either, with you or anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.5 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) PS I have been in contact with many tiger experts, although not recently.

I'm sorry, I just meant "argument" as in the sense of "debate", rather than a heated discussion.

But, if you have looked at lists of every physical defect of white tigers, how come you didn't previously know about the brachyphaly exhibited by Kenny and several other white tigers in the United States? I mean, you said "with the possible exception of Kenny", implying that you're not exactly sure whether or not he does in fact have a cleft palate, and you also wondered if the bulldog feature may have been caused by a physical injury, when in fact it was a congenital defect, present at birth. Not to mention the cleft palate and missing upper lip that Zabu of BigCatRescue has - I know that the site is prone to exaggerate, but I'm not so sure that they would lie about a detail like that which is easy for any vet to check (and there were vets working on her when she was desexed, since she shares an enclosure with a male lion and they didn't want any ligers being produced), or indeed, any visitor to the centre that meets Zabu... Alphard08 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to begin here. I have never heard of brachyphaly in a white tiger before. (I've never heard of brachyphaly before.) If that refers to the "bull dog" face I have read about that on the white tiger wikipedia article and on Sarah Hartwell's messy beast website. I don't recall if that expression was used, but brachyphaly does'nt appear on the lists I've seen either. I am admitting of course that I don't know whether Kenny has a cleft palate. I was entertaining the possibility that he might and that he may be the only white tiger on record with a cleft palate. I did'nt know that Zabu was missing her upper lip and had a cleft palate. I have'nt read everything on their website. By the bull dog face you are refering to Kenny's deformity, but how do we know it was present from birth and was'nt caused by an accident? Kenny was given to another sanctuary by a private breeder. They would only know what the private breeder chose to tell them. You may well be right about Kenny. It's also possible that that private breeder has white tigers which are far more inbred than most. I just know there have been hundreds of inbred white tigers without deformed faces or missing upper lips. I think the bigcatrescue website describes Kenny as "typical", when he is anything but. There's also a Dr. Laughlin associated with Big Cat Rescue. He spent a year in prison and six months in a halfway house for stealing five white tiger cubs from the Hawthorn Circus. There are so many ridiculous assertions on that website. I think it says that all white tigers are cross eyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) By the way I think you mentioned white tigers having kidney problems. Kidney problems are endemic to big cats in general and not to white tigers in particular. And I think that selective breeding has virtually iliminated crossed eyes in white tigers and Siamese cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kenny's face certainly exhibits brachycephalic features - and brachycephaly is congenital, present at birth. Personally, I think it's very unlikely that Kenny's face has been deformed due to injury. I agree with you though that a lot of the stuff that bigcatrescue says is pretty exaggerated (I didn't know that Dr. Laughlin had been jailed, either)

The cross-eyed trait isn't as common in Siamese cats as it once was, but it does still occur occasionally (I think my friend's Siamese cat is a bit cross-eyed!). And the cross-eyed characteristic hasn't been eliminated in white tigers either - I've seen photos of white tigers with crossed eyes - although you're right in that not all white tigers have the trait. From what I've heard, I do think that white tigers are more at risk of kidney failure than most other big cats, even if it does happen often amongst the big cat family.

On the topic, I remember visiting a white tiger named Chester in Sydney's Taronga zoo. A few years later, when I visited a second time, I was very sad to learn that he had passed away. He apparently had kidney problems. Alphard08 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages. I know there are still cross eyed white tigers. There's one in a zoo in Hawaii. I mean't it has been eliminated in some bloodlines. It depends on who's doing the breeding. Kidney problems are common in big cats. How old was Chester when he died? I'll bet he was a ripe old age. Did you know that he fathered the first test tube tiger? That was in the United States before he became the first white tiger in Australia. He came from the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) PS Somewhere I read that a majority of the Siamese cat "founders" were cross eyed, so the situation has been improved. There are several breeds derived from the Siamese which, as far as I know, are never cross eyed, like the Himalayan and rag doll etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I could'nt find anything about Chester dying on the internet, but his brother lived to be 18 at the Washington DC Zoo, which is a really good age for a male, and had no kidney problems. http://www.nbc4.com/news/1700325/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC) They called him Taj, but his real name was Panghur Ban. I had a conversation with John Cuneo, the owner of the Hawthorn Circus, a while back and he told me that they have very few cross eyed white tigers, and that these are amongst the oldest they have. They have bred this trait out of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Chester died several years ago. He did indeed live a long time (17 years), but had ongoing kidney problems, and a spinal disorder too, apparently, and had to be euthanised eventually. He was a very beautiful tiger - I did a commemorative oil painting based on him after the second time I visited Taronga and learned he had died, that still hangs on my wall today. Alphard08 (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the National Geographic documentary "Keepers Of The Wild" they showed an old Amur tigress in the San Francisco Zoo which had to be put to sleep because of kidney problems. I was told by a volunteer at the Toronto Zoo years ago that white tigers have kidney problems, but I have yet to find anything in print which confirms this. I have been told that it's untrue that white tigers have kidney problems (more than big cats in general.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment that white tigers are more likely to have kidney problems stems from the messybeast website: "Other deformities include shortened tendons of the forelegs, abnormal kidneys, arched backbone and twisted neck". It seems to be quite a good website, although I'd prefer it if its sources were documented. Alphard08 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that came from K.S. Sankhala's book Tiger ! I think abnormal kidneys would have been caused by inbreeding, and Chester was not inbred. He was bred from unrelated parents. His father was a white tiger named Ranjit from the US National Zoo and his mother was an orange tigress named Obie who lived at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha. She was roughly half Amur tiger and half Bengal. She was a second generation hybrid and he (Ranjit) was a registered Bengal tiger.

I mentioned Chester more as an anecdote than anything, because this conversation reminded me of him - I haven't had the time to research his entire family tree lately, since life is starting to get rather busy for me! However, I still stand by my remark that the white tiger population is likely to have a higher proportion of kidney problems than other big cats. Alphard08 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I just read that cleft palates in cats are caused by a vitamin A deficiency during development rather than genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did you read that? I don't think it's a case of deficiency rather than genetics, but rather both are possible causes, with heredity being the more likely factor.

A quick check on Google found the following site, which suggests heredity as a primary cause and vitamin A deficiency as another possible cause, since cleft palates are more common in purebred cats and dogs: http://www.acvs.org/AnimalOwners/HealthConditions/SmallAnimalTopics/CleftPalate/. Alphard08 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. Just moved this part of the conversation to the right section.

            I just saw your message. It was in The Siamese Cat A Complete Owner's Manual by Marjorie McCann Collier, Barron's 1992. I am having trouble keeping this on the right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 

Thanks, I've found the quote:

"A defect that can be accommodated until a time that surgery can be performed is cleft palate. In some species cleft palate appears to be a genetic defect; in cats it can be caused by insufficient vitamin A during development."

I can't help but notice that it only says it can be caused by vitamin A deficiencies during development - it doesn't say it is always caused by vitamin A, or that it is never due to a genetic defect!

In any case, if the author was trying to imply that genetics have nothing to do with cleft palates in cats, then that contradicts various other sources, which speculate that cleft palates may have a hereditary basis in certain groups of cats, such as those that are severely inbred or have short, broad faces. Alphard08 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at Siamese kittens in the pet shop the other day and it appeared as though any of them which looked in my direction were slightly cross eyed. I wonder if they all are. I think the visual pathway abnormality is more pronounced in Siamese cats than it is in white tigers. I was also noticing how they all had dark colored noses. That's one of the places where the cold makes the fur darker in Siamese cats. I've noticed that white lions seem to have darker fur on the nose also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Vs Lion

Lion tamer Clyde Beatty said that whenever there was a fight between a tiger and a lion the lion never won. That's from his book "Facing The Big Cats".

That's all bull crap! Most of the recors of lions winning in battles against tigers were cases of male lions versus female tigers. If a one-on-one fight ever took placee, assuming both are fresh males and fully grown, then the tiger wins, hand down. It's stronger, quicker, and has both larger claws and canines. Plus, it's much more skilled and able to double swipe! Most of the fights that took place during the Roman times, Bengal tigers almost always killed the lions. In fact, when the emperor noticed this and saw that the matches weren't very interesting (no competition from the lion), he ordered that lion males fough with tigresses. Even so, the tigers beat the male lion most of the time.--Pgecaj (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Golden Tabby Tigers

Golden tabby tigers all carry the white gene. They are intermediate between white and orange. They probably result from the combination of the orange gene with the stripeless white gene.

The wide band gene that golden tabby tigers and white stripeless tigers have is separate from the white (chinchilla) gene that white striped tigers have. Do you reckon it would be clearer if I put this extra detail into the article? I didn't want to delve too deeply into the distinction when I first included the description of the Golden Tabby tiger in this article, instead leaving that to the article that focusses exclusively on this colour morph, but perhaps I should have... Alphard08 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that what you're saying is correct, or that any other gene is involved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The wide band gene and chinchilla gene are indeed distinct from each other. Here's a website that details the genetics of the golden tabby and stripeless white tiger: http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/tigers-golden.htm. This website goes into more detail: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/White-tiger#Genetics_.26_albinism.

Both colour morphs have the "wide band" gene (two copies, in fact, since it is recessive), but the stripeless white tiger also has the (double) white chinchilla gene, whereas the golden tabby does not. Alphard08 (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The second one is identical to the white tiger wikipedia article. I mean the nationmaster one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is, but all the same, I could have just replaced that weblink with a link to the white tiger page and still made a valid point, because some good references are used in the white tiger Wikipedia article itself. For instance, "Robinson et al, Roy (1999). Genetics for Cat Breeders and Veterinarians. Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0750640695" is the source used to describe the effects of the wi

de band gene and chinchilla gene. And the "messybeast" website is a separate site altogether. Both pages indicate that the wide band gene is responsible for the golden tabby, whereas the chinchilla produces the white tiger, and the combination of them both produces the stripeless white t

ger. Alphard08 (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Down here I was'nt dismissing your sources. I was just making the observation that the second one was the same as the wikipedia. I just thought that was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bornean Tiger

Why is there no section on the Bornean tiger? i.e. Meijing, Erick. The Bornean tiger, speculation on its existence. Cat News 1999 Spring:-30:12-15 ISSN: 1027-2992 Descriptors: tigers, Panthera tigris, possible native species in Borneo, introduction at some point, discussion of reports, validity of sightings, Borneo. There used to be a lot of information on this topic on the 5 Tigers website. They had photographs of tiger skins from Borneo.

This is pretty interesting: http://www.wildasia.net/main.cfm?page=article&articleID=89. According to this site, tigers did exist in Borneo until about 200 years ago, although it is unclear how they became extinct. The wikipedia article does mention the fact that tigers used to exist in Borneo, but only very briefly ("fossil remains"). I don't have access to the source you've mentioned, unfortunately. Alphard08 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the 5 Tigers website no longer has information about the Bornean tiger unless I'm looking in the wrong place. The Time Life Nature book on Asia says something about the Bornean tiger and a fossil tooth. What is the scientific name of the Bornean tiger? If it went extinct that recently it should be mentioned with the other subspecies. Peter Matthiessen, writing in "Tigers in the Snow", said that tigers may have disappeared from Borneo, despite it's being good tiger habitat, because of the absence of deer. He said that deer were only recently introduced to the island. Of course he means after the tiger disappeared. If people are seeing tigers on Borneo today maybe they are swimming from Sumatra. He did'nt say that last thing I was just speculating. I believe that there are also fossil tigers from Sakhalin Island, Japan, and Beringia. That's probably in Tigers Of The World. There are also supposed to be fossil tigers from Java which are very large, from tigers which were not ancestral to the modern Javan tiger. I can't remember where I read that. On the subject of the Javan tiger I believe there was at least one in the Budapest Zoo in the 1970s, but it may have turned out to be a Sumatran tiger. It's possible that tigers lived in North America and that some tiger fossils have been mistaken for lion fossils. There are some amazing old black and white photographs of Javan tigers in the Berlin Zoo in Tigers In The Snow. I tried to find you a copy of the article online by putting IUCN Cat News into the search engines, but apparently you have to be a member: http://www.catsg.org/catnews/index.htm

Copyright?

I've made a few changes to the tiger article recently. One of them, however, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do - in "territorial behaviour", I've quoted a paragraph from one of my sources (and referenced it accordingly). Is this actually allowed? If not, I'll delete it immediately. Alphard08 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I generally try to avoid direct quotes unless they have an intrinsic meaning or value which would be lost by paraphrasing or interpreting. There is no poetry in the passage, but it is concise and information-dense, so rewriting may be a little tricky. It is properly attributed though. I may ask others more au fait with copyright to have a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking for me! Alphard08 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

African tiger

This is from Louis S.B. Leakey, writing in "Animals Of East Africa" in 1969: "In 1957 we found the largest fossil jaw of a felid yet recorded from the gorge, and its shape is more like a present day tiger's than the lion's." "The jaw of a tiger rests with a three point contact on a table, while the jaw of a lion has the lower margin curved like the rockers of a rocking chair so that if you put it on a flat surface you can tilt it back and forth easily. Our fossil mandible from upper Bed II stays as steady as a tiger's on our laboratory table. This does not mean however that the big cat of Olduvai was striped like a modern tiger. It may have been, but naturally we cannot be sure." pgs. 162-163 (I think this may have turned out to be a saber tooth tiger.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Bali tiger

There's a book in the references to the white tiger wikipedia titled "Der Tiger" by Mazak. There's something else by him included in the references to this article. Vratislav Mazak was or is a Czech taxonomist, who asserted the status of the Bali tiger as a distinct subspecies. He discovered cranial variiations like a narrower occipital plane, which in theory distinguish the Bali tiger from the Javan subspecies. I don't know if this would be worth mentioning in the article. The Indo-Chinese tiger was not recognized until 1968, which means that up to that point Indo-Chinese tigers were regarded as Bengal tigers.

Japanese tiger

I found where I read the stuff about the fossil tiger from Java. It is in Tigers in the Snow by Peter Matthiessen. He said that the Japanese tiger was the same size as other island tigers. It was extinct already when people arrived in Japan. Fossil tigers from Java were as large or larger than any modern race (like most fossil tigers) and it is generally believed was not the ancestor of the modern Javan tiger. There are also fossil tigers from Lyakhov Island off the northern coast of Siberia. During the ebb and flow of the glaciers the tiger reached Sakhalin Island, Japan, and Borneo (where the Bisaya tribe still prize its few teeth, claiming their ancestors hunted them as recently as two or three centuries ago.)He also says that the tiger may have reached Alaska, but there is no fossil evidence of this. He said that there is no record of there ever having been a Bali tiger in captivity. There were Javan tigers in zoos until the end of WWII. After that it became easier to acquire Sumatran tigers for zoos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I've read that in places where tigers are'nt bothered by people they are diurnal and start living in prides like lions. There was an article in the Journal Of The Bombay Natural History Society about a tiger and a leopard, which were friends, and used to share kills.

You've done quite a bit of research - do you have an account that you can use to edit the tiger article? I think it's worth trying to elevate it to FA status (currently it's rated "B"). Alphard08 (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have an account, but I'm nervous using it in a library because I'm afraid I'll forget to log out and I thought this article was locked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I'm trying to find out whether the Bornean tiger has a scientific name. I wrote a letter to Ron Tilson and I sent an e-mail to another tiger expert at a zoo in Washington state. I might be able to do some work on the article, but not today.

The Most Powerful?

The opening sentence of the article states that the tiger is the biggest and the most powerful of the cats. What data are you using to varify the "most powerful" part? In all due respect, but I don't see how you can say that? What is the proof? Lions have been known to drag buffalo and giraffe. What is the scale used here to justify calling the tiger "the most powerful"? Size? On average the tiger doesn't have more than 40 lbs of a weight advantage and most of it is fat. Tigers have a thincker layer of fat (especially the Siberians), hence the slightly heavier weight. The skeletons and muscle mass are the same for the two cats. I would suggest that you remove the "most powerful" part as it can't be confirmed in any scientific way. Is this a credible article or a ZooBook? 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I've been thinking about changing that sentence for some time, since "powerful" is in itself an ambiguous term. For instance, if one animal has more strength in the forequarters, but another has more strength in the hindquarters, then how do you decide which one is more powerful?

Also, in my opinion it's not right to say that tigers are more powerful simply because they have on average a slightly greater mass - it's not as if a tiger is simply a scaled-up version of a lion. If that were the case, then I would indeed say that tigers are more powerful. However, lions and tigers do have some structural differences, as a result of their adaptations to different environments. For instance, tigers are longer, but lions stand taller at the shoulder and have a higher humeroradial index, meaning that their legs are proportionally longer beneath the elbow (rather like the cheetah, which similarly inhabits more open environments). I'd expect the muscle distribution of the two cats to be slightly different accordingly, making it difficult to gauge exactly how "powerful" one is compared to the other. Alphard08 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've changed it. I also changed "largest" to "heaviest", because technically, if you were defining size in terms of height at the shoulder, then the lion would be "largest". Alphard08 (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good change, I like it. One other thing though, the tiger is longer? According to the two articles the lion is actually longer. Animal Face-Off confirmed it listing the lion at 10'8 and the tiger at 10'2.

LION - Head and body length is 170–250 cm (5 ft 7 in – 8 ft 2 in). The tail length is 90-105 cm (2 ft 11 in - 3 ft 5 in). That's up to 3.5 m (11'7) in total length.

TIGER - Considered the largest subspecies, with a head and body length of 190–220 cm (the tail of a tiger is 60–110 cm long). That's a total of 3.3 m (right under 11 feet).63.161.203.11 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I suspect the information in the tiger wikipedia article may need to be changed to be consistent with the lion article...I used the source "Walker's Mammals of the World" when I included the length, height and weight of the lion in its respective article, but someone else has entered in the weight and length of the tiger in this particular article, and they've obviously used a different source.

The lengths of lions and tigers according to the "Walker" source (which is a good, scientific book):

Lion: Head and body (male): 1.7-2.5 m, tail (male): 0.9-1.05 m, head and body (female): 1.4-1.75 m, tail (female): 0.7-1 m.

Tiger: Head and body: 1.4-2.8 m, tail: 0.6-1.1 m. (no distinction made between male and female, so presumably the female lengths account for the lower end of spectrum, and the male the higher)

So the tiger is slightly longer, but not by much at all (and also, it depends which subspecies of tiger we're talking about!). The lion, on the other hand, is a little bit taller, illustrating the difference in posture and body structure between the two cats. Alphard08 (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While I am trying to understand what in the world you guys are saying, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Your satements are extremely untrue and biased. The tiger is indeed the largest and strongest cat alive. Firstly, allow me to contradict the first guy/girl that opened up the arument. He/she focused on the fact that lions are able to bring down buffalo and giraffe. That's totally accurate, but I think you're missing an essential piece of the puzzly - tigers are able to to pull down gaur and water buffalo all by themselves, while lions will think twice before attacking either buffalo or giraffe unless they outnumber them greatly, and even in these cases, lions generally go after the young calves, which are very easy to catch and kill. That being said, there have been many more cases of African buffaloes killing lions than there have been cases of water buffaloes killing tigers!

I would also like to state that the term "largest," which was used to describe the tiger in this article, is correct. Unlike one of you guys said, it is not used to descibe height - rather it is used mainly for body weight. Besides, the tiger is really both longer and heavier, and the difference in height is almost insignificant.

Now... as for the "most powerful" part... I have no doubt that the tiger is stronger than the lion. In fact, much more so! The largest of tigers ourweighs the largest of lions by more than 100 pounds, which I guess is quite a bit of weight. Imagine a normal-sized 160-pound human fighting a 270-pound bodybuilder. Would you say that size doesn't matter? No, unless you're kidding. Plus, in reality the tiger has more densed muscles even when the two animals (lion and tiger) share the same weight. One of you brought up the fact that the Siberian tiger possesses a layer of fat. Sure, it does indeed, but are you dumb enough to believe that a tiger contains 100 pounds of fat? It's very unlikely. The body fat of the Siberian tiger is really thin, and the Bengal tigers, the males of which average 500 pounds (as opposed to 400 pounds of male lions) have just as much fat as lions do, so no real argument about the body fat guys. False.

Shows how little you know! Your ignorance is proven by your own words. First of all, why would you say the lion is represented by a "normal person" and the tiger is represented by a "bodybuilder"? Muscle content is equal in the two cats and in fact the lion has the highest muscle percentage of ANY mammal. FACT! As for the weight, think percentages, goof! 110 lbs between two people is VERY different than 110 lbs between a lion and a tiger. If you are talking about a 550 lb lion and a 660 lb tiger, that's a 16.7% advantage to the tiger. 160 lb person vs a 270 lb person gives a 40.7% advantage. You are an uneducated goof and shine with ignorance. Further more, a 300 kg tiger is a RARITY. Modern research confirmed that lions average 180-200 kg. Siberian and Bengal tigrs average 200-220. 20 kg difference. 10% size advantage. Not much to be proud of. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you are an idiot. You must know that, because certainly a lot of people say that to you. Anyway, I don't want to make you feel bad as you are entitled to your ignornace and you are allowd to live in pace with your thick brain. However, if you are so uneducted, don't come here at all; you're not envited. First of all, you cut my post in half! You wrote in the middle of it, which shows that you don't even have some basic knowledge of how to use a wiki such as this one. Second of all, it's not a fact that the lion has the highest percentage of muscle. That would be the jaguar, and then the leopard, so let me say again - you're a fucking idiot, moron... whatever shitty word you wanna call yourself! And, the muscle mass is higher in tigers. Again a tiger is about 100 lbs heavier on average. It's true that 660 lb tigers are rare, but so are 550 pound lions. A lion only averages about 400 lbs while a tiger averages 500 lbs.--71.190.93.236 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, I know that some of you are lion fans and just come here to screw things up, but I'm not going to allow such thing to happen. I mean, what the hell, every fool knows nowadays that the tiger is stronger than the lion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.81.98 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiger hunting Gaurs Evidence?

Where is the evidence of that? No, not a quote from a site or a book. Show me at least ONE picture of a tiger and a gaur together. Just because there are a few shots of a tiger eating a gaur does not mean it killed a gaur. There are tons of images and videos of lions eating elephants. That's not always an actual kill. The animal could've been sick, injured, old, etc. Same with Tigers and Gaurs. There are pictures and clips of them hunding deer, but never a gaur. So, until there is some factual evidence, I don't think it should be listed in the article. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)There was an article in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society about a tiger attacking an elephant.

So what? We're talking about video/photo proof that tigers hunt and kill full grown gaurs. You don't know the extent of the tiger/elephant situation you mentioned. And it's off topic. There is not a single photo of a tiger and fully grown gaur together. NOT ONE! In all the decades of studying the cat nobody has ever managed to capture the hunt on film. Strange, don't you think? Not like tigers haven't been filmed hunting. I see footage of them taking down deer all the time. What about the big game? All these claims about rhinos, gaurs, and elephants... and yet not a shred of evidence. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tigers are excellent fathers

"This is probably one of rarest pictures in this book. Kublai, the resident male, the Nalghati tigress and her two cubs all share a tiny pool of water, cooling off on a hot May evening. For centuries male tigers have been regarded as a threat to young cubs, but in all three families we observed, we saw the male tiger sharing his food, partaking of the tigress's and cubs food, nuzzling the cubs and generally keeping a protective eye on them. After Nalghati left the pool, Kublai spent nearly an hour playing with the cubs. This is the first photographic record of tiger and tigress and cubs together in natural conditions." Pg. 43 Tigers: The Secret Life by Valmik Thapar, Elm Tree Books London 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan tiger?

"Recent studies by Sandra Herrington of skulls from eastern Beringia (modern-day Alaska) now suggest that both tigers and lions were present there within the past 100,000 years during the last glaciation." Pg. 74 The Big Cats And Their Fossil Relatives by Alan Turner, Columbia University Press, N.Y. 1997. That "African tiger" did turn out to be a saber tooth tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tigress-Jowlagiri.jpg

The image Image:Tigress-Jowlagiri.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add this to the Sub-Species section

Recent work on genetic and craniometric substructure in tigers has shown that fine scale analysis does match the recognized sub-species (1, 2).

It appears that the Siberian tiger is the most distinct of the mainland races, but overlaps with the now extinct Caspian sub-species in terms of cranial morphology. In turn, the Caspian tiger overlaps with the other mainland types, who differ from each other on average, but also overlap heavily (2). The Siberian/Caspian tiger connection is also clear when looking at Mitochondrial DNA (3). Samples taken from preserved remains of Caspian tigers show that they share a major mtDNA haplotype with Siberian tigers, and thus a very recent history. It appears that tigers colonised central Asia at most 10,000 years ago, and the modern Siberian stock may be the result of a few Caspian tigers subsequently wandering east via northern Asia (3).

The Indonesian island tigers appear to be quite different from the mainland races in terms of cranial matrics, but very similar to each other (2). Also, in 2008, genetic testing of Javan and Bali tigers was still in preliminary stages, but initial results showed that it was quite difficult to distinguish between the three Indonesian sub-species based on mtDNA markers(4).

1. Shu-Jin Luo, 2008, Subspecies Genetic Assignments of Worldwide Captive Tigers Increase Conservation Value of Captive Populations.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(08)00434-X

2. Ji H. Mazák, 2008, Craniometric variation in the tiger (Panthera tigris): Implications for patterns of diversity, taxonomy and conservation.

doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2008.06.003

3. Carlos Driscoll.(January 2008). Caspian tiger phylogeography.

http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/semsched/details/carlos_%20abstracts_jan2008.pdf

4. Letter from the extant/extinct tiger project to a sample donor, freely available on the web.

http://iceagetiger.com/tiger.pdf

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpwes (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Largest and the Strongest

That opening sentence has fanbois written all over it. Does ANY other article on Wikipedia describes an animal like that? Do you have the "largest and the strongest" on the polar bear page? Or a great white shark page? This is so petty! You can not accurately tell me that the tiger is legitimately "stronger" than a lion. No scientific data supports that. Did the two paw wrestle and the tiger won?! You're talk about a species here. "Largest" is also debatable as I wrote out in the previous post. Please change the opening statement. It should be take into account that ONLY the Nepal Bengal tiger AVERAGES heavier than the lion. The lion is also longer and taller. So you should used the word "heavest" not "largest". I think the opening sentence of the article should read, "The tiger (Panthera tigris) is a member of the Felidae family that reaches the heaviest weight measurments among the four "big cats" in the genus Panthera." 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy, pal! There is plenty of data that supports the fact that the tiger is the largest and strongest feline alive. They have to be since their bodies are havier and their muscle mass is also greater - technically, the more muscle one has the stronger one is. Animal Planet, National Geographic, as well as many souces support the idea that the tiger is stronger than the lion. The hunting evidence proves that fantasticly - lions hardly kill a buffalo of Africa regardless of their great numbers, whereas a lone tiger has once been observed killing and eating a mother rhino - and you know how aggressive mother rhonos are. Tigers also kill gaur and water buffalo, both larger than the African buffalo, and again, they kill them all by themselves.--71.190.93.236 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FALSE! Lions kill adult Cape Buffalo by themselves as well. Check YouTube for video footage. Tigers do not prey on rhinos, you have no proof. The largest documented Gaurs that tigers preyed on were 1000 kg. The largest Cape Buffalo are 900 kg. But lions also take Giraffe, also footage of one lioness bringing it down exists. Tell you what. Go to YouTube and type in LEOTIGRIS. Find my account (lionboss) and watch the footage. It's all there. Tigers are not better hunters nor are they more powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not see any video of a lone lion taking down a full-grown buffalo. It's true that lions kill giraffe, but they do so working as a team, never alone, unless it's a calf.--71.190.88.161 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to educate me on lions, you don't qualify. As for your non-beliefs in the lions' hunting ability, check here: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=liongear&view=videosions/63.161.203.11%7C63.161.203 There you will see giraffe hunting (solo), buffalo hunting (solo), and even two males taking down a hippo. Enjoy! Special:Contribut.11 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right; it would not be possible to educated someone like you with such a small amount of brain cells. However, just for the sake of the argument, allow me to counter your statement. First of all, you gave me a link with the intention of finding some proof of the hunting abilities of the lion. You said, "There you will see giraffe hunting (solo)...", but did you know that the lion was actually attacking a calf? An adult giraffe can be up to 18 feet in height - only an entire pride of lions could bring down such large prey, so you fail there. Same thing with the buffalo! What are you trying to prove... you will never find any evidence of a lone lion killing a fully grown bull buffalo all by itself. That's insane!

Yes, it is insane, and it IS true! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHZpjiO_f-o Listen and Watch! A single lioness kills a full grown buffalo AFTER making a solo charge against a full herd! Now, show me tiger proof! Show me a tiger killing ANYTHING bigger than a deer! Until you can do that you got NOTHING! There is also a video there of two male lions taking down a full grown hippo! Satisfied?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a lioness attacking a cow buffalo, not killing it. Plus, the whole pride was behind her, so you failed to show me enough evidence that a single lioness (or even a male lion for that matter) can kill a bull African buffalo. As for my proof... that tigers can kill anything larger than deer, I invite you to drop by your local library and pick up a book on tigers. There you'll learn, from real experts, what a tiger can really do. Have fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.93.60 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have provided some information about the prey taken by each cat in the Lion discussion. By the way, this argument is seriously not worth getting so steamed up over - really, there are more important things in life to be arguing about. And there's no call to insult each other either.

Pgecaj: You may well be right when you say that the tiger is the most powerful of all felines living in the wild (although not of all cats - ligers are much bigger, after all...). I wouldn't be surprised either way. However, until I see some good, scientific evidence, I'd rather this statement not be in the opening sentence of the article, since most sources that have stated this "fact" tend to be rather unscientific, and one that is (supposedly) scientific comes up with measurements of the lion and tiger's strength that don't really seem to tally with reality.

Consider this abstract by Samuel Haughton:

"IN NATURE, vol. xii., p. 474, in a review of Dr. Fayrer's book on the tiger, doubts are thrown by the reviewer on the statement that the tiger is stronger than the lion. Dr. Fayrer's statement cannot be contradicted by any person well acquainted with both animals. In my book on ``Animal Mechanics, published in 1873, I have proved, p. 392, that the strength of the lion in the fore limbs is only 69.9 per cent. of that of the tiger, and that the strength of his hind limbs is only 65.9 per cent. of that of the tiger."

Unfortunately, I could not view the actual text, so I don't know what methods Samuel used to reach this conclusion. However, I was a little alarmed by the final figures, for three reasons:

1) How did he get so precise a measurement of the strength of a lion compared to a tiger, ie. down to point one of a percent? The strengths of animals may vary quite considerably from individual to individual within a species, so it's highly unlikely that we could actually pinpoint the strength of one species compared to another so precisely, since the error bars and uncertainty would be fairly substantial.

2) What subspecies of lion and tiger are we talking about here? What sex were the animals?

3) Suppose he's right, and the lion has, say, only 66% of the strength of the tiger in its hind limbs. Now, tigers have been reported making horizontal leaps of up to 10 metres. Logically, a lion, which weighs little less than a tiger, should only be able to make a leap of up to about 6.6 metres, if it only has two thirds of the strength of the tiger in its hindlimbs.

However, just look at these accounts in Walker's Mammals of the World, for the tiger and lion respectively:

Tiger

"It has been reported to cover up to 10 metres in a horizontal leap." (page 825)

Lion

"Leaps of up to 12 metres have been reported." (page 832)

Walker's Mammals of the World is recognised by many to be a very good resource. Even allowing for a bit of exaggeration, it is still apparent that the lion can probably leap at least as far as the tiger, so how can it possibly have only two thirds of the tiger's strength in its hind legs?

This is precisely the kind of discrepancy that really bothers me in this type of discussion, and thus the reason why I'd rather delete the "strongest" part of the first sentence of this article, until it can be properly verified.

Also, I am aware that it's usual to equate "heaviest" with "largest". However, I see nothing wrong with being as specific as possible, and thus I don't think this article has to follow the convention. Alphard08 (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alphard08, the tiger is the largest and strongest of all cats [living in the wild]. Multiple sources prove that, including National Geographic and Discovery Channel. Of course, 100% pure facts cannot be easily obtained, however, clear evidence has been reported. Let's take a look at the way both animals hunt. Lions hunt in prides. They sometimes kill African buffalo, which can weigh in at up to 2,000 pounds, while lions hunt water buffalo, which is larger, and they do that alone. Tigers also hunt gaur... agian, alone! And there's also a documented case of a tigress killing a mother Indian rhino, the largest rhino species. On the other hand, there is no evidence of a lone lioness (or even male lion) killing a white rhino. There isn't evidence of a lone lioness killing a male Cape buffalo either. This certainly tells us something.

Another thing. The tiger is about 100 lbs larger than the lion on average and yet the former is able to run faster (lions average 30-35 mph whereas tigers can run at speeds of 35-40 mph). Obviously more power is needed to move more bulk at faster speeds. As for leaping abilities, the tiger would be the winner, no question. They have been reported jumping over fances of over 15 feet. A couple of recent happenings prove that. At a California zoo, a Siberian tigress (350 pounds of weight) was able to jump over the fence and kill a teenager. In India, a tigress was able to leap vertically several feet and bite a guy's hand on top of an elephant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.48.41 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I edited the changes made by one of the editors from the lion's article. After making the article in word featured, he came here scandalizing this article.

Firstly, I'm a girl. Sorry, it really does annoy me when people automatically assume someone else has to be male.

Secondly, I'm not "scandalizing" this article, I'm actually trying to make it better.

Finally, I had nothing to do with the lion article being made a featured one - I made some contributions, but there were many far more diligent editors who spruced the article up to its featured status. Also, if you look at my list of edits, you'll see that I've also made numerous contributions to this article too.

I inverted his edit by restating that the tiger is the largest and the most powerful of all cats, as opposed to simply heaviest. I did that for several reasons. One being the fact that almost all reputable sources accept the idea of the tiger being the largest and strongest. I's almost impossible to open a book about tigers or large cats and not see the words LARGEST and STRONGEST used to the tiger's credit. The same the thing can be said for documentaries. And there's a good reason for that.

I'm not the sort of person who'll simply accept something because people say so - I want to see solid evidence or proof. (Likewise, the fact that the Siberian tiger is the biggest of all tigers is something that is similarly stated in most documentaries and textbooks, but some people have expressed their doubts, since in recent times, any Amur tigers that have been weighed don't seem to exceed 220 kg, despite historical accounts that they regularly reach weights of more than 250 kg. See "Tiger in the Snow").

First of all, allow me to justify the use of the term "largest" in this article. Tigers weigh up to 660 lbs. No other cats can be that heavy.

Au contraire, the heaviest lion found in the wild was 313 kg, or 690 pounds. I know that tigers can be heavier, but still...

Also, tigers measure up to 13 feet. No lions can be that long.

Can they really be that long? I thought the longest Bengal tiger was a little less than 11 feet, and the longest Siberian tiger a little less than 13 feet. Accounts of extremely long tigers in the past have been somewhat dubious, particularly if they were measured using the "around the curves" method, since this can stretch the skin.

The lions is only slightly taller, but it is to mention that has more to do with the fact that the lion keeps his head up when walking while the tiger walks head-down style. Plus, lion height is measure including the mane!!

Actually, height is measured at the shoulder, which has nothing to do with how the cat holds its head, or the lion's mane.

Moreover, in zoology the term largest is almost always means heaviest -- it's just more formal to use. If height mattered so much, then I guess we all are wrong to call the elephant the largest land mammal. Isn't the giraffe like much taller, yet a lion being 1 inch or 2 taller than the tigers, all of sudden, is all it matters. Furthermore, when it comes "larger" components, the lion is taller, that's it, while the tiger is heavier, longer, and more voluminous. So, it's 3 components for the tiger versus one for the lion. And ... height at the shoulder has no significance on the animals size overall - it's basically just the length of the forelimbs. We consider total length (nose to tail) and weight.

You do have a point here, although I've already explained that I don't see the harm in being as precise as possible (and I don't think this is quite the same as comparing giraffes and elephants, to be honest).

Really, though, my gripe is with the "powerful" statement rather than the largest, so I'll just get rid of the second half of that sentence.

Now, as for "the most powerful". This so simply... if the power of two nearly identically-built animals is measured, the larger is always (almost always, just to fade off speculation) the more powerful. That would be the tiger with more muscle mass! This is a law of physics and cannot be ignored. We can challenge theories, but not laws.

Well, there's the crux of my argument, right there - lions and tigers are not identically built! Just to illustrate this, compare the humeroradial index (the ratio of the length of the radius bone to the length of the humerus, multiplied by 100) in lions and tigers - from memory, I think it's only about 89 in tigers, but 98 in lions. This is because lions, being plains-dwelling cats, are more cursorial, meaning that they have adapted to become slightly more specialised in running (which I think illustrates the myth that tigers are faster). Thus, their muscle distribution has changed somewhat, but has not decreased, since they still utilise their muscles in pulling down heavy prey.

Plus, tigers have much thicker legs even proportionally, which is likely to make a tiger more powerful even pound per pound.--Pgecaj (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"tigers have thicker legs, therefore they're stronger." You call that proof? I've heard some people argue that point-for-pound, leopards and pumas are stronger than tigers, yet proportionally, they appear to have much slimmer legs.

(On the topic: Strength: from the Muscle article in Wikipedia:

"A display of "strength" (e.g. lifting a weight) is a result of three factors that overlap: physiological strength (muscle size, cross sectional area, available crossbridging, responses to training), neurological strength (how strong or weak is the signal that tells the muscle to contract), and mechanical strength (muscle's force angle on the lever, moment arm length, joint capabilities)."

I just put that there to illustrate that the strength isn't determined by sheer mass alone).

Anyway, this is all pretty pointless. In my mind, there are two ways of proving that the tiger is stronger than the lion.

1) Using a series of tests to obtain a numerical value of the "strength" of various parts of each animals (ie, forelimbs, hindlimbs, shoulders, etc...)

2) Demonstrate that the tiger can perform a feat of strength that the lion is conclusively shown to be incapable of performing.

The only example I've seen of the former came up with some rather bizarre values, which I've already pointed out - there is no way a lion can have only two thirds of the strength of the tiger in its back legs if it is capable of leaping greater distances! Actually, doesn't that just show that the lion has stronger hind limbs...?

And as for the latter, I don't think there have really been any examples - the gaur-pulling feat is often put forward, but the problem is, I don't think lion and gaur territory actually overlap (can someone find out for me if there are any gaur in the Indian gir forest sanctuary?), so you don't really know whether or not a lion would be capable of the same feat, until you put the two animals together to find out.

And pointing out that lions hunt buffaloes in groups, rather than individually (although it does happen occasionally), isn't enough either, because buffaloes are not simply smaller versions of gaur.

For starters, they're far more aggressive and temperamental, making them extremely dangerous for a solitary lion to tackle, whereas gaur are much more docile. For instance, if a buffalo herd catches scent of a lioness with cubs, they'll charge towards the spot and do their best to trample the cubs to death, something I've never heard of gaur doing. Secondly, they live in bigger herds than gaur, making it harder to single out an individual buffalo. It is for this reason that lions are actually more likely to target old bulls rather than calves, even though the bulls are the biggest of the lot, because they tend to live in smaller groups.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing this, to be honest. I'd like to try and get in contact with a zoologist who can resolve this once and for all, when I get the chance to, rather than participate in an endless debate. Alphard08 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"The tiger is the strongest of the big/living cats" is sufficient and profable by good scientific measurements. I would strongly support this version!--Altaileopard (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Altaileopard. Well, if you reckon it should stay, I'll change it back then, since there now seems to be a majority wanting the original version of the first sentence, "The tiger is the largest and the strongest of the big cats".

PS. I'd still like to know, if only to satisfy my own curiosity, what scientific measurements have actually been made to show that the tiger is the strongest of the living cats though. Alphard08 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I am not very concentrated at the moment: "The tiger is the largest of the big/living cats" is sufficient in my view. There might be evidence, that a large tiger is stronger than a typical african lion, but it is actually hard to find a definition, what means "stronger". I am not shure, if both ever tried arm wrestling against each other:-). I think speculations about strength should be discussed further down in the article.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, something is wrong here. Can we please stop this cat-and-mouse fight over the opening statement. Over the last few days, it's been changed several times. Initially, it was the "largest and the most powerful." Then I got editted to simply "heavist" bofore going back to its previous version of "largest and the most powerful." Now it only "largest." Can we plase all agree on one thing? It seems now that whoever gets to edit last wins.--71.190.90.113 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that tigers hunt gaur

I found this website with clear pictures showing a tiger with a live gaur. The gaur is brought down and likely paralized by the large chunk of meat bitten off of it. If don't already have the website listed along the other sources, here's the link http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/hunting6.html

Yes, according to Mazak (See: http://www.amazon.de/Tiger-Panthera-tigris-Vratislav-Mazak/dp/3894327596/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228404403&sr=8-1 only german), the gaur is actually a quite typical prey item of indian tigers.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

stpid astrupi5teo[etjkreopgjr[qagiognrqeuivhnjr4klgh-qe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.19.121 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of brown bears killing adult male tigers ... where?

"Adult brown bears are known for killing and driving off adult male tigers." Please where is the evidence to suggest such a thing? Brown bears—most certainly—will avoid male tiger as much as possible, while the latter have been known to kill bears up to 800 pounds head-to-head; in fact, according to tiger researchers, such as Mazak, attacks on adult bears are more common than people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.49.31 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) At least one evidence is written here: 1972 r.Komissarovka, Pogranichny, killed by bear

http://tigers.ru/articles/tab_eng.html#tab1

There is another case which heppened is Sikhote-Alin (1960).

Male brown bears do not avoid tigers. No scientfic source confirms "bears up to 800 pounds" killed by the tiger. You repeat a well-known internet hoax.