![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Wall of text that's going nowhere |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"An average adult male tiger from Northern India or Siberia outweighs an average adult male lion by around 45.5 kg (100 lb". "Males tigers vary in total length from 250 to 390 cm (98 to 154 in)". https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lDXGoxgs7vE [1] Contribuidor del Conocimiento ( talk) 09:36 pm, 16 February 2016 (UTC) References No, a liger (lion-tiger hybrid) can outweigh a tiger. Leo1pard ( talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Contradicting or confusing informationOn one hand, studies show that, on average, Bengal tigers are heavier than Southern African lions and Siberian tigers. On the other hand, the above sentence "An average adult male tiger from Northern India or Siberia outweighs an average adult male lion by around 45.5 kg (100 lb)" gives the impression that northern Bengal and Siberian tigers are about the same, on average. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Done. Leo1pard ( talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) According to scientists and biologist lion and tiger are similar in size and in weightThe tiger was considered as the largest because the current record weight in the wild was 389 Kg for a Bengal tiger shot in 1967, actually this record haven't been accepted by the biologists and scientists of U.S MUSEUM of NATURAL History, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Indeed, The GUINNESS BOOK OF ANIMAL FACTS AND FEATS, mention about this record weight that: This enormous poundage was late confirmed by Doctor Henry W. Setzer. Curator of Mammals at U.S Museum (NH) who told the compiler that the animal had been weighted on scale at a a sugar plantation, this avoir avoirdupois however, is somewhat deceptive inasmuch the tiger had killed a buffalo the previous evening and had probably eaten heavily. George B. Schaeller (1967) says the amount of food ingested by a tiger at one sitting can total as much as 20 per cent of its body weight, which means a very hungry 700 Ib 317 kg tiger could in theory dispose of 63 kg 140 Ib of meat. On the other hand, it also proves that Hasinger's monstrous beast would have scale at least 324 kg 715 Ib, even with an empty stomach. https://imgur.com/NZsxrX5 https://s1136.photobucket.com/user/ashtonowns/media/P%20Tigris/recordtigeryv2.jpg.html. So, according Schaller the biggest tiger in the wild had a record weight of 324 kg https://imgur.com/NZsxrX5 https://s1136.photobucket.com/user/ashtonowns/media/P%20Tigris/recordtigeryv2.jpg.html which is similar to the record of the lion in wild (313 kg https://s277.photobucket.com/user/brentlion_2008/media/brentonlion/250kglion2yv7-2.jpg.html). The weight record of 388 kg was accepted by the Guinness Book of Records but rejected by biologists and scientists of the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION because this Bengal was fed with 64 kg of buffalo meat the day before his death.
But the problem is that there are many authors on the tigers and contributors in Wikipedia who continue to take this false record weight of 388 kg which is rejected by scientists to prove and justify that the tiger is an animal larger than the lion; and taking this weight record of 388 kg to prove and justify that the tiger that the tiger is an animal larger than the lion. And taking the weight record of 388 kg to prove that the tiger is larger than the lion is a lack of honesty towards the general public who read wikipedia on the tiger; and on the other hand, it is to show partiality towards the tiger. I would like to remind Wikipedia contributors that we only take the weight records validated and accepted by scientists and biologists, because they're the only ones able to know better these animals that are tigers and lions. So, if a lion and tiger weight is accepted by book authors such as the Guinness Book of Record and rejected by scientists and biologists this record weight can not be valid simple fact. Since the 22/06/2010 in the BBC show according the scientist Mark Evans and comparative anatomist DR Joy Reidenberg who have dissected a lion and a tiger, according to them lion and tiger are similar in size and weight http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/09/06/ing-lions-and-tigers/ . Since the 17/07/2010 in a blocked video in Youtube ""Lion & Tiger Compared 2"" in this video in Youtube some scientists said that the biggest lions and the biggest tigers are the same size, they're virtually the same animals adapted for different habitats https://i.yting.com/tWXqPO0jAwE/hdefault.pg, https://wwww.youtube.com/watch?v=Y36xXuPsvZY&t=14s They're similar because some lions are bigger than some tigers vice versa. It's a nonsense to compare lion and tiger because they're cousin from different habitat; in this video in Youtube you can watch a big lion who outweigh a siberian tiger with 50 kg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHZjBCk9Xh4&t=31s&index=27&list=LLeELVC5ixXn-FKnRMeN6rVQ; even in captive life the biggest lions can rivals the biggest tigers and reach the weight of 900-1000 Ib like Sultan owned by Swede Johnson https://www.quora.com/what-scientific-claim-can-you-prove-wrong-with-tangible-proof/answer/Sudip-Mitra-8?srid=ukZgd. -bagheerax- Bagheerax ( talk) 08:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
"This poundage was only "confirmed" (before the body of that tiger was autopsied) by Dr Henry W. Setzer a curator of Mammals at the U.S Museum who told the compiler that the animal had been weighted on scale at a sugar plantation, this avoirdupois, however, somewhat deceptive inasmuch as the tiger had killed a buffalo the previous evening and had probably eaten heavily. So, this record or this weight of 388 kg have been rejected by George B. Schaller because he mentioned in this book that: George B.Schaller (1967) says the amount of food ingested by a tiger at one sitting can total as much as 20 percent of its body-weight, which means a very hungry 317 kg 700 Ib tiger could in theory dispose of 63 kg 140 Ibn of meat. This record of 388 kg was rejected because it's mentioned in this book that "ON THE OTHER HAND, IT ALSO PROVES THAT "HASINGER'S MONSTROUS WOULD HAVE SCALED AT LEAST 324 KG 715 IB", EVEN WITH AN EMPTY STOMACH https://imgur.com/NZsxrX5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The document in question comes from the GUINESS BOOK OF ANIMAL FACTS AND FEATS, the source in which you took the false record of 388 kg, and being a fan of the tiger that's why you did not put the sentence where it's mentioned that ON THE OTHER HAND, IT ALSO PROVES THAT "HASINGER'S MONSTROUS WOULD HAVE SCALED AT LEAST 324 kg 715 IB, EVEN WITH EMPTY STOMACH !!!!! it's not honest (to put a false record 388 kg and) to LEAVE OUT this sentence !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It depends on which lions and tigers you are talking about. From what I see, the biggest tigers were the Bengal, Caspian and Siberian tigers (or, if you consider the latter 2 to be the same subspecies, then Bengal and Siberian tigers), and the biggest wild lions were not necessarily Barbary lions but Southern African lions, though in captivity, we have claims of huge "Barbary lions", like one that weighed about 900 lb (410 kg). The smallest tigers were the Sunda group ( Balinese, Javan and Sumatran tigers), Malayan tigers and South Chinese tigers. In the middle, we have Indochinese tigers and Asiatic lions, and Senegal lions in Western and Central Africa appear to be similar in size to their Asiatic cousins. Leo1pard ( talk) 14:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Excuse me if i took a long time to answer you, you ask me the question if you must put this sentence:" I would write down that the heaviest wild Bengal tiger weighed 388,7 kg including the contents in the stomach, 324 kg without the contents??? my answer is yes you must write this sentence, because it will finally be a proof of honesty on your part . My request is that you write and that you insist on the similarity of sizes that exists between lion and tiger because this wikipedia on the tiger is still tendencious toward the tiger because you didn't leave out your fanatisme toward the tiger... it's a false info to say "that tiger is the largest cat species" or "that the Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger subspecies are the tallest living felids at the shoulder, and thus considered the largest living felids with extinct Caspian tiger among the biggest that ever existed" because if tiger were the largest, they would have to be the tallest too, and tigers were never as tall as lions. Lion can have as much as 1 to even two feet of height over the average tiger and wikipedia on the big cats confirm that "lion is the tallest living species in the cat family, which includes the genus panthera"... /info/en/?search=Big_cat !!!!!!!!! According to many scientists the lion is higher at the shoulder but shorter than the tiger https://books.google.com/books?id=ZP7fAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA199&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=OCCwQ6AEwBGoVChMIvZ28jMSOxglVSouSCh3Qywan≠v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&b=false,the lion stand higher than tiger https://books.google.fr/books?id=c7gRAQAAMAAJ&q=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22stands+higher%22&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22stands+higher%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBQQGAEwAGoVChMI3KjGrsu0xg.IVAX6SCh1-QQDw lion is the tallest at shoulder of all living cats http://www.lszooduluth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Lions.pdf, lion is taller than the tiger http://Koreananimals.org/LELA/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Reading-Comprehension-Lions.pdf averaging 14 cm taller than tiger http://www.answers.com/Q/How_big_are_lions, the lion typically reach 4 feet (120 cm) http://www.ultimatefieldguide.com/large_animals.htm http://www.thecoli.com/threads/barbary-lion-vs-siberian-tiger.419272 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) http://www.arkive.org/lion/panthera-leo/ http://www.oaklandzoo.org/Lion.php http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/lion http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_lion.html http://ndunahuntingsafaris.co.za/hunting-packages/big-five-hunting/ http://www.thesportsmanchannel.com/2015/04/10-deadly-apex-predators-earth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC) http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/lion http://www.ofcats.com/2008/05/african-lion.html http://www.defenders.org/lion/basic-facts http://www.britannica.com/animal/lion http://www.liveanimalslist.com/mammals/average-size-of-a-lion.php Large lions males often reach the size of 1,23m at the shoulder which is similar or slightly taller than the 1,22m in size at shoulder of the Siberian tiger http://khayelitsha.info/en/south-african-animals/mammals/carnivora/lion http://www.safarihuntingafrica.com/project/lion/ http://deadliestbeasts.wikia.com/wiki/African_Lion http://www.vulkaner.no/n/africa/lion-e.html http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheets/african_lion/lion.htm http://pariahpack2.webs.com/lions.htm http://www.botjes.nl/game_trophies_lion.html http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/762_Panthera_leo.pdf http://kruger-national-park-guide.com/kruger-lion.html http://www.movingplanets.com/world/animals/lion http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/762_Panthera_leo.pdf Some large male lion can reach the size of 1,25m http://www.researchgate.net/publication/316154304_Focus_on_the_Lion_Panthera_leo https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A12921428 http://www.bornfree.org.uk/wild-crew/animal-facts/lion/ A large male lion from the Okavango delta was measured at 1,31,5m at the shoulder http://www.wildfact.com/forum/topic-lion-directory?page=6 Once again, it's a false info to say that the Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger, subspecies are the tallest livings felids at the shoulder, and thus considered the largest living felids with extinct Caspian tiger, because it is to the lion that it has been given the title of King of the Jungle for a reason. It is the tallest of all felines and has muscular legs http://books.google.fr/books?id=2GZm2R9CxocC&pg=PA67&dq=lion+is+the+%22tallest+%22+shoulder&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lion%20the%20%22tallest%22%20shoulder&f=false, and according to a french book that the title is Guide des animaux des parcs animaliers ISBN 978-2-410-0092-4 written by Gérard Guillot (a french naturalist), Dominique Martiré (a french author), Frank Merlier (a french author) published by éditions BELIN / Humensis 2017, it's mentioned that a lion male can reach a height of 4 feet 92 inches(1,50 m) at the shoulder [1]. In the prezi.com it's mentioned that The white lion male can grow to 5 feet (1,52 m) at the shoulder mostly found in zoo's https://prezi.com/ib03rqqf9yhs/endarn. The smallest of lion subspecies has an average shoulder size similar http://www.animalspot.net/asiatic-lion.html to that of the largest tiger sub-species http://www.reference.com/pets-animals/average-size-tiger-abb68fd32a0518c4 but has a record size at shoulder of 4 feet 6 inches (1,37 m) which is higher than the largest tiger http://books.google.com/books?id=DOQ4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA526&dq=lion+tiger+four+feet+shoulder&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vxR6Ur7KOOfJigKK04CgCw&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAjgU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ~~leoleo7475~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC) The second is the tiger rather longer than the lion but not so tall https://books.google.com/books?id=NyoqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBjgoahUKEwi2r6WBx47GAhWFOpIKHbK5AJk#v+onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC) The lion stand higher at the shoulder than the tiger http://books.google.fr/books?id=c7gRAQAAMAAJ&q=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22stands+higher%22&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22stands+higher%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAGoVChMI3KjGrsu0xg.IVAX6SCh1-QQDw. The tiger is not bigger than lion his body is longer and more slender than that of the lion and his legs shorter http://books.google.com/books?id=8BJFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA50&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBDgoahUKEwi2r6WBx47GAhWFOPIKHbK5AJk#v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false. His legs resemble to those of lion only the legs are much shorter in proportion to the size of the animal (the tiger) https://books.google.com/books?id=HKYuxHhPh3oC&pg=PA130&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCWoVChMIvZ28jMSOxgIVSouSCh3QywAn#v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false The legs are rather shorter, ad the animal bends them more and has more of the snake like flexure of the spine when he walks https://books.google.com/books?id=CLgTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA728&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAzgUahUKEwj4tMG3xY7GAhUGB5IKHTO7APU#v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false Than even the lion himself; it's much slenderer in proportion also to its size; its legs shorter, and its neck and body longer https://books.google.com/books?id=kogMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBjgUahUKEwj4tMG3xY7GAhUGB5IKHTO7APU#v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false. Siberian tiger can exceptionally reach the size of four feet at the shoulder (1,22 m) http://finaquant.com/tigers/tigers-physical-traits this is an exception not the rule. Height of 3,5 feet (1,07 m) is more usual for the tiger or the Siberian tiger which is in general the tallest sub-species of the tiger at the shoulder https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/tall-tigers-bbc20f0b9912ec51. the Siberian tiger doesn't stand as tall as lion the average height of the Siberian tiger is slightly under 4 feet at the shoulder, the Siberian tiger stand roughly 3,5 feet tall at the shoulder http://animals.mom.me/big-can-siberian-tiger-get-11060.html http://www.animalspot.net/siberian-.html.tiger http://www.reference.com/pets-animals/tall-tigers-bbc20f0b9912ec51 http://www.oocities.org/mrshmelman/SiberianTigerFacts.html http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/siberian/info.html http://www.big-cats.org/bigcatfacts/en/Tiger http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/amur4.html http://www.defenders.org/tiger/threats http://www.insyncexotics.org/tiger/ Bengal tigers is smaller than the Siberian tigers . A male stand between 2 and 3 feet (91 cm) http://www.shambala.org/adopt_tiger.htm. http://www.redorbit.com/reference/bengal_tiger http://www.oocities.org/mrshmelman/TigerFacts.html http://www.humanima.com/decouverte/en/article/bengal-tiger http://www.ejyoti.com/tiger/409-about-bengal-tigers.htm http://www.iloveindia.com/wildlife/indian-wild-animals/bengal-tiger/index.html http://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/b/bengal-tiger/ Only large male can rival the height at the shoulder of the average Siberian tiger http://pictures-of-cats.org/how-big-is-the-bengal-tiger.html
A similar issue appears to exist for African lions. In the wilderness, the heaviest lion which is mentioned in Wikipedia (I did see different stories elsewhere) was a Transvaal lion (also known as the Southeast African lion), but going by body-dimensions, I cannot say if it was bigger than the longest reported Katanga lion (also known as the Southwest African lion), and the reference [2] that was used for the latter lion is the same reference that was used for the 388.7-kilogram Bengal tiger. As for the "different stories elsewhere," I did see information about African lions, apart from the mentioned Transvaal lion, weighing above 700 lb (320 kilograms). Leo1pard ( talk) 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
At first i would to tell you that these references are not contradictory because the purpose of these links above is not to show you the varieties of weight that the Bengal tiger can reach in the wild; the purpose of these links is to show that the Siberian tiger, Bengal tiger, and the Caspian tiger are the not the tallest at the shoulder like it is mentioned in this wikipedia on the tiger. In this wikipedia on the tiger, the tiger is presented as a super-cat that has all the superlatives: Siberian tiger, Bengal tiger, are the tallest livings felids at the shoulder, and thus considered the largest living felids with the extinct Caspian tiger. At first you can't say that because tiger don't possess all advantages physically; and the purpose of this debate is to say simply that the tiger is not some kind of undisputed superior-in-all-ways, deity like super-cat. Simply because there is another cat that is not only nearly identical in size, but for the most part quite similar in behavior as well...the African lion. Leoleo7495 ( talk)
According to Russian scientists if you look at why Bengal tiger can get heavier than Siberian tigers or African lions (only in the wild) is food consumption. being most scientist and zoologist have stated that lions and tigers are almost anatomically the same cat, when they do autopsy's and strip the flesh from lions and tigers, by simple glance most of top experts can't tell a lion from tiger http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/09/06/ing-lions-and-tigers http://windfallfilms.com/show/1694/episode-3-big-cats.aspx , http://www.thirteen.org/programs/inside-natures-giants/pbs-presents-inside-natures-giants-big-cats-preview/... but as for food consumption the lion consumes less because he's the only cat in the wild period. So the food consumption is the barrier which separates the tigers and the lions in the wild period. Its simple math really if a tiger kills a 1000 pound buffalo, he will then be able to consume more of that buffalo than a lion killing a 1000 pound buffalo, because the tiger is solitary, so he will digest atleast 80% 8/10 ths if he pro-longs the buffalo for a week or longer, while a lion being in the pride, will have to share the buffalo on average of 10-20 other lions, so he will only digest 2/10 ths of the buffalo on average before the whole pride consumes it in less than a day or two. Less consumption would mean less weight among occasion's, that why lion weights are among the most randomest scales to calculate or determine. While that pattern can actually be broken... via captive lions. Indeed, in captivity zoo's, circuses and sanctuary feed lions a meal of a solitary animal (like the tigers), being... having a consistant diet, which shows that lions can actually reach what ever weights the Siberian tiger (which is the biggest of the sub-species of the tigers) can...both can reach 500-1000 pound in captive live. Most of these lions up to 454 kg are animals that have been fed in order to reach the maximum of their physical potential; i mean some of these call obese lions, still do feats that doesn't define fat and sloppy and defies obesity, like this 1000 pound monster named Sultan tight steel wire. http://famousclowns.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/animal-traier-swede-johnson-lion-high-wire.jpg, here is the weight of Sultan (Wild Animal Trainer In Circus Hall Of Fame) http://www.thecoli.com/threads/kodiak-bear-vs-african-lion.433196/page-6 https://postimg.org/image/7eIs4dai1/ which Sultan weight fluctuated from 900-1000 pound who know probably on a good stuff day of eating his fill of the usual 20% of there body weight, he could have beat Jaïpur the largest tiger Jaïpur weight fluctuated from 932 pounds http://imgur.com/jD50iLT.jpg - 1025 pound http://dinoanimals.com/animals/siberian-tiger-the-largest-tiger. At max he was 465 kg. Jaïpur was only 0,25% heavier than Sultan. Certainly Sultan would made Jaïpur small anyway, since Sultan had enormous mane as well, which increased his mass any at least 50% of 1000 pound is 500 pound, Sultan would visually look 500 pound heavier than Jaïpur and stand taller as well. Sultan Was stated by numerous sources to have been one of the largest lion in the U.S.A. 1000 pound lion named Simba http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Illinois_2004%20February%2014.pdf, http://semissourian.com/story/131162.html, http://thesouthern.com/news/lion-attacks-kills-hardin-county-man/article_17ccce1c-8e09-5f74-8b5e-d20972aac06b.html ( this big lion has been killed in 2004 his weight was confirmed by Hardin County Coroner Roger Little following an autopsy) 1000 pound lion Ethiopian courts housed http://biggame.iza-yoi.net/bigcat/lion.html 900 pound lion named Lord Ivory in the Jungle Island http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JungleIsland-Lion.JPG, http://s2.postimg.org/hmd2j10u1/Screenshot_67.png, http://traveltips.usatoday.com/miami-attractions-children-25127.html CBS News investigative correspondent Armen Keteyan speaks about the debate and what it was like doing an interview within feet of a 900 pound lion http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x364597531/Morning-Jolt-Haunted-home-for-seniors 826 pound lion named Simba of Colchester zoo (Guinness record holder, the largest captive lions). Lion like Simba are being shown to be not uncommon as most would think, you can see above that there are many other lions rival and surpasses his height and weight, such as Sultan (1000 pound), Simba (1000 pound), African lion from ethiopia (1000 pound)... https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-freak-specimens?page=4 807 pound lion named Rutledge (last Guinness record holder, the largest captive lion) http://adambarefoot.deviantart.com/art/Rutledge-World-s-Largest-Lion-148826480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The question that people can ask is why weights of lions weighing 1000 pound are not mentioned in the GUINNESS BOOK WORLD RECORDS LIMITED? what people don't know is that the GUINESS BOOK WORLD RECORDS LIMITED doesn't accept all records but chooses its owns records; its choices are subjective, which means that among the many record weights of lions living in captivity is that of Simba of the Colchester Zoo and its 375 kg which was chosen by the GUINNESS WORLD RECORD BOOK LIMITED and yet there were lions living in captivity that surpassed in size and weight Simba of the Colchester zoo and its 375 kg, as for example Sultan and its 454 kg belonging to the tamer Fritz "Swede" Johnson as well as other lions that weighed than Simba of the Colchester Zoo ( actually we can see a 900 pound
http://s2.postimg.org/hmd2j10u1/Screenshot_67.png white lion named Lord Ivory
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JungleIsland-Lion.JPG of the Jungle Island zoo in Miami and two 900 pound lions in YOUTUBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmUtjFBx6eM) the the weight of those lions that weighed heavier than Simba of Colchester zoo was never mentioned in the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOK LIMITED because it's mentioned in the Page 260 in the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOK that: Cite error: There are Its record setting is subjective and not objective that why GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOKS LIMITED is aware that its lack of objectivity in its record-taking generate subsequent errors that why it is mentioned in the page 260 in the GUINNESS BOOK WORLD RECORDS LIMITED that: GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOK LIMITED uses precise methods of verification to certify records. Despite his efforts error may exist [15] In another sentence it is mentioned in the GUINNESS BOOK RECORDS LIMITED that: ...GUINNESS BOOK WORLD RECORDS LIMITED can't be held responsible for errors or omissions that would involve his book. Any correction or accuracy of the readers is welcome... [16]
According to me the GUINNESS BOOK RECORDS LIMITED made a mistake by taking the weight record of Simba of the Colchester ZOO its 375 kg confirms the false thesis that make the lion a small animal in size and weight compared to the Siberian tiger named Jaïpur whose height is 465 kg. THE GUINNESS BOOK RECORDS LIMITED should not have neglected the weight of the lion like Sultan and its 454 kg, because to take the weight of the lion like Sultan would have confirmed the new thesis of the scientist who say that there are lions and tigers of different shapes and sizes end that larger lions and tigers have similar, both are the biggest in different areas (lions are the tallest https://www.desertusa.com/animals/lion.html and tigers are the longest cat concerning the body), in the end it comes out similar when both comparing the largest lions and tigers. And when we compare the weights of Sultan and 454 kg and Jaïpur and its 465 kg we note that they have similar weights...Jaïpur is slightly heavier because the Siberian tiger stocks on average 5 cm of fat in his belly to support Siberian cold. (don't give an answer i didn't finish) And to make things more complicated, though Eurasian lions, which used to range all the way from India to Greece, but now live in a rather small pocket of their former Indian territory, are currently smaller than huge African lions, [3] that does not mean that the former lions have always been that way. For instance, the Siberian tiger was believed to have been bigger in the past, [3] and Norman Boyd Kinnear (1920) mentioned the account of Austen Henry Layard, who spoke of an "unusually large" Persian lion that was killed in Khuzestan, in the year 1841. [23] Notes
References
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Leo1pard ( talk) 03:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Leoleo7495: My request to anyone who wants to discuss the issue of whether the tiger is bigger than the lion or vice-versa, or more specifically, which tigers are bigger than which lions or vice-versa, which is is related to the now-closed discussion above about whether or not the tiger is the largest member of the Cat Family, is that if you want to do so, then do not talk about it in the closed discussion above, or in this section, but in this talk-page, because that is what that article is partly about, but obviously, be careful in how you discuss it. It is a topic for which there is a lot of literature, including occasionally contradictory literature on different types of lions and tigers, such as the sizes and weights of Barbary lions and Siberian tigers, which were thought of as the largest of their respective species, but can be argued not to have been, at least in certain contexts. Leo1pard ( talk) 06:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
See here, besides the other link. Leo1pard ( talk) 07:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
See this. Leo1pard ( talk) 16:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The article currently says the IUCN CatSG proposed 2 subspecies in 2017 and this was "subsequently criticised by several geneticists" (in a 2015 article). Clearly they couldn't criticise the proposal two years before it was made. The main evidence for the two subspecies division comes from Wilting et al (2015), which I think is the paper criticised in the reference mentioned. There are several early papers proposing merger of some subspecies (e.g. Driscoll et al 2009, Luo et al 2010, Xie et al 2015) and even a proposal to divide the tiger into two species (Mazuk & Groves 2006). The CatSG report has a good summary of the proposals for merging and retaining various subspecies in their discussion on tiger taxonomy (p67), which could be used to expand (and correct) the proposed revision section. I'm going to read a few of these papers before making any changes. Jts1882 | talk 08:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
You had actually recognised and fixed the problem before I posted this comment. I had the article page from your previous edit open. Anyway, I've been looking at the appropriate timeline and will put this summary here for reference:
An issue that is puzzling me is the basal position of the south China tiger in the phylogenies (Luo, Xie). With only two subspecies, the continental tiger is paraphyletic with respect to the Sunda tiger. A division, with at a minimum amoyensis as a third subspecies, or perhaps the Indian tiger as well, seems to makes more sense. Anyway it will be interesting to see if the CatSG recommendation gets wider acceptance. Jts1882 | talk 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)
Leo1pard ( talk) 09:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
After attempting to figure out the exact relationship between the ITIS and the IUCN, it appears to me that the only reason the ITIS and affiliated groups may not have changed their subspecies listings is because the ITIS is merely out of date. Apparently the ITIS often cites the IUCN as its source material, but not vice-versa. Unless anyone else might be able to find any reasonable scholarly articles that might clearly show some other valid reason for the IUCN/ ITIS mismatch here, I will (or any other editor is certainly welcome to) try to return here around Sept. 1 to entirely rewrite the "Subspecies" section of this article to suitably reflect the new taxonomy.
Thanks, Warrenfrank ( talk) 19:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC) (Notify users: @ Jts1882:, and @ BhagyaMani:, in case anyone else may have any more info on this.)
I wanted to point out something about the recent revision of tiger taxonomy by the International Union of Conservation (IUCN). IUCN has been previously criticized for not recognizing many valid species and subspecies. The failure of the IUCN to recognize two different species of African elephants is a notable example.[1] Recent genetic studies have shown that there are two species of African elephants, African bush elephants (Loxodonta africana) and African forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis).[2] The IUCN has refrained from recognizing two species because it fears that "premature allocation into more than one species may leave hybrids in an uncertain conservation status”.[3] Most scientists have discounted the hybrid argument because there is little to no gene flow between the two species.[2][3] It is a similar case with giraffes.[4]
Coming back to the revision of tiger taxonomy, not everybody who conducted the study agrees with the results. At least two of the scientists want the continued recognition of six extant tiger subspecies.[5] The majority of the scientific community also does not agree with the revised tiger taxonomy.[6]
2. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-african-elephants-two-species-new-science/
3. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/african-elephant-species/
4. https://www.nature.com/news/dna-reveals-that-giraffes-are-four-species-not-one-1.20567
5. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-tiger-subspecies-revised-2017/
6. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/controversial-study-claims-there-are-only-two-types-tiger
Achat1999 ( talk) 05:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Achat1999 ( talk) 05:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly. For instance, both Stephen O'Brien and Shu-Jin Luo are respected geneticists. The said study was indeed carried out on request of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group. I agree with the decision not to merge the articles of the different tiger subspecies or populations though. They are much too big and detailed to be merged. I think a bit more information may be necessary to clarify the revision for novice readers. Like it would be good if the names of notable dissenters and supporters of the taxonomic revision are added to the relevant paragraphs. Achat1999 ( talk) 11:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Notes
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)
I've spotted a contradiction in the table on subspecies:
Malayan tigers:
Sumatran Tigers
So, the numbers say that Malayan tigers are smaller than the Sumatran ones. However, the text on the Sumatran tiger also states: "It is the smallest of all living tigers"
=> This means either the sizes and weights in the tables are wrong or the statement about Sumatran tigers being the smallest is. (Or the statement might be about the average weight/size which is not provided in the table?). In either case, a correction to the table seems necessary.
There should also be a better way of formatting the table in general, where the systematic information (number of individuals, sizes and weights) have their own columns, to make comparisons easier and reduce the amount of repetitive text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.158.6 ( talk) 13:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
See this. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that sometimes, people may try to claim here or there that the Amur tiger is the biggest tiger, using Bergmann's rule as a justification, but this appears to be true only in the case of captivity, not in the wilderness. Check the above link, besides links that have been posted there, for additional details. Leo1pard ( talk) 05:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
From time to time, I have had to correct details regarding the tiger versus the lion. It seems that as more research is done on this, more information which had previously been taken as fact, such as "The Bengal and Siberian subspecies are the tallest at the shoulder and thus considered the largest living felids," would have to be corrected. Leo1pard ( talk) 10:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
If IUCN Cat specialist group only classifies P. tigris as 2 subspecies, what about the fossil subspecies' validity? (P. tigris (acutidens, soloensis, trinilensis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.102.167 ( talk) 05:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)