Lion vs Tiger

[Hardcastle]

Some here might know I "favour the lion", but I think not many people understand that in 2003 I was literally the first person on the internet's animal debating community to argue that the male lion is adapted for combat as a specialised role in its social unit, and therefore HAS to be favoured over the tiger.

However, at the time, I understood the lion and tiger as EXTREMELY closely related, literally just those 2 diverging from a common tiger-ish ancestor and being separate from the leopard/jaguar/snow leopard... well, now I understand that isn't true.

In fact the widely accepted phylogenetic chart is a little more like this-


Does this change things?

Well, it just means lion superiority isn't automatic. Make no mistake; IF they had a recent common ancestor, where just the lion and tiger were one animal and then one spread to asia and the other spread to africa and the ONLY difference was those 2 lifestyles that each has now... it would be automatic. The lion would essentially be a tiger modifed purely for combative improvement. Every difference would be DUE to conbative improvement. And if you said "but I think the tigers sharper claws would help in combat?" you'd be proven wrong, as a matter of indisputable fact, by the simple fact that the lion had blunter claws. That fact would prove blunter claws were better for combat, contrary to your intuition. The objective result of trial and error natural selection would firmly trump your subjective intuition and prove you wrong.

Things are complicated however by complications that have emerged in the phylogenetic relationship. The lion ISN'T just a tiger who is adapted for combat, they are kind of two different things separated by a while and a few "lifestyles" in between. I still lean lion due to the pair being close in size and the lion still definitely having a more combat-specialised lifestyle, but without them being super close in lineage this is admittedly less powerful.

[Deleted]

I don't see how lions are better fighters tbh. Tigers seem just as good at fighting, if not better. I'm pretty sure in ancient Rome tigers were actually less willing to fight, but when pushed to they were extremely deadly and often bested lions. Don't quote me on that though, comes from a Quora user lol. I think Amur tigers are the ultimate cats, being able to kill all other felids, and iirc they have larger skulls than Bengal tigers (?), seem burlier too, albeit the large coat plays a big factor.

What do you think grippingwhiteness?

[grampa]

Lion vs Tiger - the eternal heated argument. (imo) This is a cat-fight. Each individual fight simply depends on the personal qualities of the individual cats. It's a 50/50 contest much like American black bear vs Asiatic black bear or Andean bear vs giant panda.

[Deleted]

Sept 7, 2023 0:48:26 GMT Hardcastle said:

Some here might know I "favour the lion", but I think not many people understand that in 2003 I was literally the first person on the internet's animal debating community to argue that the male lion is adapted for combat as a specialised role in its social unit, and therefore HAS to be favoured over the tiger.

However, at the time, I understood the lion and tiger as EXTREMELY closely related, literally just those 2 diverging from a common tiger-ish ancestor and being separate from the leopard/jaguar/snow leopard... well, now I understand that isn't true.

In fact the widely accepted phylogenetic chart is a little more like this-


Does this change things?

Well, it just means lion superiority isn't automatic. Make no mistake; IF they had a recent common ancestor, where just the lion and tiger were one animal and then one spread to asia and the other spread to africa and the ONLY difference was those 2 lifestyles that each has now... it would be automatic. The lion would essentially be a tiger modifed purely for combative improvement. Every difference would be DUE to conbative improvement. And if you said "but I think the tigers sharper claws would help in combat?" you'd be proven wrong, as a matter of indisputable fact, by the simple fact that the lion had blunter claws. That fact would prove blunter claws were better for combat, contrary to your intuition. The objective result of trial and error natural selection would firmly trump your subjective intuition and prove you wrong.

Things are complicated however by complications that have emerged in the phylogenetic relationship. The lion ISN'T just a tiger who is adapted for combat, they are kind of two different things separated by a while and a few "lifestyles" in between. I still lean lion due to the pair being close in size and the lion still definitely having a more combat-specialised lifestyle, but without them being super close in lineage this is admittedly less powerful.

That chart ain't right.
Now jaguars are close to lions, leopards are far, but extinct lions are even closer to lions than jaguars.

[Hardcastle]

Just to be clear the chart is saying lions (all kinds) and leopards and modern jaguars ALL evolved from european jaguars, which I still think is correct.
Nothing is set in stone though, and people are allowed to assert alternate theories with these phylogenetic charts (within reason).

[Deleted]

Oct 20, 2023 12:07:19 GMT Hardcastle said:

Just to be clear the chart is saying lions (all kinds) and leopards and modern jaguars ALL evolved from european jaguars, which I still think is correct.
Nothing is set in stone though, and people are allowed to assert alternate theories with these phylogenetic charts (within reason).

I wouldn't believe that, big cats split before the euro-jaguar was around.
Anyway, a recent study put the european jaguar as a small, primitive tiger.
That would put it one the opposite side of the panthera tree.

[Hardcastle]

No it wouldn't, in fact the phylogenetic chart I posted kind of asserts the euro jaguar and tiger are "sister species", so it would make sense if they were kind of similar to one another.

[Deleted]

Oct 20, 2023 15:33:39 GMT Hardcastle said:

No it wouldn't, in fact the phylogenetic chart I posted kind of asserts the euro jaguar and tiger are "sister species", so it would make sense if they were kind of similar to one another.

I suppose, but the snow leopard should be closer to tiger too.
That basically makes it as two branches, leo+pardus+onca on one side, uncia+tigris on the other.
Anyway, without any real evidence to support this, its just speculation.

[Hardcastle]

You are kind of right. If I was going to change that, I'd make it more clear that the pantherine ancestor split into the ancestors of the CL and SL. The SL's ancestor than split into the SL and ancestral tiger. Which then split into the euro jag and another ancestral tiger. Etc. It is saying that, but not clearly enough.

Then I'd probably alter the jaguar/lion/leopard/extinct lions/ etc situation slightly, because this graph kind of makes it look like the leopard spawned from an extinct lion and this isn't accurate. The euro jag split into the jag lineage and the leopard lineage and an ancestral lion lineage. Those 3 were probably all "spotted" in a somewhat leopard/jag fashion.

However I do believe it is BASICALLY correct.