Historical comparison of tiger and lion

Historically, a comparison of the tiger (Panthera tigris) versus the lion (Panthera leo)[3][4] has been a popular topic of discussion by hunters,[5][6] naturalists,[7] artists, and poets, and continues to inspire the popular imagination.[8][9][10][11] In the past, lions and tigers reportedly competed in the wilderness,[12][13] where their ranges overlapped in Eurasia.[3][14] The most common reported circumstance of their meeting is in captivity,[15] either deliberately[9][16] or accidentally.[12][17]

Behavioral comparison

Both the lion and the tiger have fearsome reputations in their native areas in relation to prey, sympatric predators, and people. Both may prey on humans, though rates of man-eating tend to be higher for the tiger.[6][18]

General differences in behavior:

The lion is usually a social animal, while the tiger is solitary. For this reason, lions often killed tigers in captivity by ganging up on them, whereas tigers tended not to form fighting gangs. [19]

Lions roam in prides of up to 30 individuals headed by a mature male or group of related males, until an incumbent male is killed or driven away by a new male leader. The majority of single roaming lions tend to be males preparing for maturation and assimilation with a new or existing pride. While male lions are generally larger and stronger than female lions, it is the close-knit female pride alliance that typically hunts and provides for the pride. By contrast, tigers are often solitary,[19] though they do socialize.[4] During a mating tryst, a tiger and tigress are hostile to other creatures, with the same applying to lions.[20]

More specifically, however, the Asiatic lion has similarities and differences with both its African relative and the tiger. For example, Asiatic lions are social like their African relatives, and females may be promiscuous.[21] However, the structures of the prides of African and Asiatic lions vary,[22] with male Asiatic lions usually associating with females during times of mating,[23][24] similar to tigers,[4][20] and whereas Asiatic lionesses and tigresses may practice promiscuity in order to defend their cubs, African lionesses are believed not to do it for that purpose.[25]

Coexistence in the Eurasian wilderness

Currently, India is the only country confirmed to have both wild lions and tigers, specifically Asiatic lions and Bengal tigers.[4][27][28] Though they do not share the same territory, they did in the past,[12][29][20][30] and there is a project mentioned below that could lead to their meeting in the wild.[31][32]

Before the end of the 20th century, Asiatic lions[33][34] and Caspian tigers[35][36] had occurred in other Asian[2] or Eurasian nations, including Iran.[4][14][28][20] As such, there is a word for 'Lion',[3][4][14][34] which can also mean 'Tiger',[20][37] and is used in Iran, South Asia and other areas, that is 'Sher' or 'Shir' (Persian: شیر‎),[38] and its significance is discussed below. Not only did Heptner and Sludskiy had talk about the lion and tiger both occurring in places like Iran, Anatolia and Transcaucasia, they also mentioned that the ranges of the lion and tiger often overlapped.[3]

According to Colin Tudge (2011), given that both cats hunt large herbivores, it is likely that they had been in competition in Asia. Despite their social nature, lions might have competed with tigers one-against-one, as they would with each other.[2] Apart from the possibility of competition, there are legends of Asiatic lions and tigers breeding to produce hybrid offspring, which would be ligers or tigons.[39][40][41][42][43] From the fossil record, besides genetics,[4][36][44] it would appear that the modern lion and tiger were present in Eurasia since the Pleistocene, when now-extinct relatives also existed there.[3][33][35] Additionally, in the days before Indian Independence, the Maharaja of Gwalior introduced African lions into his area, which is a habitat for Bengal tigers.[45]

The possibility of conflict between lions and tigers had been raised in relation to India's Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project, which was meant to introduce the Gir Forest's lions to another reserve which is considered to be within the former range of the lion, that is Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh,[31] before December 2017.[46][47] Kuno was reported to contain some tigers that came from Ranthambore Park, including one called 'T-38'.[12][32] Concerns were raised that the co-presence of lions and tigers would "trigger frequent clashes."[48] At the same, the American biologist Craig Packer and his students at the University of Minnesota considered that a group of lions (two to three males) would have a clear advantage over a tiger and a pack or lionesses (two to four females) would have a similar advantage over a tigress, despite the general advantage of the latter in weight or height. Therefore, Packer is of the opinion that for Asiatic lions to survive in an area with Bengal tigers, the lions would have to be moved there as intact groups rather than as individuals.[12] Although the habitats of Indian lions and tigers are similar means that they both live in conditions that favor solitary hunters of prey,[49] these lions are social like their African relatives,[22] and may form fighting groups, whereas tigers are usually solitary.[12]

Reginald Innes Pocock (1939) mentioned that some people had the opinion that the tiger played a role in the near-extinction of the Indian lion, but he dismissed this view as 'fanciful'. According to him, there was evidence that tigers inhabited the Indian Subcontinent before lions. The tigers likely entered Northern India from the eastern end of the Himalayas, through Burma, and started spreading throughout the area, before the lions likely entered Northern India from Balochistan or Persia, and spread to places like the Bengal and the Nerbudda River. Because of that, before the presence of man could limit the spread of lions, tigers reached parts of India that lions did not reach. However, the presence of tigers throughout India did not stop the spread of lions there, in the first place, so Pocock said that it is unlikely that Bengal tigers played a role, significant or subordinate, in the near-extinction of the Indian lion, rather, that man was responsible for it,[20] as was the case with the decline in tigers' numbers.[3][4][35][20][30] As such, Pocock thought that it was unlikely that serious competition between them regularly occurred, and that even if Indian lions and tigers met, the chance that they would fight for survival was as good as the chance that they would choose to avoid each other, and that their chances of success, if they were to clash, were as good as each other's.[20]

Observed fights

In the circuses of Ancient Rome, exotic beasts were commonly pitted against each other,[16] including Barbary lions[4][50][51] and tigers.[52] A mosaic in the House of the Faun in Pompeii shows a fight between a lion and a tiger.[53] There are different accounts of which of these animals gained the victory. Although lions and tigers can be kept together in harmony in captivity,[54] fatal conflicts have also been recorded.[9][55][56][57]

In addition to historical recordings, clashes between lions and tigers were reported or even caught on camera[58] in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was not always clear which species regularly beat the other, according to Doctor Packer (2015).[12][13]

In captivity

Clyde Beatty

A tigress running out of Beatty's circus chute into a cage occupied by a woman with a stick.

The figure of Clyde Beatty's 50 tigers killed by lions[80][81] includes the following:

In 1934, "Pasha", a female tiger, attacked Clyde Beatty, only to have "Nero" the male lion attack the tigress and save Beatty's life in an ensuing 25-minute fight. [82] [83]

In 1933, Beatty said that 16 tigers were killed because lions fight in gangs and tigers fight alone. [84]

Up to 1933 in his career Beatty stated, "I have had many lion-tiger battles in my arena, but they have always been gang fights." He continued further, mentioning a tigress named "Nellie" who was killed in a fight involving her and another tiger against eight lions, and another fight between 17 lions and 12 tigers, in which three tigers were killed. Beatty continued in the interview: "However, these fights prove nothing, for lions help each other in a fight, while a tiger picks an opponent in one of these free-for-all battles and fights it out with that animal, who usually gets help from one of his lion buddies". [85]

Beatty starred in the 1933 film The Big Cage in which fights between his lions and tigers were both done. The first fight was between Sultan the lion and Tommy the tiger, in which the lion killed the tiger. [86] The second tiger that was killed by a lion was Bobby, which fought Caesar the lion. [87] On page 33, Beatty states that he threw ammonia into Bobby's face, because they wanted to stir the fight up, stating that it was an old animal trainer trick "seldom [used] because of the obvious discomfort it causes the animals", at the end of the page saying that "Bobby, [was] pawing at his nose as though trying to get the fumes out of it", showing that it interfered with the fight, but later on, Beatty states that Bobby continued fighting, lunging at Caesar four more times, though after Caesar made a maneuver to avoid Bobby's fourth strike, Caesar managed to seize Bobby by the neck and kill it.

in which fights between his lions and tigers were both done. The first fight was between Sultan the lion and Tommy the tiger, in which the lion killed the tiger. The second tiger that was killed by a lion was Bobby, which fought Caesar the lion. On page 33, Beatty states that he threw ammonia into Bobby's face, because they wanted to stir the fight up, stating that it was an old animal trainer trick "seldom [used] because of the obvious discomfort it causes the animals", at the end of the page saying that "Bobby, [was] pawing at his nose as though trying to get the fumes out of it", showing that it interfered with the fight, but later on, Beatty states that Bobby continued fighting, lunging at Caesar four more times, though after Caesar made a maneuver to avoid Bobby's fourth strike, Caesar managed to seize Bobby by the neck and kill it. In 1936, it is reported that Beatty recalled an event in his circus where a lion named "Boss Tweed" died after being injured in a fight with three tigers which it reportedly killed, after they ran into the chute where it was. [88] The newspaper stated that Beatty recalled that three tigers and one male lion fought in the circus chute in which the animals enter and leave the arena. [89]

The newspaper stated that Beatty recalled that three tigers and one male lion fought in the circus chute in which the animals enter and leave the arena. In 1937, the Chicago Tribune reporter asked Beatty about one-on-one fights; he then stated he did not stage many of those as it was too expensive...but then says he had had plenty of such fights happen accidentally, and usually before he could stop it, one of the cats was dead. He went on to say that since 1927, 25 tigers were killed by lions, and no lions were killed by tigers. [90] In another article in 1937, Beatty stated how the tiger started off faster, but when its flurry subsided, the lion mopped up, never leaving until its antagonist was dead. [91]

reporter asked Beatty about one-on-one fights; he then stated he did not stage many of those as it was too expensive...but then says he had had plenty of such fights happen accidentally, and usually before he could stop it, one of the cats was dead. He went on to say that since 1927, 25 tigers were killed by lions, and no lions were killed by tigers. In another article in 1937, Beatty stated how the tiger started off faster, but when its flurry subsided, the lion mopped up, never leaving until its antagonist was dead. Sehka, a three-year-old Bengal tigress in Beatty's circus "died of wounds suffered when she was attacked by Memphis, a lion in the act". [92]

In 1940, Beatty talked about a case saying that while a tiger was performing, Nero the lion jumped from his pedestal, hit the tiger with a crash, stunning the big cat and sunk his teeth into the tiger's back. [93] Evidently the fight was unfair, as it was an ambush.

Evidently the fight was unfair, as it was an ambush. As Beatty stated in his book, Princess the tigress was dying in a "brief encounter with the maned enemy [male lion]." [94]

Beatty mentioned a case where Empress the tigress was killed by Detroit the lion. [95]

In Beatty's book, he talked about a case where "Sleika", a female tiger, was severely injured in a fight with Detroit the lion, had a broken back and died two days later. [96]

Beatty stated that Puna, a male tiger who was known for being very friendly and even going up to his "natural enemies" [male lions] and be affectionate towards them, who was then killed in one of his "good will" moments by a lion. [97]

A tiger by the name of "Poona" was killed by two lions in a "two-against-one battle". [98]

In 1951, Prince the lion killed two tigresses, Sheba and Rosie. [99] [100]

In 1952, Juno the male lion reportedly killed 13 tigers and five lions. [101] [102] It is unclear if Juno killed these animals directly or if he was simply part of the killing (such as several lions killing a tiger) and Beatty counted it. A newspaper from the beginning of 1952 stated that Juno was involved in a fight with six other lions, in which four of the lions "bore bloody wounds from the battle." It also stated that Juno ambushed another lion by jumping on it from behind. [103] Juno was said to be one of the largest and finest specimens of Barbary lions in captivity. [104]

It is unclear if Juno killed these animals directly or if he was simply part of the killing (such as several lions killing a tiger) and Beatty counted it. A newspaper from the beginning of 1952 stated that Juno was involved in a fight with six other lions, in which four of the lions "bore bloody wounds from the battle." It also stated that Juno ambushed another lion by jumping on it from behind. Juno was said to be one of the largest and finest specimens of Barbary lions in captivity. In 1954, a tiger was killed in a melee while Beatty was trying to separate "two ferocious fellows". [105] It is unclear if the tiger was killed fighting a male lion or not, as it does not clarify the animals that were in the fight.

It is unclear if the tiger was killed fighting a male lion or not, as it does not clarify the animals that were in the fight. In 1955, France the lion reportedly killed two tigers in Beatty's circus. [106] There is no information given about the fights or on the tigers.

There is no information given about the fights or on the tigers. In 1960, Beatty had a tiger named "Sabre" who killed two lions.[107] In the mid-1930s, Beatty took lionesses out of the act, meaning the lions could have been males.[108]

In the wilderness

Mughal painting of a Dervish with a lion and tiger in India

Herne (1855) mentioned that in the Indian jungle between the village of Elaw, city of Baroche, and Gulf of Cambay, north of the city of Surat and its Ghauts, about 6.0 or 7.0 mi (9.7 or 11.3 km) from the village, he and his party, which included locals, heard a tiger's roar. Pursuing it, they caught a glimpse of it, but by that time, the tiger had attacked a local. It disappeared with the victim, and after pursuing it for about 50.0 yd (150.0 ft), they heard the roar of a lion, and besides it, sounds which suggested that it was in a struggle with the tiger, such as growls. The party not only managed to see the lion and tiger rolling about in their battle, after going through bushes, but also the man who fell victim to the tiger. The author termed both the lion and tiger as "tyrants of the forest," given that they would attack weaker creatures. The tiger was about the same size as the lion, but more agile. As for the lion, it used greater strength, and its mane, which was somewhat deeper than those of its bigger African cousins, could protect its head from the tiger's claws, though not other parts of its body, such as the back. They were as determined and brave as each other, but the lion endured. It caught the tiger's throat, turned it on its back, and killed it by clawing its abdomen open. The lion was thus hailed as the "King of Beasts." Otherwise, the fight had been harsh for both beasts, to the extent that the author felt that it would avenge their victims. [109]

The Sun (New York) reported that in a depopulated Indian village at the bank of a creek connected to the Cauvery River, about 30.0 mi (48.3 km) north-west of Bangalore, a hunter injured by a venomous creature saw a tiger on his left-hand side, and a lion on his right-hand side. The tiger was a "rousing big fellow, who had seen 15 years of his life," and had muscular limbs. The male lion was "medium-sized." Both of them stalked him, but they did not notice each other at first, as they were separated by a wall that was about 4.0 ft (120 cm) tall, and their focus was on the witness. When they got closer to him, the tiger scented the lion, and behaved like an angry cat, which included making a noise that startled the latter. The lion showed its teeth in response, and after reaching the end of the wall, roared at its foe. After the lion's head showed around the wall, the crouching tiger pounced on it, and rolled over with it. Tigers often kill victims by biting their throats, and keeping their hold on them for as long as necessary, [110] but that was not the case with this struggle. Despite different descriptions of their sizes by the narrator, and that the tiger was more agile than the lion, the tiger's neck was vulnerable to a bite by the lion, and for reasons like these, it was difficult for either cat to defeat the other, overall. After they temporarily retreated from each other, the hunter could see that they were both injured. Still, they were determined to destroy each other. The lion and tiger respectively roared and snarled. The narrator suspected that their hatred for each other may have been because both had been hunting him at the same time, therefore, their respective presences interfered with each other's hunt for him. The tiger pounced on the lion's back, rolling over or falling with it again, and struggling to its feet like it. The lion seemed helpless as the tiger held onto its fore shoulder, before making a move in which it managed to catch the tiger's neck. Now the tiger seemed helpless, before making a move to use its hind claws to force the lion to release its hold on it. Though the tiger was the aggressor this time, their struggle became more like that of dogs unable to beat each other. They bled from nose to tail as they moved away from the witness, towards the creek. They fell into the water, which was about 2.0 ft (61 cm) deep, and this stopped the fight. They retreated from each other, limping into the forest. [b]

reported that in a depopulated Indian village at the bank of a creek connected to the Cauvery River, about 30.0 mi (48.3 km) north-west of Bangalore, a hunter injured by a venomous creature saw a tiger on his left-hand side, and a lion on his right-hand side. The tiger was a "rousing big fellow, who had seen 15 years of his life," and had muscular limbs. The male lion was "medium-sized." Both of them stalked him, but they did not notice each other at first, as they were separated by a wall that was about 4.0 ft (120 cm) tall, and their focus was on the witness. When they got closer to him, the tiger scented the lion, and behaved like an angry cat, which included making a noise that startled the latter. The lion showed its teeth in response, and after reaching the end of the wall, roared at its foe. After the lion's head showed around the wall, the crouching tiger pounced on it, and rolled over with it. Tigers often kill victims by biting their throats, and keeping their hold on them for as long as necessary, but that was not the case with this struggle. Despite different descriptions of their sizes by the narrator, and that the tiger was more agile than the lion, the tiger's neck was vulnerable to a bite by the lion, and for reasons like these, it was difficult for either cat to defeat the other, overall. After they temporarily retreated from each other, the hunter could see that they were both injured. Still, they were determined to destroy each other. The lion and tiger respectively roared and snarled. The narrator suspected that their hatred for each other may have been because both had been hunting him at the same time, therefore, their respective presences interfered with each other's hunt for him. The tiger pounced on the lion's back, rolling over or falling with it again, and struggling to its feet like it. The lion seemed helpless as the tiger held onto its fore shoulder, before making a move in which it managed to catch the tiger's neck. Now the tiger seemed helpless, before making a move to use its hind claws to force the lion to release its hold on it. Though the tiger was the aggressor this time, their struggle became more like that of dogs unable to beat each other. They bled from nose to tail as they moved away from the witness, towards the creek. They fell into the water, which was about 2.0 ft (61 cm) deep, and this stopped the fight. They retreated from each other, limping into the forest. Rivalry between the Asiatic lion and "Siberian tiger"[c] is mentioned in Hamilton M. Wright's work in The San Francisco Call (1911).[115]

Opinions

Favoring the tiger

Favoring the lion

Clyde Beatty, the animal trainer and performer who owned several tigers, lions, hyenas, and other exotic animals, believed that in nine out of 10 times, "a full-grown lion would whip a full-grown tiger". [55]

Dave Hoover, the animal trainer for Clyde Beatty-Cole Brothers Circus, mentions that he lost many tigers to male lions: "I have to keep the male lions from killing each other. I have to keep them from killing the tigers [...]. I have lost tigers." [124] Although Dave Hoover had his lions gang up on his tigers, "Two lions killed one of his tigers during training in Ojus, Fla., in 1966", [125] in another newspaper he states he as trouble "keeping the lion from attacking the lone tiger". [126]

Although Dave Hoover had his lions gang up on his tigers, "Two lions killed one of his tigers during training in Ojus, Fla., in 1966", in another newspaper he states he as trouble "keeping the lion from attacking the lone tiger". Renowned naturalist and conservationist of India, Kailash Sankhala wrote in his book Tiger that the tiger would be unable to get close to lion's vital joints because of his thick mane, and that the tiger would be vulnerable to the lion. He mentioned that once an Indian prince organized a fight in which the lion killed the tiger, and opined that "a tiger is no match for even single lion of equal strength". [49]

that the tiger would be unable to get close to lion's vital joints because of his thick mane, and that the tiger would be vulnerable to the lion. He mentioned that once an Indian prince organized a fight in which the lion killed the tiger, and opined that "a tiger is no match for even single lion of equal strength". Trainer Bert Nelson, who witnessed a struggle between lions and tigers, said that a tiger would surrender 'sooner' than a lion.[76]

Neutral

Carl Hagenbeck, a trainer from Hamburg, said that the lion and tiger were alike in "good temper and reliability". He cited the example of a lion being trained for a month to do tricks, and of a tiger taking five weeks to do so.[127]

Arts and literature

Art

Battles between the two were painted in the 18th and 19th centuries by Eugène Delacroix, George Stubbs and James Ward. Ward's paintings, which portrayed lion victories in accordance with the lion's symbolic value in Great Britain, have been described as less realistic than Stubbs.[128]

The British Seringapatam medal shows a lion defeating a tiger in battle; an Arabic language banner on the medal displays the words Asad Allāh al-Ghālib (Arabic: أَسَد الله الْغَالِب‎, "Lion of God the Conqueror"). The medal commemorated the British victory at the 1799 Battle of Seringapatam (in the town now known as Srirangapatna) over Tipu Sultan — who used tigers as emblems, as opposed to the British emblematic use of lions.[129]

The Hindu goddess Durga depicted with both the lion and the tiger:

Literature

18th-century naturalists and authors compared the species' characters, generally in favor of the lion.[130] Oliver Goldsmith ranked the lion first among carnivorous mammals, followed by the tiger, which in his view "seems to partake of all the noxious qualities of the lion, without sharing any of his good ones. To pride, courage and strength, the lion joins greatness, clemency and generosity; but the tiger is fierce without provocation, and cruel without necessity."[131] Charles Knight, writing in The English Cyclopaedia, disparaged the opinions of naturalists Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon and Thomas Pennant in this context, stating "the general herd of authors who eulogise the 'courage, greatness, clemency and generosity' of the lion, contrasting it with the unprovoked ferocity, unnecessary cruelty and poltroonery of the tiger, becomes ridiculous, though led by such names as Buffon and Pennant."[130]

In the Hindu epic Mahabharata, Narada told Srinjaya that tigers were fiercer and more ruthless than lions.[133] This is in contrast with other literature from ancient India, which prefers the lion to the tiger. For example, Vedic literature depicted the lion, rather than the tiger, as the "king of the forest."[134]

The lion and tiger rival each other in Iranian literature.[135] For example, Humphreys and Kahrom, in their 1999 book Lion and Gazelle: The Mammals and Birds of Iran, treated them as the "two greatest and most beautiful" of Iranian carnivores, albeit being extinct there. As with the lion,[3] the tiger's Persian name was used for people and places.[14]

Economics

The term "tiger economy" has been applied to Asian countries that have undergone rapid economic growth, and the term "lion economy" to their African counterparts. The two sides, nicknamed "Asian tigers" and "African lions", have also been compared.[136][137]

Cinema

In Paalai, a 2011 Tamil film, there is dialogue about the characteristics of the tiger and lion. It concludes that the tiger is superior. In the film, the tiger is the symbol and flag of the native Tamil tribal people and the lion is the symbol and flag of non-Tamil Singhal (literally meaning 'Leonine') people.[138]

See also

Notes

References