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]

Physical and behavioral comparison [ edit ]

[18] Comparative profiles of the lion and tiger (assuming similar sizes)

Generally, in terms of dimensions of the body and weight, the modern tiger[19] and lion[20] are the two largest species of the genus Panthera and the cat family. Variations in opinions and measurements exist for them, especially across different populations or subspecies.[18][21] Apart from that, similarities and differences exist for other characteristics, such as the lengths of their skulls.[3]

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][22] General differences in behaviour:

The lion is usually a social animal while the tiger is solitary. It is agreed that the tiger is faster, smarter and more ferocious, and that keepers of captive tigers must constantly fear sudden attack. [23]

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,[23] though they do socialize.[4] During a mating tryst, a tiger and tigress are hostile to other creatures, with the same applying to lions.[21]

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.[24] However, the structures of the prides of African and Asiatic lions vary,[25] with male Asiatic lions usually associating with females during times of mating,[26][27] similar to tigers,[4][21] and whereas Asiatic lionesses and tigresses may practice promiscuity to defend their cubs, African lionesses are believed not to do it for that purpose.[28]

Coexistence in the Eurasian wilderness [ edit ]

Currently, India is the only country confirmed to have both wild lions and tigers.[4][18][29] Though they do not share the same territory, they did in the past,[12][30][21][31] and there is a project mentioned below that could lead to their meeting in the wild.[32][33][34]

Before the end of the 20th Century, lions[20][35] and tigers[19][36] had also occurred in other Asian[2] or Eurasian nations, including Iran.[4][14][29][21] As such, there is a word for 'Lion',[3][4][14][35] which can also mean 'Tiger',[21][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. The lion is also of cultural importance in the Far East,[39][40] including the land[41][42] of the Indochinese tiger,[19] but according to authors such as Reginald Innes Pocock (1939)[21] and Nowell and Jackson (1996),[4] the lion did not naturally occur there.

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 on an individual basis, 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.[43][44][45][46][47] From the fossil record, besides genetics,[4][36][48] it would appear that the modern lion and tiger were present in Eurasia since the Pleistocene, when now-extinct relatives also existed there.[3][20][19] Additionally, in the days before Indian Independence, the Maharaja of Gwalior introduced African lions into his area, which is a habitat for Bengal tigers.[49]

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 Indian lion, that is Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh,[33] before December 2017.[50][51] Kuno was reported to contain some tigers that came from Ranthambore Park, including one called 'T-38'.[12][34] Concerns were raised that the co-presence of lions and tigers would "trigger frequent clashes."[52] The University of Minnesota's Lion Research Project describes one reason to delay the introduction of lions to Kuno Palpur, is the fear that tigers living there would kill the incoming lions. In a one-on-one encounter, it is believed that a Bengal tiger could beat an Indian lion, given its weight advantage.[12][32] Despite the fact that the habitats of Indian lions and tigers are similar means that they both live in conditions that favor solitary hunters of prey,[53] these lions are social like their African relatives,[25] and may form fighting groups, whereas tigers are usually solitary, and it is believed that a group of lions (2 – 3 males) or lionesses (2 – 4 females) is more than a match for a single tiger or tigress (see § Temperament). Therefore, it would appear that in order for Asiatic lions to survive in an area with Bengal tigers, the lions would have to be translocated there as intact groups rather than as individuals.[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 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,[21] as was the case with the decline in tigers' numbers.[3][4][19][21][31] 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.[21]

Observed fights [ edit ]

Mughal painting of a Dervish with a lion and tiger

In the circuses of Ancient Rome, exotic beasts were commonly pitted against each other,[16] including Barbary lions[4][54][55] and tigers.[56] A mosaic in the House of the Faun in Pompeii shows a fight between a lion and a tiger.[57] There are different accounts of which of these animals won victory. Although lions and tigers can be kept together in harmony in captivity,[58] fatal conflicts have also been recorded.[9][59][60][61]

In addition to historical recordings, clashes between lions and tigers were reported or even caught on camera,[62] 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 [ edit ]

In the wilderness [ edit ]

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 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. [80]

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, [81] 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. [c]

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"[d] is mentioned in Hamilton M. Wright's work, in The San Francisco Call (1911).[86]

Professional opinions [ edit ]

Favoring the tiger [ edit ]

Favoring the lion [ edit ]

Clyde Beatty, the animal trainer and performer who owned several tigers, lions, hyenas, and other exotic animals, believed that in nine out of ten times, "a full-grown lion would whip a full-grown tiger". He mentioned that since he first began mixing the animals, 25 of his tigers (two of them being Siberian tigers, the rest of them being Bengal tigers) were killed in the circus arena, but there was not a single lion casualty. [59]

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".[53]

Neutral [ edit ]

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.[94]

Arts and literature [ edit ]

Art [ edit ]

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.[95]

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: أسَـد الله الـغَـالِـب‎, "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.[96]

Literature [ edit ]

18th-century naturalists and authors compared the species' characters, generally in favor of the lion.[97] 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."[98] 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."[97]

In the Hindu epic Mahabharata, Narada told Srinjaya that tigers were fiercer and more ruthless than lions.[100] 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."[101]

The lion and tiger rival each other in Iranian literature.[102] 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 [ edit ]

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 the "Asian tigers" and "African lions" have also been compared.[103][104]

Cinema [ edit ]

In Paalai, a 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.[105]

See also [ edit ]

Notes [ edit ]

References [ edit ]