Talk:Tiger/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Most powerful cat??

Why is it such an imperative to have the statement 'most powerful cat' in this article??? It is obviously hotly contested. And insisting on its place in this article is likely the root cause for the lion/tiger edit wars that have raged on wikipedia for months now. Let the tiger's actions speak for themselves. That statement is anything but the neutral point of view and is an opinion or estimation. It is not a fact about the tiger.

Grow up. All of you. I hate to say this, but you people should be ashamed of yourselves. A perfectly fine page is being ruined by childish tantrums and quibbling. User:JBoyler 08:06, 19 Oct 2006

Edit wars are never good. Esp. on a visible page like this. Lets leave the offensive content out, or indicate that there is significant debate in the community and move on.Ed-it 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


You really have to stop posting 'tiger most powerful living cat' in this article. For one, with the current evidence, it makes no sense to say 'scientifically' that either tigers or lions are more powerful than the other. If you think, based on the tiger having a slight weight edge and handling comparatively (to the African equivalent) docile Asian ungulates singlehandedly, you reach the conclusion that tigers are the most powerful, fine! But bear in mind that many, including experts, have reviewed the facts regarding this and conclude otherwise. Besides such a statement is scientifically meaningless and doesn't belong here but on a kid's page, where most of your references regarding this are from (hardly coincidental). Second reason:ligers, as pointed out below, are much larger and hence, by tiger fan boy society reasoning, is a more powerful and living, cat, than is a tiger. So please free us from this 'most powerful-all powerful-only cat with superpowers' stuff.

What is this "fanboy" stuff? Are you like a 10 year old? The record tiger is nearly 200 lbs larger than the record lion...clearly tigers are the most powerful felines in the world. Average weights for Siberians and large Bengals are about 500 lbs, whilst lions average no more than 420 lbs; the largest averaging 450 lbs. Tigers are more powerful, there is no question about it. User:TheGoodSon
No there are questions about it!! Otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate about it. Nor so many trainers saying lions dominate tigers. 'All-powerful-- should be worshipped five times a day --can only be killed by cryptonite' tiger bull does not belong here. Accept the truth: We cannot say which is more powerful: lions or tigers. Take your fantasies to a kids page.

This is just too funny. Seriously, how old are you? Do you not find it logical that when animal X and animal Y are physically built in the same way, only that animal X can be significantly larger than animal Y, so animal X must be the stronger or more powerful animal? It's simple logics. Karanth (a biologist) mentions that tigers are the strongest cats in the world, what more "proof" do you want? User:TheGoodSon

Well, 'Goodson', lions usually lick tigers in captivity. Come to think of it, your'e right. I don't need any more proof. The statement 'tigers most powerful' makes no sense at all. But it caters to some peoples fantasies to hear that tigers kick lions and are 'statistically more successful in battle than brown bears'. Potheads!!-what are you guys thinking?? Write about the tiger, not about the tiger compared to the lion or brown bear. Or write a fantasy books for a seven year old.

I now know that you are a child. What do lions or brown bears have to do with anything in this article? Why would we need to compare tigers to lions or brown bears? This article for educational purposes, it is designed to inform/educate the general public about tigers. Fact is, tigers are cats - they are - the largest cats in the world. Fact is, cats are all built in an almost identical way anatomically and physiologically. This means that tigers, because they are the most massive, are thus the most powerful/strongest cats on earth. Do you get it? As for bears and lions compared to tigers, who cares? I'm starting to think you are some 10 year old whose hero is the lion and hates the fact that tigers are bigger and stronger. As for you captive lions "kicking" tigers? hehe...I know you are a kid for sure. Ask Mabel Starks what happened to her lions when they got into squabbles with her tigers than report back to me. As for bears, of course tigers are no match for big brown bears, but reports of tigers preying on bears exists - even larger bears. Read the source in the article. Here are links to sites that state the fact that you so much dislike. http://www.agarman.dial.pipex.com/tiger.htm - http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/mammals/Tiger.HTM (this is the Smithsonian National Musuem of Natural History...I think that's says enough. Have a good day. PS: I think you are the one living in a fantasy world. User:TheGoodSon

Whatever you say, dude. Just don't write 'Most powerful cat'; it's not educating people on the tiger, but only serves to promote an unscientific image of the tiger that is irrelevant and, moreover, obviously hotly contested (I believe it to be contradicted by evidence). Stick to the facts mam and we'll be fine.

If you would mind then providing some facts of your own to discount what he's already said. Seems reasonably logical to me that based on weight alone you can determine that the tiger is the strongest of the cats, if not nessesarily the one to bet on in a fight, which is what you seem to want to bring up. -Amur_Tiger

Yeah but you have to be specific about which tiger you are talking about. Tiger species range in size, lions don't. Sure the Bengal and Siberian tigers are larger and are most likely stronger. But what about the other 3? See, the problem with you tiger fanboys is that when you talk lion/tiger you talk about Bengal and Siberian. What about the other ones? They're not bigger than lions. So if size does equal strength, then the lion as a species is stronger than the tiger since only 2 of the 5 tigers are bigger than the lion. Silly tiger fanboys, always ready to shove the Siberian forward but conveniently forget the Sumatran.

Errr. you've forgotten about the Asiatic Lion - silly fanboys, always ready to shove the African lion forward but forget about the Asiatic....

- You are dumb! Asian is the same size as the African.

- Are you mad or something? The guy above thinks the Asiatic Lion is the Same size as the African Lion!!

The more relevant question could be what cat is most powerful for its size. As a general rule, bigger creatures of similar build are more powerful because of mass alone. It's hard to figure which cat is most powerful for its size.--Paul from Michigan 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaguar. BJK1903 19:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When you write powerful in the context of tigers and lions, naturally you assume you are talking about the greater prowess as a fighter. You are not talking about who can pull the heavier cart, since tigers and lions are not domesticated farm animals, nor do you talk about who could do the greater bench press, since neither is much into body building. And the question of who is the more victorious in mutual interspecies conflicts is very much unresolved. I think it is an incredibly cheap and dirty trick to lock the article from editing while stating that the tiger is the most powerful cat. While those who think this is true may be right, evidence seems to suggest otherwise. It does show that tiger fans are fanatics, not willing to debate or fight on equal terms. Your disgraceful disdain for a fair fight is, I suspect, necessary for a tiger to ever defeat a large experienced black-mane.

It's unresolved as to which is victorious more often but I don't think that is the point. My guess is that the "most powerful" designation simply refers to the fact that tigers are slightly larger than lions and have the same physique and muscular structure, so it's natural to conclude that they are probably more "powerful" in a F=MA sense. The pound for pound debate probably goes to the jaguar, although I have seen arguments for the leopard as well.

I agree with the jaguar being the most powerful for its size, as I have stated. 70.22.102.128 please sign your ip after you state your opinions so that we wouldn't have to go into history to figure it out. BJK1903 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that African and Asian lions are the same size. Tiger species are not. The lion is bigger (and according to the argument) more powerful than 3 of the 5 tiger species. So as general animal, the Lion is more powerful than the Tiger. If you want to be specific, you can state that the Bengal and Siberian tigers are more powerful. In this case you have to use specifics.

Here is a thought: "The tiger is one of, if not, the most powerfull of the big cats." All cats are on earth, so the "On Earth" kicker isen't neccisarry. Just tone the claim down some in such a way that is doesen't sound like an outlandish exageration. M jurrens 05:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pound for pound, tiger is still stronger than lion. This is indeed determined by the humeroradial index (limb index showing the strengh of limbs). The index is 101 for cheetah, 98 for lion, and 89 for tiger. The higher index, the longer and slimmer is the limb. Tiger's limb is more stocky than lion.

Who says Lion is bigger than Indochinese tiger?????????????????????????? Complete nonsense!! What do u know about indo. tiger?

Predation on Bears

'Statistically though, the Siberian tiger has been the more successful in battles between the two animals because bears taken by tigers are often smaller sized bears.' I'm sorry, can anyone help me make sense of this? I just took it off the main article, but doesn't the first part of the sentence pertain to something entirely different than does the last part (the normal outcome of encounters between the two vs the size of bears taken)? And, such a statement about tigers essentially being stronger than Siberian grizzlies could really use a reference! Perhaps it should be removed until such a ref. is at hand.

Good call taking that down as the statement is very misleading. The truth of the matter is the big Siberian males are quite capable of hunting down the smaller brown bears (Grizzlies being a thing of North America not Asia). However it is important to note that this is through hunting not a head to head fight, they would be stalked, chased and killed as prey not as a competitor, specifically tigers have been known to do this to bears during the winter while they're hibernating. However in a face to face fight the tiger is at a great disadvantage having to deal with the heavy club-like paws of brown bears which shatter the relatively fragile skull of the feline. In the end the only real predation that takes place is tigers eating bears while bears may get into fights with tigers I don't think they have the hunting skills to stalk one effectively.

This is again not true that tiger only takes down adult brown bear during hibernating. Dr Goodrich, the head of the siberian tiger project, has observed many cases of tiger predation on adult brown bear, but none of them were taken during hibernating. It is more difficult to take hibernating bear because they are hided in a hole and well protected.

To shut these Lion fanatics up just put the Bengal and Siberians are the most powerful cats on Earth. And Lion fan boy (or what ever the hell they call yall) surely enough there are smaller subspieces of Tigers, But the Bengal and Siberians (Caspians are more so around the African Lion's weight) Tigers are the largest and most powerful (common sense) cats on Earth case closed!

I agree on 2 things; first, tiger is more than capable of hunting Brown bear, the book "tiger in the snow" that talks about the Siberian tige project also agrees that Brown bear, when trying to usurp tiger's kill, prefers to deal with much smaller tigresses, to avoid being killed. And for those who believe that hunting is different form fighting, that's nonsense. Whadduya mean, "different"? Tiger has to stalk because its preys will run off on sensing or seeing a tiger coming, and they usually outrun the poor cat, which cannot afford a long chase. And many large preys, such as gaurs and wild buffaloes, fight back most of the time, sometimes drive off the tiger. Hunting is essentially fighting, if the predator is not strong and skilled enough, it'll be killed, as will the prey. And it leads to the 2nd point, tiger is obviously much stronger than lions. Lion zealots say size is not everything, and if you say so, then tiger is undoubtedly the best. Can a lion afford the tiger's deeds, taking down gaur, buffaloes, thick skinned rhinoes by itself? That shows the difference in strength and skills. large preys outclass the tiger in strength, if the tiger is not the best fighter, how can it kill them? Those who have studied predators seriously will definitely understand my point here. If you think in Asia, the tiger is called the king of the jungle just by convention, then you're dead wrong. You think what you have read in this article about tiger's behaviour is all, it's just an introduction. There are more stuffs that's not been mentioned as they either do not appear on the internet, or ordinary books (western books I mean), since they are too hard to comprehend by the authors, the diffilculty comes from cultural differences. To sum up, the article has been locked for good reason, as they provide right, non-exaggerating information(sometimes understatements) about tigers. therefore, I'm more than happy if it's gonna be locked forever, the current information is good enough for almost everyone with general interests in tigers. --S--

Incorrect Label

The image entitled "RoyalBengalTiger" in the subspecies section appears to be a sumatran tiger, not a bengal tiger. It has a dark reddish coat with thick stripes, a very large ruff of fur around a very rounded face, and angled, almond shaped eyes which are particularly characteristic of sumatrans. In addition to this the eyes are relatively large, which suggests proportionately smaller body size.

If you want to check my claim, search "bengal tiger" and "sumatran tiger" in google images. The majority of those images are correctly labelled.

Perhaps this image should be replaced with the queued image "Tiger_Bandavgarh". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.64.63 (talk • contribs)

You're correct. Well-spotted. The photographer (on flickr.com) appears to be under the incorrect notion that the Toronto Zoo displays Siberian Tigers and Bengal Tigers (and apparently presumed this non-Siberian was a Bengal). A quick look at their website (and a google image search) reveals that they do not have Bengal Tigers and they do have Sumatran Tigers. - Slow Graffiti 20:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reuploaded the picture as SumatranTigerToronto.JPG so that it may be used properly. Should it be used in the Sumatran Tiger article? Should it replace the current [Sumatran photo in this article? I don't think it's necessary to have two Sumatran Tiger pictures in the subspecies section. There ought to be a Bengal Tiger picture, but I don't see a particulary good Bengal picture here or on Wikimedia Commons. - Slow Graffiti 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed the suggestion - I have placed 'Tiger_Bandavgarh' in the article for now, and moved 'SumatranTigerToronto' to the queue here. - Slow Graffiti 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for checking up on that and changing the image Slow Graffiti. I agree, you only need one image of a sumatran tiger.

The Subspecies section

It reads that they are in "descending order of wild population," but instead they seem to be in an arbitrary order. - 24.107.102.17

I've fixed this (based on the numbers presented in the article). - Slow Graffiti 05:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The section says there are eight subspecies, three of which are extinct. But if you count listed subspecies, the number is ten.

Layout problem

Under the "Tigers in literature" heading, can someone move the text box containing William Blake's quotation to a different location? It looks terrible in an 800x600 resolution because it runs up against the photograph next to it. --Lowellian 07:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to User:Lachatdelarue for fixing that. --Lowellian 00:35, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Queued images

Cute tiger cub.jpg

Queued cub

Tiger Temple

Tiger in the Wild, India
TigerAltarBali.jpg

An altar in Kalibukbuk, northern Bali

A Sumatran Tiger in the Toronto Zoo

Wrong prey info

hello An elk is a New World species, and is found in N. America, Mexico area. There is no way an elk could be the natural prey for tigers. The standard preybase of the tiger, though habitat variable, is wild pigs, deers - barking, spotted or sometimes Gaur. Hence the removal of elk.

It depends what is meant with elk. An elk is in Europe and Siberia the animal Alces Alces, called moose in North America. So it's possible that the Siberian Tiger would have occassionaly an elk on its menu. --Eigenwijze mustang 17:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if you're describing prey for tigers in general (and not just Siberian ones), it would not make sense to mention the elk/moose. Most of the world's tigers live in South and Southeast Asia and will never come across such prey. Funnyhat 04:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not only are moose called Elk in much of Europe, but the American Elk or Wapiti is found in China as well. So at least two subspecies of tiger are likely to prey on Elk.

Trivia

This page was previewed by Steve Jobs during his WWDC 2005 keynote address. You can watch the keynote here. The relevant part is at 19:17. —Cantus…☎ 12:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


Quite how the Mac OS X v10.4 tiger logo got onto this page I have no idea. I replaced it with the Siberian tiger image. Palefire 02:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The image Tiger.jpg came from commons.wikipedia.org. Wikipedia automatically takes the image from commons if no image exists on en.wikipedia.org. Now someone uploaded the image Tiger.jpg (MaxOS X logo) to en.wikipedia.org and this means that the software now takes the image from en instead of the one from commons. -- mkrohn 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)</gallery>

Another extinct subspecies?

The Wikipedia article lists three extinct subspecies of tiger: Caspian, Balinese, and Javanese. However I believe there is a fourth subspecies. It is a dwarf species that inhabited Japan during the ice ages. If only I could find the name of the subspecies...

---There were no doubt many subspecies which became extinct before being recognised by scientists. Therefore I've renamed it to 'Recently extinct subspecies'. I would also like to bring it to peoples attention that a new subspecies of tiger has been discovered, the 'Malayan tiger' (previously thought to be the same as the Indochinese tiger). When I find more time I might research a little more and add this in. Some links-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4075779.stm

http://www.savethetigerfund.org/news/2004/November/04_11_4w2.htm

And the distribution-

http://www.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/News/Six_Living_Tiger_Subspecies_distribution_map3.pdf

--Tommyknocker 21:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

A prehistoric subspecies of tiger is the Trinil tiger Panthera tigris trinilensis, which was the first tiger species to occur on Java. The prehistoric Chinese tiger subspecies Panthera tigris palaeosinensis also occurred in Japan during the time it was connected with the mainland. After the disappearance of the land bridges it is possible that they became dwarfed. I don't know much on this dwarfed tiger and as far as I know it has not been named scientifically, but I can be wrong. Peter Maas 14:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New Tiger subspecies described

In November 2004 a new Tiger subspecies, The Malayan Tiger (Panthera tigris jacksoni), was described.

Full taxinomic status is currently debated.

http://www.savethetigerfund.org/news/2004/November/04_11_4w2.htm Melly42 16:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello

I find it digusting to see how many tiger subspecies are already extinct and how many are on the brink of extinction, such as the south china tigers! People should take responsibility and abide the international laws against poaching and illegal trade!

I agree, but this isn't the place to talk about it. Cameron Nedland 05:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Color?

I have a thought, and it is twofold: The article states that a Tiger's coat ranges from yellow to red, but in all my years of lookin'-at-pictures I've never seen a tiger that wasn't orange.. orange orange. By no stretch of the imagination or fault of the eye is any tiger ever yellow... I believe the biological term for the tiger's pigment is in fact the "red" feline coat pigment... and then the question comes up, howcome tigers are always yellow in Chinese art? Were they out of red paint to mix with?

The Caspian tiger was said to be yellow with black stripes. Cameron Nedland 05:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The claim of a tiger's coat ranging from 'yellow to red' does not mean that entire coats of specimen may be completely yellow, or completely red. It means that certain areas of the coat can lighter (yellow) and some can be dark enough to be called red. Slow Graffiti 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Maneaters???

not specifically. We did invade their territory and it's not their fault that they don't distinguish us from an antelope. Its also not their fault that we just so happen to be one of the slowest and easiest animals to catch. To them, we are just another thing to become their dinner. --BeccaRose 02:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's not their fault. You can't attribute "fault" to animals, they have no concept of it. Just like it's not the Atlantic's "fault" that it makes hurricanes.

I agree. Tigers attack humans mostly because we resemble apes, particularly when sitting and scratching. Typically old or sick tigers hunt humans because, unarmed, we are easy prey. It is not uncommon for old tigers to break off a canine because of years of hunting and the fact that tiger canines are typically sharper and more narrow than other large cats makes them easier to break. Missing canines, old age, and sickness are some of the many reasons humans occasionally fall prey to tigers. I do agree that out of all the feline species the Tiger has the greastest propensity to kill humans. They do not however single out humans as prey all the time. I read somewhere that in the Sundarbans alone if tigers hunted humans as their sole prey source 20,000 lives would be claimed every year. Humans constitute, if any at all, a very small part of the tiger's diet. Human casualities are enivitable because we continue to encroach on their living space, as we do to almost (if not every) species. If we are not careful many animals such as the Tiger (the most majestic in my opinion) will become extinct, causing irrevocable damage to the ecosystems they maintain. --Malix 19:28 EST, December 4, 2005

Much as we sympathise with the tiger, it is a maneater given the right circumstances. And they do single out humans in some of these areas. But that is also one of the main reasons why the Sundarbans are still intact. The tigers there are so ferocious that anyone venturing there would have a deathwish, the locals included. The locals even worship the tiger as god despite the mauling it has given them and the authorities. Idleguy 05:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Traditionally tigers have preyed on humans. They are opportunistic predators who will take advantage of any opportunity. It's just that those tigers that have preyed on humans (especially in India) have been selectively destroyed over the centuries and the remaining tigers have adapted to avoiding humans. However in the Sundarbans tigers still see humans as prey. As a result you see several cases of predation on humans

Pictures

I note that we only have one picture of a tiger in the wild, and lots of them in zoos. The former is in the queue. How much better does a zoo pic have to be (in terms of focus, clarity, etc) than a wild pic in order for it to be preferred? Pcb21 Pete 14:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to try to dig up some non-zoo, in-focus pictures someone could try flickr, which has a good number of photos under licenses we can use [1] [2], but they would be kinda buried. The other good resource is http://images.fws.gov, although I think I went through all their big cat ones at some point. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. As it happens I just took some pictures of tigers in the wild myself (lucky enough to score a trip to Ranthambore NP in India). I could upload these, but to be honest they are not much better than the ones already in the article except for the fact they wild instead of zoo. But given that from a static article POV, the two look the same, is there any advantage to in the wild photographs? Pcb21 Pete 17:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zoos and aquaria are easier places in which to see tigers or any other large predators, dogs or humans excluded. The old-fashioned bad zoo in which creatures dwell in unabashed prisons is utterly un-naturalistic, and photos of any wildlife would better demonstrate bad zookeeping than the animals in queston. Zoos may create at least some semblance of realism except that the creature cannot easily escape the prying eyes of customers. They are also safer for amateur photographers who would supply their own images for Wikipedia as commercial photographers wouldn't. Besides, good photos are easier to get in a zoo, even with a telephoto lens for a closeup, because of easier angles and closeness to the critter that would be far too dangerous for most of us.

Tigers in the wild are rare enough, and due to their ranges of their territories, being in a tiger's territory is hardly a guarantee that one will see a tiger, let alone get a good opportunity for a photo. Anyone who gets close enough to a tiger in the wild takes the chance of being tiger food. The tiger in the zoo isn't greatly different from a wild tiger in appearance unless cage-fat (also evidence of a 'bad zoo').

--Paul from Michigan 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, my own wild photos are bad night shots and even during the day would be indistinguishable from a nice zoo-habitat (I think I was at the same park, near Jaipur right?). Unfortunately it's hard to get pictures of tigers in the wild hunting or doing anything else they don't do when hanging around in a zoo. If you can't tell it's a zoo setting, I'd go with the better photograph irrespective of actual setting. The only concern I'd have is if every picture in the article was quite obviously a zoo snapshot, which we don't seem to be in danger of. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sections

The section on tiger rivals seems to be rather unencyclopaedic. Would prefer a section on Tiger ecology with information on range, food and behavior instead of this. Shyamal 10:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The entries on Tigers vs. Lion, Tiger vs. Elephant etcetera seem to be making their reappearance. The ecology section was added to give information about how they live/compete/reproduce within their normal ecosystem. Information about stray conflicts in captivity with different species and their outcomes does not make for encyclopaedic material even if citations are available. Shyamal 09:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To Shyama and others interested. I have on several occations compared the tiger to the lion. I can see your point about these comparisons and that this web page should not devolve into a kids fantasy page on who is the biggest and worst carnivore. BUT, my problem is that such comparisons are widely distributed on the page already, such as when the tiger is named the largest and most powerful cat. And, these comparisons are not supported by the evidence. Regarding size, most would agree that the heaviest tigers are heavier than lions, but in all the museums I have visited I was always puzzled by the fact that the lions seemed larger (museums in Florence Italy, Vienna Austria, and London) or at least as large(American Mus Nat His New York) as the tigers, and that when I looked into it, the notion that tigers be larger in general, is very poorly documented. In fact it seems lions stand taller at the shoulder, so we might well start a fuss over the definition of size. And, regarding most powerful cat, all serious evidence, though hardly conclusive, seems to suggest the lion is the more powerful. Wikipedia is an excellent chance to rid us of old points that are simply not supported by facts. So in conclusion, to state that tigers are the largest and that's that is just degenerating back to childrens book level. I can agree to a ban on references as to which is the more powerful. But to say that the tiger is 'the most powerful cat in the world' is, according to the best investigations, simply false information. Finally, we can argue over whether this is the right forum, but the question of lion vs tiger is obviously of widespread interest and hardly surprising. It is interesting just like it is interesting to see the two best heavyweight boxers go at each other. Finally I don't think wikipedia articles have to be just dry and statistical; this would only kill the encyclopedia. I therefore intend to start a wikipedia article called lion tiger comparisons.

If you want to start a discussion, better start with a new topic. Tiger being larger than lion, that's been a finished matter for so long it's become common knowledge among big cat community. Based your "new" conclusion on a few samples collected at museums won't change anything, and more importantly, won't help the species get any larger nor smaller. Tiger being stronger than lion? Well, based on indirect comparison, yes, but in the wild, they just don't occur together. So, who knows? I think an article is not necessary for that reason.

If the above is the reason for frequent edit conflicts, the solution would be to remove the superlatives for the tiger, which is more easily done than arranging fights with various animals ! Shyamal 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please write a detailed section on threats (other than traditional Chinese medicine) facing tigers?

South chinese tiger

Isn't this contradictory?:

There are believed to be between 440 and 590 wild South China Tigers remaining in the world. It seems likely that the last known wild South Chinese tiger was shot and killed in 1994, and no live tigers have been seen in their natural habitat for the last 20 years.

Taken straight from the article. -- Tomhab 15:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My previous statement here was erroneous - I overlooked the word wild in "440 and 590 wild South China tigers." I originally suspected this figure was for the number of captive specimens, but that figure is stated later in the same paragraph at 59. I've removed the statement about 440-590 pending a source for the figure. I'll look into this myself this week. - Slow Graffiti 05:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiger Link

here is a link to a website containing information on sundarbans tigers. It has weekly updates from a research team who are monitoring a radio collared tiger-

www.sundarbanstigerproject.info

I think it would be a relevent link for both this "Sundarbans" page and any on tigers

All the best

Adam Barlow barl0048@umn.edu 202.56.4.109 10:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated...however, you are not supposed to delete the rest of the discussion page to add your own. Simply start a new section on the bottom of the page. I have replaced the rest of the discussion page, and placed your point as it should've been done. - Slow Graffiti 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bengal Tiger Comment

A statement was recently added to the Subspecies section in front of the Bengal Tiger paragraph: "The royal bengal tiger was often recieved as a gift for young Indian Princes on their 15th birthday. The Killing of the tiger on their 18th birthday signaled that the boy had now become a man"

It was both out of place within the article, and out of place as part of the article itself. After some revision, I think such a comment would be better placed within the Bengal Tiger article instead of this general Tiger article. - Slow Graffiti 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Lion and Tiger comparisons

NOTE: Wikipedia is not the place to satisfy juvenile fantasies about which is badder - tiger or lion. I noticed that a kid from Denmark (IP address starting with octet 130) has been repeatedly vandalizing both lion and tiger pages with his comparative opinions. Please refrain from doing this and post scientific data only.

Please have the good nature to keep your moronic interpretations regarding other peoples fantasies, strictly within your own head. First of all, it is 'worse' not 'badder'. Second of all, I did not start comparisons, I merely corrected them. When you, or some other ignorant tiger lover, say 'the tiger is the largest and most powerful cat', well, I'm sure you can see that he just compared the tiger to all other cats. So, the real question is whether I am right or not. I kindly ask you to go to a museum of natural history where they have both lions and tigers, and open those two sweet little germs in your skull, and see for yourself that indeed there is little differense between lions and tigers in size. The vandalism, my good man, is entirely yours. No doubt, with the best intentions, you show yourself to be one of the many enslaved minds that retard the progress of human understanding, by subscribing to one of those rumors that have been set in motion and are now virtually unstoppable because everybody seems to have heard it from a different source. The truth is of course that they have all heard the same disseminated 'truth' that no one bothers to investigate. This is a major problem in biology, medicine and in highly emotional issues, which lion vs tiger surely is to you. So, please do look at facts and stop reversing my edits back to repeating those same old and false lines.


I don't understand the relevance of the two edits made recently. I removed both immediately tonight. Here's one:

"One of the most debatable topic is lion vs tiger, while no one can be certain who would win in a fight during roman times lions were pitted against tigers and in most cases the lion was the winner where as the tiger usually lost the fight to a lion"

And the other:

"One common misunderstanding between lion and tiger needs to be corrected: Some people believe that tigers are built for hunting, while lions are for combating (e.g. defending their prides from intruders, fighting to gain posession of females), and tigers do not fight to the end. In reality, male tigers do have to fight to defend their ranges from intruders, as intruding males will try and kill their offspring, and gain access to females. Male tigers are very aggressive and do not tolerate any kind of territory overlapping. Sometimes the fights get so fierce the losers are dead or heavily injured, making them unable to catch their normal prey and starve. This contributes to the fact that wild tigers do not live as long as they do in zoos."

This article is not written to correct such vague, supposed "common misunderstandings" - I have never heard of this misunderstanding. Tigers are built more to hunt; male lions serve mainly as fighters - to defend a kill, to defend a pride, and to take over a pride. This does not suggest that tigers do not fight, that they will not fight to the end, and that tigers are not aggressive. An obvious possible result of territorial fighting is both parties being severely injured. I don't know why anyone would expect a large predator (especially a cat) to live longer in the wild.

Thoughts? - Slow Graffiti 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. The tigers do not live long in the wild as they do in zoos for that reason, and poaching. Those who live in Asia know this as common knowledge. In the wild, they live 12-16 years, but in zoos, up to 26 years, tht's a huge differences, Slow graffiti. And, as to why that's a common misunderstanding, it's because many internet web sites and forums often raise this idea, which in fact is not true, hence the term. The lions do fight under those circumstances, but they do not fight to death, they fight till one accepts defeat and retreat. About defending pride, that's ridiculous. male lions fight only for one reason: Outsiders fight to gain possession, insiders fight to protect its position in the pride. To defend a kill, that's not lion unique chracter. That's common behaviour of all carnivores. So, I restore the latter paragraph,as i don think there's anything funny or non-professional here. And, as you ask, then let me ask you: why don't you think the large cats live shorter than the wild?
"One of the most debatable topic is lion vs tiger, while no one can be certain who would win in a fight during roman times lions were pitted against tigers and in most cases the lion was the winner where as the tiger usually lost the fight to a lion". I don't know who posts this, but this is truly rubbish. The article discuss the tiger in the wild, its behaviour, not the pit fight between tamed animals, such a thing of madness and cruelty is by no means scientific, all right? Please do not post such things in here. And, I want you to note that that time is not that long ago, only about several centuries back, and it proves nothing as in those cases, both species are tamed animals grew up in zoos or some such place. They are but 2 "big cats" waitng for 3 meals/day literally. In the wild, tiger has been known to kill wild water buffalo and gaur weighed more than 1 ton each, it takes a pride of lions to kill a 680 kg cape buffalo, that's it. - User:203.15.122.35

My man, the tiger does not hunt the type of animal that the lion does. If you think that a lone tiger could charge a heard of Cape Buffalo, break one off, and then actually take it down by himself... you are dreaming. There is a reason why lions hunt as a group. The animals they face are far more formidable in size and aggressiveness then the ones the tiger faces. You talk about what the tiger does, but the lions are the only animals in the world that can be credited as taking down full grown elephants. Check YouTube.com to see a good clip of that.


"The tigers do not live long in the wild as they do in zoos for that reason, and poaching. Those who live in Asia know this as common knowledge. In the wild, they live 12-16 years, but in zoos, up to 26 years, tht's a huge differences, Slow graffiti"
Of course. That was my point...reread what I said above. It is obvious that tigers would live longer in captivity than in the wild. Competition for territory would be an obvious reason for this. Who would misunderstand that? It's not a misunderstanding. It is a given that does not need to be stated...it is applicable to all carnivores.
"About defending pride, that's ridiculous." It is not at all ridiculous. It is the truth. I don't think you understand my point about lions. All cats defend their kill, but male lions are specifically built to do so. Male lions typically do not hunt - their role in the pride is breeding and defense. Due to this, male lions fight regularly - they defend their pride from other males, and also consciously seek out hyenas simply to kill them - not eat them. They defend their kills and their cubs from scavenging hyenas, solitary male lions, and occasionally a brave leopard. But this is irrelevant to this tiger article. It has no place in the article.
I don't think your information is false. The point is that this information is simply not needed in the article. At best, small peices of it can be integrated into more appropriate parts of the article. We know tigers are aggressive; we know tigers will fight and defend territory and food; we know tigers, like all big cats, live longer in captivity than in the wild. There's no need to start defending tigers here, or continuously compare them to lions just to prove that they are worthy predators. Lions and tigers are both great animals, highly successful and the best at what they do in several ways. There's no dispute there. - Slow Graffiti 05:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
While some of your points are correct, I think your understanding of the role male lions play in prides is somewhat incorrect. They frequently do hunt. Females do tend to do more hunting of course. Read the lion article for more info Nil Einne 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nil, The male lions do hunt sometimes, but no that often you to be called frequently. Most of the times it doesn't hunt at all. The cases in which male lions hunt belong to lone lions which haven't found a pride to gain posession of, or one being kicked out of his pride. Sometimes, male lions help lionesses in big prey hunting, such as buffalo or giraffe. Other than that, male lions spend most of their time dozing. One thing undeniable about tigers and lions: On sensing lions, rhinos and elephants get angry and chase them away, especially ones with cubs. But, on sensing a tiger, both rhinos and elephant go uneasy and wary, and they do not dare interfere with one.

Dude, there is a big difference between the African rhino and Elepant and their Asian counterparts. African Elephants are much bigger and far more aggressive, same with the Rhino. The Indian Rhino and Elephant would be just as weary of a lion as they are of the tiger. And the tiger would get his ass chased by the African counterparts, same as the lion. That's a very uneducated comparison you are making.

Hi, truly, I don't understand what you are saying. Indian rhino is only slighly smaller than white rhinos, 2200kg on average, and 3500kg in captivity. And, their skin is thicker than that of the white rhino, what's more, their teeth is such a formidable weapons that grow to 60cm long. In fact, they can walk thru horny bushes that deny even elephants, and they kill more people in Nepal than do tigers and leopards. More aggressive my foot! And uneducated, the same can be said of you! About the elephant, I'm sorry, I think the ear of the elephant blinds you too much. On average, the male asian elephant is 4.1 tons in weight, the african 5 tons. Big ones: 5.5 tons for asian elephant, and 7.2 tons for african. The 12 ton killed in 1974 is a classic, one in a million. So not much bigger here man, what's much bigger is the ear. And the skin of the asian guy is thicker than that of the african cousin, not to mention they are more intelligent. What says you? And now wary, hey, watch "untamed africa" series and "into the lion's dense" and see for yourself, I don't waste words arguing on facts. The guy who puts: The preys lions take on are larger and more aggressive than those of tigers. That's rubbish. Then you should get to know the gaur and asian buffaloes, tiger's regular preys, before talking big. Cape buffalo is only a small version of the asian wild buffalo, let alone comparing to the huge gaur. And you should know one thing, a lone tiger dare charge a herd of buffaloes and a herd of elephants, a lone lion dares not. The difference in courage is so obvious. You think I'm a bigot defending tiger? Think twice! I come to the tiger thru the gaur and water buffaloes, so do I lions. And the lions disappoint me all the time, not able to kill anything large by itself, and have a fear for rhinos and elephants.

Yeah ok Tiger fanboy. You show me one bit of legit evidence (pics or clips) of a tiger charging a grown rhino, elephant, or a heard of buffalo. Can the tiger fly too? Please! And I've yet to see one bit of physicaly evidence of a tiger taking down a fully grown gaur. You'de think with it being such a "fact" there would be at least 1 documented example. There is video footage of lions attacking buffalo, hippos, rhinos, and even elephants. Yet I never see footage like that about tigers, nothing but talk. There's tons of footage of tigers attacking deer and such, but I've NEVER seen it confront a full grown bull, rhino, or elephant. And you'de think that with the gaur being a so-called "regular prey" for the tiger, there would be footage like that. That's all fairy tales.


I do think comparisons between lions and tigers are relevant, not just because they appeal to the boy inside of us who wants to know who is the 'biggest and baddest on the block' but because they highlight their very similar functions as top predators and how they fill out that role in different ways. I do sense that there is a 'tiger lobby' on the internet that wishes to see it named the biggest and most powerful cat in the world despite what evidence has to say. I think this is a very typical bias based on innate or preordained preferences that we must not let ourselves be misguided by. Specifically, I have yet to see evidence that tigers have taken down gaurs, let alone adult elephants and I would be very interested to see this. Also, I have once removed the section on the allegedly longer canines of tigers compared to lions. This must be a statistical statement but I do know that the length of canines, unlike the path and shape of skull sutures, is not an established method for telling apart tiger skulls from lion skulls, even in the case of extraordinarily long canines. Hence I think we should remove that section pending a good and reliable reference. And if you can, please do post references on that attack on an elephant 'death by a thousand claws'. I would be very interested to see it. MyS

I really don't buy that whole Death By a Thousand Claws. It's not possible for a tiger, no matter how big to actually kill an elephant, let alone a bull. The skin is too thick to bite though. In the clip where the lions attack the female elephant they had trouble biting through the skin, though the group did pull her down to the grond. One was even on her back and still couldn't bite though. The tiger is not a supercat and is not capable of doing something that a pride of lions can't. Saying something like that is just pure ignorance. If you are looking for the lion attack, got to YouTube.com and type in "lion elephant". There is a video of a pride of lions attacking a full grown female. There was an article, I think it was National Geographic, a couple of years back where they talked about the incident. The lions were said to bring down full grown elephants, even I bull. But it was a record size pride and the circumtances of the drought were extreme. Still, it is a documented attack on a full grown animal. And again, it was like 30+ lions. Anyone that says that 1 tiger can achieve the same results is just taling out of their ass.

assets.panda.org/downloads/2__february_2005.pdf http://www.ecology.info/tiger-leopard.htm

That's about a tiger preying on a rhino calf, killing the mother in the process.

http://kalyanvarma.net/photography/photo.php?id=27&tag=All

A gaur kill picture. i have one more gaur kill picture on my PC, but I don't remember the site name, so I don't post it here. Hope i can find it in the future and post it here.

You can read the Vanishing tiger and tiger moon. these 2 books mention quite clearly the relationship between tiger and elephant, and a fight between tiger and a large tusker.

Those two links seem to be very good sources, much unlike the kids page (!!!)reference to 'tigers most powerful' at the begining of this article. Please note however that single female lions have been known to take down adult cape buffalos, which may be (slightly) smaller than gaur but according to book from the days of grand scale big game hunting are certainly no less formidable than any Asian ox species. I still say the evidence suggests (as opposed to proves) that big male lions may have a slight edge on tigers in combat (including big males) but it is probably a case of tigers winning some and lions winning some. My compliments to the above links, especially the ecology article, but you still cannot say in good conscience that the tiger is the most powerful cat. The lion is still very much a contender for that title and the truth probably is that they are too closely matched for it to make sense to say that one is simply more powerful than the other. So please observe the neutral point of view.

That's right. Do not get me wrong. Lions and tigers do not coexist in the wild. So we can best do some indirect comparison. About the gaur and buffaloes (both Asian and african), as I like them a lot, I know this. the gaur is not slightly but much larger than african buffalo. The water buffalo is also larger than african buffalo, but smaller than the gaur. But it's not the issue we are discussing here anyway. I personally never saw a documentary movie or a picture of a single lion killing a buffalo. Don't get me wrong, I do not have anything against the lion, but I just never saw it. The guy who wrote the book: "Big cat, kingdom of might",having spent a lot of time observing the lions, said that it took at least 3 lions to kill an adult buffalo. In a national geographic channel wild life movie I just watched a few weeks back, they said a single lion does not have the sheer strength to kill a buffalo. So I'm not sure about this.

Actually my source for single lions taking down buffalos is two documentaries on National Geographic or Animal Planet in which it happens. I would caution trusting self-proclaimed 'experts' on stating what lions (or tigers for that matter) can or cannot do; they often surprise us! Regarding the African buffalo vs Asian cattle species, I do know that the gaur is larger (they are all on display at the American Museum of Natural History, NY) but not that the Water buffalo is. Is there some reference to that? In any case, for what it is worth, among hunters, no Asian ox ever earned a formidable reputation or fear anywhere close to that of the Cape buffalo. Also, I had a chance to dust off my old book 'Guinness Book of Animal Records'. This book is from the 70's but it may be of interest to the readers of this site to know that while the heaviest tiger shot weighted 388 kg (you will forgive my using the metric system but on a visit to the UK I learned that their pound and ton are not equal to US standards) and the heaviest verified wild lion a mere (:-) 313kg, the longest verified lion was 3.33 m while the longest tiger was 3.22m. Both animals had allegded lengths and weights exceeding this but unverified. You would also be interested to know that both the longest and heaviest verified tigers were shot in Northern India, not in Siberia, leading me to conclude two things: on 'end-point' study (as opposed to averages on which I have no certain data), there is not much between the lion and tiger in size. And, that tigers of Northern India are perhaps as large as Siberian tigers.

Actually, wild water buffaloes can attain a height of 1.9m, a HB length of 2.9m and weigh 1200 kg, this is what I got from a document collected at my country's National ecological and natural resource center. The weight referenced on scientific books and web sites are usually average weight, so it doesn't reflect the upper limit on the size of the ungulate. In "the new mammal encyclopaedia" published by oxford uni, they said water buffalo male weighs up to 1200 kg. in "the vanishing tiger", the author said wild buffalo in India weighs on average 900 kg. I would agree as the dwarf domesticated version in my country, VietNam, can weigh up to 700 kg. Recently, also in my country, they announced the discovery of a new gaur herd with 1 individual attaining weight of 1.7 tons. African buffaloes tip the scale at 900 kg, male averages 680kg. So on average, gaur - asian buffalo - african: 1000 - 900 - 700 kg, that's why they might not look very different outside ( I'm off the topic tiger and lion a bit too far ;-) ). About the tiger, bengal tiger averages 220 kg, Siberian 230kg, so they are very similar. About the power and agility, I would go for Bengal and disregard the Siberian, as the Bengal deals with larger, more powerful preys than the latter. And even Indochinese tigers are quite competitive for the same reason. Lastly, when a tiger attacks full grown elephants and rhinos, it is mostly out of resentment, not for preying. The killed tusker in question attacked the tiger first, and it paid.

Thanks for a great discussion and for having your facts straight! I too have the Oxford Encyclopedia of Mammals (it's not called 'New' in the US for some reason but is the exact same book) but having it stored away I haven't been able to look up the figures myself but it would be the definitive laymans reference on these matters so the data seems to show you to be right on the ungulate issue. Regarding lion/tiger I think this book also says that they are of very similar size, with a slight weight edge for large tigers (Siberian and Indian). Would you happen to have any references to lions interacting with leopards or (better still) accounts of interaction with tigers from when these were found in the Gir region of India (not too long ago, I think). Regarding the Bengal, my point is that it seems to vary very much in size and as cold climates tend to make animals bigger, this makes sense; the foothills of the Himalayas are similar to Siberia in climate and the jungles of tropical India similar to those of Sumatra where you find comparatively small tigers, so one could expect to find virtually the range of the size of tiger subspecies within the Bengal (makes me wonder if the Bengal should be considered just one subspecies) while the (much feared) tigers of the Sundarban are (again according to National Geographic) the smallest tigers in India. Regarding lion-tiger fighting there is an interesting analogy to show that size isn't everything; due to global warming grizzlies have migrated north in Canada and Alaska to the point where they interact with polar bears. And, to my surprise, observations seem to suggest that grizzlies dominate the larger polar bears, http://www.adn.com/front/story/6415667p-6294323c.html. Assuming that lions beat tigers in fights, I find it intriguing that for both big cats and bears, being the larger and better hunter (tiger, polar bear) doesn't seem to help you in a fight with the slightly smaller brawler (lion, grizzly).

Can anyone find just 1 (one) video in which a tiger makes a confirmed lion kill. That is, to answer up to this challenge you must produce a film in which the lion is left dead on camera. Otherwise, on the hardest of evidence, filmed kills, the score is 1-0 for team simba; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GB8uo_Yuw. If you can produce this video, I'd still be openminded about this (rather ridiculous but interesting) issue. I ask tiger supporters to rise significantly above the level of Mr. Goldchain23 who can be enjoyed for entertainment purposes at youtube.com. Also, before you laugh at lions being kicked around by buffalos, do consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQKOb4QEWw . Documenting a wild behavior with film is like statistics: it's all in the picking, folks!!

Hey, as someone said earlier, cat fight in captivity has no meaning. Why make a big fuss out of it? In the wild, tigers and lions never cross paths. they are of similar size, yes, and they are strong. Aisatic lions live in the Gir forest, and due to the absence of tigers in this national park, there is little, if at all, interaction between these 2 guys. The agur and water buffalo are also absent in the Gir forest. The old man who wrote the book, The Vanishing tiger,having spent more than 20 years around all major national park in India searching for tigers and their preys, made this statement. About tiger and leopard, in a 3 episode documentary about tiger( I couldn't remeber the name), aired on Discovery channel date back to 1998( the year of tiger), an indochinese tigress has been recorded to slay and eat a leopard. It wasn't a fight at all, it's a one way slaughter, though the leopard is quite good-sized. Lastly, about fighting, yes, size is not all, that's why people don't dare put heavy weight captive tigers back in the wild, or else they will either be torn apart by aggressive and skilled wild ones, or unable to catch their preys. If you ask what an asian thinks about tiger and large male brown bear fighting( as I did), 90% the answer is tiger. Why? The bear after all is such a tubby and slow competitor, quickly overheat. Can they endure a prolonged battle of sharp teeths and claws? If you speak of size and power, a large male brown is nothing like a wild water buffalo or the gaur. Formidable large male brown, I don't think so. The big softy, more like it.

After watching "stalking leopards", "ultimate enemies", and numerous other documentaries, especially "relentless enemies", I have come to 1 conclusion: No single lion is capable of bringing down adult buffalo. Relentless enemies took 2 years to complete, and it's 2 years of observation on prides of lions specialized in buffalo hunting. And in every circumstance, at least 2 lions( hardly happened), have to cooperate to take on adult buffalo. I suspect that 2 documentaries you mentioned are the cases in which lions take on subadult, not full-grown, and the documentaries just stopped in the middle, without showing the final blows in which other lions join the party. So, I think this point has been cleared too.

Regarding this revision; I notice that weight ranges have been changed, as well as some info about superlatives. Can anyone verify which is correct? OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think such an edit ought to provide some sources. Also, there's no reason given for the removal of certain statements about larger tigers, especially the comment about Siberian tigers. Unfortunately, whenever a page is linked on the main page, there's a huge increase in edits and consequently an increase in poor, haphazard, or unexplained edits. - Slow Graffiti 03:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The lion vs tiger issue is pretty stupid. There is no clear evidence either way. Same goes for tiger vs bears. You can find videos of tigers comings on top or lions or bears or whatever your pet animal. Regarding lions taking down buffalos, in 'relentless enemies' a lioness does take down a buffalo by a river bank. What is not stupid is the discussion of which is really larger. Use your brains and find facts; don't just rant off the same kids book stuff we've all read. Evidence is, tigers are slightly heavier but the two are in the same league, and as such stand out from the next class, namely (ranked by weight) jaguar, cougar, leopard, which are all of very similar size (yes the jaguar is heavier, but not much larger than the other two). But do refrain from naming tigers 'most powerful'. This is unestablished and moreover, unscientific bull.


"If you ask what an asian thinks about tiger and large male brown bear fighting( as I did), 90% the answer is tiger. Why? The bear after all is such a tubby and slow competitor, quickly overheat. Can they endure a prolonged battle of sharp teeths and claws? If you speak of size and power, a large male brown is nothing like a wild water buffalo or the gaur. Formidable large male brown, I don't think so. The big softy, more like it."

Just as a comment, Brown Bears have much better stamina then any Feline does, meaning, the so called Fatty would be able to keep up a fight long after the Tiger dropped from exaustion (I can present accounts of a Grizzly, which is a sub-species of Brown Bear, running for two miles at an average speed of 25mph, not exactly slow, and another with one going a quarter mile at 30mph...and Brown Bears are actually well known for their tremendous stamina, whereas felines are actually commonly known for having relatively poor stamina as a side-effect of having mostly fast-twitch muscles, small lungs, and a small heart...for example, a Hyena has a heart about twice the size as that of a Lion, despite the tremendous size difference between them). The Bear, tubby? Where did you get this? Did you draw that asumption from the fact that Brown Bears tend to be covered in a thick layer of preotective furr, to help protect them from viscous encounters with one another (according to "Learning to Talk Bear so Bears can Listen", males have an average life span of only 12 years, in comparison to the female's 25, simply because they often take serious injuries from viscous fights they often have with each other...which also shows that they would have some experience here). They only have particularly high fat contents a couple weeks before entering hibernation/torpor, or if in captivity. Brown Bears wouldn't exactly be able to be able to travel at the speeds, and distances, they are capable of traveling at if they where really as fat as they appear. And, as far as claws are concerned, you've insulted the Brown Bear by even sounding like your really sugesting the Tiger's claws are all that superior, considering the Brown Bear's claws, though they aren't exactly all that sharp in comparison, are a good deal longer, and where still sharp enough to literally scalp a Human in one swipe, as described in one incedence in "California Grizzly", meaning they are by no means dull either, despite being non-retractable. And for teeth, although the Tiger has a much higher bite force at carnassials for its size, the Brown Bear's longer muzzle also gives it an advantage in certain respects, as it is still able to kill similarly sized oponents (and of course smaller ones) with a killer bite (as also demonstrated in some accounts from California Grizzly), and the increased length means overall more surface area, and therefore an easier time grabbing part of a limb, or clamping down over part of the face of Bear's oponent, and then with more surface area, it would also have a better hold while shaking violently (watch this: http://content.bbcmotiongallery.com/wmv/26/60/2660-3_LO.wmv if you wish to see a Brown Bear pick up and shake a similarly sized Bear in its jaws), which is something I'ce never actually heard of a Tiger doing, though I can easily see this doing tremendous damage to the more fragile cat. Brown Bears have a build oriented for power (look at their massive shoulder hump, and thick limbs for an example of this), and are even for their size more powerful then a Tiger in the fore-limbs, and add a larger size to this, in a face to face fight, the Brown Bear would have no problem overpowering the Tiger.... Just as a comment, two major differences between a Tiger ambushing a Gaur, and fighting a Brown Bear face to face include the fact that a) the Gaur was ambushed, which would obviously help out the Tiger (in natural conflicts, things would almost always begin with an ambush, of course, specifically when predation occurs), and b) Brown Bears have teeth themselves, aswell as flexible fore-limbs (more flexible then the Tiger's infact...and I have sources to back this up, along with everything else I've said if you really want to see them) and claws, so fighting back would be much easier. Also, as far as a Brown Bear's own agillity is concerned, I don't think a big fat animal would be able to jump like this (if you look at it, you can see that it doesn't even appear that any real contraction of the legs, etc, occurred, and it seems asthough the surprised Brown Bear simply "flew into the air", as may happen to a house cat when surprised, though, of course with the Bear to a much lower proportionate hight): http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/1554/bearsjumpinggk1.jpg And here is a picture of a Brown Bear with matted down furr (due to the water) so you can get a decent idea of the limb thickness...: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6375/grizzlywithfishql5.jpg Not to mention that large wound on its head clearly shows they are big fat softies never willing to enter conflicts, aswell as demonstrated by the male's lifespans being less then half that of the females (and what males in captivity tend to obtain). Oh, and for more, howabout you look at Yellowstone's records of Wold pack-Grizzly interactions at Wolf-kills? They are rediculously set in favor of the Bear, as the Brown Bears often follow around Wolf Packs, stealing their kills, once again showing how little they are willing to enter conflicts <_<. And, for a final coment, Tigers only tend to predate on Bears smaller then themselves, not larger, whereas the Gaur they predate on are much larger then the Tiger's themselves, showing that obviously the Tiger doesn't view the Brown Bear, which would have a more difficult time actually throwing the Tiger off of its back once the ambush begun, as more dangerous as an animal around three times the size of the Tiger itself, so, your analogy their obviously is meaningless. Even at equal weights I would have to say that the Brown Bear would more likely win more often then not in an actual face to face confrontation...which is also one that would be extreemly un-likely to occur in the wild, unless the Brown Bear attempted to steel a kill from the Tiger, etc, however, in general, both animals attempt to solve things such as that without any real conflicts..and if one errupts in general one simply would give up, so a conflict such as this occurring isn't at all exactly plausible either. 67.142.130.33 06:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your commentary here, Bears will take a tiger down in a fight, mainly due to it's brute strength and club like paws which have been shown to be capable of shattering the skulls of both lions and tigers. (thanks to Californians for setting up those fights) However I don't think you give the tiger justice by claiming that the bear can keep up with it when it comes to agility, certainly I don't think the tiger would be able to dance around the bear with impunity, but in general I'd say the more lightly built tiger is more agile. Finally I don't think that tiger predation on bears should be understated, tigers have successfully hunted and killed bears, yes they were smaller, or caught unawares thanks to hibernation, but the bear still went down just as wild tigers have been killed by bears in fights. -Amur_Tiger

Recent addition to Bengal Tiger section

"In the Sundarbans, this subspecies is a documented man-eater irresepective of condition."

Such a comment needs a citation, and belongs on the Bengal Tiger page as it is quite specific to that subspecies. The subspecies descriptions are for general information - physical characteristics and population/conservation status. - Slow Graffiti 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Article

The Article looks very short. A lot of information is missing from the article, and I mean a lot. Can't anyone find more information on Tigers? because I know there is a lot of info on tigers. Please expnad this article!!! Crna Gora (Talk/Contribs/Edit Count) 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tiger symbolism

The Tiger was highly associated with Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler himself called the Hitler Youth, his "young tigers". Then came the war tanks - jagdtiger, konigstiger (means: Bengal Tiger), and so and so forth. Later on, the tiger became a symbol of Hitler and his army. The Soviets viewed Nazi Germany as the "beast"(depicted in pictures as a Tiger) that must be stopped. (here is a link to one of those depictions: http://www.earthstation1.com/Warposters/jckaelin/Russia_Bayonets_the_Nazi_Tiger_jk.jpg). TheGoodSon

Malayan tiger

Neither this page nor the Malayan tiger page are particularly clear on what the Malayan tiger was before it was classified as a seperate subspecies. Logically, I would assume it was considered part of the Indochinese subspecies but someone more in the know should add the info Nil Einne 17:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese or Asian medicine

AFAIK, the use of tiger parts is predominantly from Chinese traditional medicine. It is not to my knowledge used in ayurvedic medicine (Hindu) or Malay traditional medicine (e.g. by bomohs). Indeed, the intro simply speaks of Chinese traditional medicine. If it's predominantly or exclusively used in Chinese traditional medicine rather then Asian traditional medicine, we need to make this clear. There is mention of Taiwanese use but I would assume this is Taiwanese Chinese use rather the aboriginal/indigenous Taiwanese use. Also the many people from Asia seems a bit unfair especially since it's unsourced. I doubt for example that people in Iran or other Middle Eastern Asian countries think so. Also, if I'm correct, I suspect many people in South Asia and South East Asia think so. Indeed, I'm quite skeptical how many people in Korea, Japan and Mongolia think so. Even in China, I would say it's not particularly clear how many people actually believe in the usefulness of tiger parts per se. Perhaps they believe in traditional medicine and if told by a traditional healer that these tiger parts are useful they will believe so but this is not exactly the same thing as believing in the medicinal uses of tiger parts pe se. N.B. Not that this matters but I'm half-Chinese. Nil Einne 18:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Hiya this is chelsea a think that using tiger parts is disgracful there are only 5000 or less tigers in the world because of people using them for medicine!!

Tigers are not the largest cat

Ligers are larger. While it is true, ligers are infertile crossbreeds between tigers and lions, they are still cats, and they are larger. Thus Ligers are the largest living cat. 64.236.245.243 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Those creatures are created by humans, we are talking about natural animals that exist outside of human interferance, tigers and lions must be transported to the same location and bred in order for ligers to occur. July 28, 2006. sahands

Agreed, ligers are not naturally occuring or a viable species. Therefore they cannot be the largest cat species. --Tommyknocker 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what you said is irrelevant. Ligers are not genetically engineered animals. They are natural animals that exist in this world, they are cats, and they are larger than tigers. Classifying the largest cat has nothing to do with whether you consider them "natural" or not. That is irrelevant. Ligers are the largest cats. Malamockq 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me put it in a way that even you can understand, if humans didn't exist, ligers wouldn't not exist. There have been tigers born with two tails, but why do we consider every tiger to have just one tail? Because we consider it natural (so you will never see a scientific article claiming that tigers can have one or two tails). Use common sense and stop vandalizing the article. You can go vandalize the liger article all you want and if you are right, then people will welcome your changes to that article. Sahands 3 AUG, 2006.
Malamockq Wrote:
"Actually, what you said is irrelevant. Ligers are not genetically engineered animals. They are natural animals that exist in this world, they are cats, and they are larger than tigers. Classifying the largest cat has nothing to do with whether you consider them "natural" or not. That is irrelevant. Ligers are the largest cats"
Have you no education or any common sense? Ligers are not "genetically engineered animals"? Who on earth told you this? They aren't natural beings, they were man made. For christ sakes, they cannot even be scientifically categorized - they don't belong to any genus or species (though they were classified as P. Leogris just this year, but is this a natural feline species? NO. First, lions are social cats and live a life that is much different than a tigers, so even if they were to co-exist they would not reproduce - they would be competitors trying to kill each other (much in the same way leopards kill cheetah and lions and tigers kill leopards). A male leopard or male lion would be able to breed with a lioness or leopardess, but that just doesn't occur.
Do you know what growth dysplasia is? Here, let me give you a brief definition: it is a genetic defect that causes animals to grow too large to support themselves. It is most commonly the result of continuous inbreeding. Is this natural to you? In anycase, tigers are the largest felines on earth. Point blank! "Tigers are the largest and most powerful living cats" is the first sentence in any big cat book or published scientific papers - I suppose you know more than experts such as Thapar, Mel and Fiona Sunquist or Packer? If so, please do inform them and let them know that the liger is the "largest cat"...your assertion is quite comical and idiotic. At the upper limits of their weight range, tigers (Bengals and Siberians) are BY FAR the largest cats in the world. The upper limits of the Bengal tigers weight is about 750 lb and Siberians 850 lbs, and lions second with upper limits of 600 lbs. JukeBox 3 August, 2006.
I will suggest to the both of you to refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith, both are rules here on wikipedia. Bringing up arguments like tigers born with two tails is irrelevant. Tigers with two tails are still tigers. And normally tigers have a single tail. Ligers are not tigers. Ligers are ligers. And normally ligers are larger than tigers. This is a fact. Words like, "natural" have very little to do with science because their meaning is subjective. Liger is a recognized infertile species of the genus Panthera. It is, therefore quite real, and regardless of how the creature exists in our world (I could mention that there are in fact cases of wild ligers, but it's irrelevant), they are indeed cats, and they are larger than tigers. Lengis 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to resolve this, just change it into the largest cat species! Ligers disputely named as Panthera leogris (Delano, 2006) are not a species in the scientific definition of a species. They can not even maintain a population in the wild as they are infertile. If all crossbred infertile animals become species now than there can be named many new species. Ligers may be the largest cat, but they are definatelly not the largerst cat species. Peter Maas 11:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. There is no such thing as natural liger. Tiger is the biggest cat in the wild.

I agree. I think this discussion is sorted.

Serious Issue

Look, despite my aggressive response, I understand your love about tigers. Every person has a favorite animal and that person tries to make it look great. Tigers are great animals indeed. They are one of the greatest predators on earth. Most succesful felines at least. But this is an encyclopedia, no place to prove tigers or any animal to be something. Although they look like solid facts, they get to be more than just facts. It's meaningless to create conflicts between species in an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia not an Animal Face-off episode. Neither large brown bears nor crocodiles nor elephants are prey of tigers.

In the case of bears; the article contains a sentence about the tiger superiority over the bear due to the fact that bears were smaller. This sentence was there for a long time. But a new statement has come next to it. "however tigers can and do kill larger brown bears". There is no point in adding that note. Both sentences mean two opposite ideas. I remove it, it keeps coming back.

About the crocodile. Crocodiles aren't natural prey of tigers. In that case, a crocodile (mugger) was trying to steal a meal from a tiger. As their name implies, they are thiefs, stealing kills of other animals when desperately hungry. That time the tiger decided to guard its meal, rather than giving it up like the two leopards are doing here. http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Panthera_pardus_kotiya/Panthera_pardus_ko_11a.html?movietype=wmMed Being an intelligent animal the tiger tired the crocodile, rather than fighting it one on one, which is very lethal, it proved to be victorious that way. This is only a single event. It doesn't prove that tigers are predators of these reptiles. Therefore adding a note on preying on land is incorrect, it's a more defending state. It's known for a long time that crocodiles prey on big cats that come to water to drink. So this is another vandalism example.

About the elephants. In the bengal tiger page, there is a statement "Typically, tigers do not prey on adult elephants or rhinos" I realized that the "do not" detail was put there on purpose, like the other two examples, so I changed it to can't. Because typically they can't kill adult elephants (I'm not sure about rhinos as there is an example of it from a reliable source; WWF. Still "typically" not.), even though trained tiger in historical times were put in front of young elephants that were trained to battle. Almost all elephants passed those tests, except the sick and injured, even though they weren't adults. Plus the tigers were trained to attack elephants. Once I changed it to can't they next day it was reverted to don't as if tigers don't kill elephants because they don't want to. No animal would want to take risk, for nothing.

Again I'm saying this is an encyclopedia. Please stop supporting animals of any kind. It's vandalism. This article is becoming a place for supporting rather than being educative. This is valid throughout the page and its destroying it. Thank you. John9834 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that you're lacking knowledge in this subject area and I believe it would be best left to those that know tigers quite well (no offense intended here). While it is true that big cats have been preyed upon by crocodiles by methods of ambush, that is far too simplistic and not even the point. It is well known that tigers prey on mugger crocodiles when the opportunity arises. Some tigers have been known to actually go after crocs in shallow waters (Ghengis comes to mind). The tigress (yes, it was a female) in the pic killing the crocodile is not a remote or "single event" incident, it happens. While crocs may not be "regular" prey to tigers, they are taken on a consistent basis. Many radio-collared tigers, both male and female, have had scat analyzed and scat showed that predation on crocodiles are more common than previously thought. Any good book or scientific article on Tigers would clear this ignorance - read Karanth, Sunquist & Sunquist, Seidensticker, McDougal or Thapar.
About the brown bears, the same is true. Both species avoid each other, but when the opportunity arises bears are ambushed by tigers, that is a fact. Did you happen to miss the direct extract from a scientific paper on tiger/bear interactions and predation? Just in case you missed it, here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tigerbearpred.jpg.
Englarging an article to include all known information about a particular species is hardly "vandalism". Scientists conducted years of study to provide and enlighten us and now because of your ignorance on the whole species of the tiger, it is considered "vandalism" to quote, source and make the information known about predation and/or interspecific competition?
What's funniest is that you call this "vandalism", while the "crocodile" page (which you edited yourself) claims that crocs prey on big cats, ungulates (we all know that) and even sharks...care to elaborate here? What's even funnier is that your "source" or "citation" is a BLOG (which I briefly skimmed through and had absolutely nothing scientific on any kind of croc preying on sharks), how very scientific! I understand that crocs may be "your favorite animal" and you might want to make it look "great"...but come on? Are sharks or big cats considered "regular" prey of crocodiles? If not, than you are vandalising the croc page, no? Don't fish make up the most significant percentage of most species of crocs diet?TheGoodSon 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


The way you are replying my previous message and your reactions are pathetic. There is no point in being so aggressive. Talk like a civilized person please. What's your point in saying "Don't fish make up the most significant percentage of most species of crocs diet?" Yes indeed, crocs consume a lot of fish. In fact for Nile crocodiles for example, fish make up 70% of their diet. What is mentioned on that portion of the article is the other 30%. It would be wrong to leave that out. Plus, I just looked it up, that statement (shark, lion) was there for 3 years. I didn't edit that portion of the article except for the links (the ones that you complain about). The given blog website isn't intended to put there as a source to be an explanation for the shark predation example. I added that link just for the photo. If you look carefully they got it from a news website.

You underline the fact that "I" edited that website. I have only a few contributions to it; I can't give up that great deal of time just for an article. I'm no editing or a crocodile freak. I'm also not ignorant about tigers, I have a great respect for tigers (just look how I started to write in the previous post), but I also have respect for bears, crocodiles and elephants. This article is crossing that thin line of respect for other great creatures. But you are so one-track minded and burning with admire for tigers, you can't accept opposite ideas and consider them ignorant and wrong. The prey predator relationship you are talking about is actually competition. Because you didn’t study zoology like I did, I don’t expect you to understand all of this. Rather than minimizing my knowledge, look at yourself first. Try to be objective. If you can’t realize the difference, then please get out of the way, and leave it to pros.

Yes, indeed tigers may go after crocodiles on land. But there's a little detail you are missing here. When someone says crocodile, it can range from a foot to twenty three feet, unlike a tiger, which grow quickly. A small crocodile has many enemies in the wild. The scat analyzed tigers hunted down small crocs. Therefore that certain event is single or very rare. If you still don’t believe me, hear what an expert, Dr. Adam Britton is saying about this. Once asked he said large cats might tackle crocodiles under 6 feet but that a large cat has no chance against a crocodile that is around 13 feet and that weighs close to thousand pounds. About the brown bears; tigers may attempt to feed upon young or sub adult bears, but they avoid big adults most of the time, again examples can exist, also for bears killing tigers. When there’s lots of prey that are harmless, around in its environment, there is no reason why a tiger should attack such dangerous animals like big brown bears or crocodiles (unless its defense), where if any contact occurs, it certainly may prepare the end of a tiger. It’s a matter of life and death, unlike predation on ungulates, because here an unsuccessful attack is lethal. We all know that no animal, including tigers, lions or crocodiles are capable of being hundred percent successful in all of their attempts. As for the crocodiles, in the eyes of a large croc a tiger near a riverbank is no different from a buffalo. Whenever a large hungry croc gets a chance it will try to catch it. But tigers are also very clever animals, they scan the water when they drink or swim and are ready to jump back on a possible attack. So if you call "consistent" whenever a predator gets a chance, then call it consistent. Also calling hunting by ambush, "simple" is very amateur and funny. Every predator has it's own method of hunting. The truth is, your beloved cats also ambush their prey; they get close to them as close as thirty feet, camouflaged in the vegetation and moving slowly without making a sound before striking. John9834 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I say, I must agree with John9834. It's correct, according to all my refernces. Dora Nichov 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The source for Tigers predating on Brown Bears also mentions that Tigers only do so on smaller Bears, meaning that the part about how Tigers kill larger Bears should probably be removed.Ursus arctos 20:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John. Parts about large brown bears and crocs must be removed. Also there is no reason to put such a photo. If it was deer I would understand , it would at least mean something, but why crocodile? There is no point. What are you prooving? BJK1903 16:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, tigers SIMPLY, DO NOT, DO NOT regularly prey on crocodiles, large bears and elephants. I can't emphasize that enough. A tiger has virtually no chance against a large bear face-to-face. The reason tigers usually win is because they treat the bears as prey, and thus have the advantage of ambush. One smack and it's all over. Large crocodiles have been known to eat big cats. sure tigers might attack crocodiles occasionally, crocodile is not a main item on their menu. Elephants? This one makes me want to laugh. Tigers can't attack elephants. One stomp would flatten the poor cat into a pancake. I mean, tigers are the largest cats, but they aren't the largest land animals. Not to mention what an elephant could do with it's tusks... Don't get us wrong. We know tigers are great predators. We simply respect the truth. Dora Nichov 01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, John9834, looks like we've got more people on our side. More people on our side, more resistance, more reverting, more logical thinking and more respect for the truth... and we'll do it in the end. Dora Nichov 01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right. A tiger stands no chance against a large brown bear or croc. They may prey on immature animal, but adults come on! If you are declaring an animal to be the predator of another animal, that animal has to be able to attack any individual of any size. Therefore the brown bear and crocodile debate is already over, but you aren't aware of it. Even you can kill a cute crocodile 2 feet in size. It's also so funny that you say we are vandalising the page, in fact you are. Stop reverting it back to the wrong version. BJK1903 07:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked up brown bear and tiger in my animal encyclopedia:

  • Brown bear: smallest 100kg, biggest 1000kg
  • Tiger: smallesr 100kg, biggest 300kg

Dora Nichov 11:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think there is a problem then you need to validate it first before starting a revert war. So far your credibility isnt getting any better: 1000 Kg Brown Bears dont exist (1000 pounds maybe). It is quite clear from the article that crocodiles and adult elephants are not usual tiger prey so I dont see what the problem is. Tigers have been known to kill and eat crocodiles (all 3 types of crocodilians found in India) but that is very rare. Attacks on adult elephants and adult rhinos only take place when tigers feel threatened (never for prey) and these rarely lead to drawn out confrontations (usually one of them backs out quickly). However baby elephants and rhinos often fall prey to tigers. User:Sohola

What you can't uderstand is, tigers simply can't prey on adult crocodiles or large brown bears or elephants. Therefore you can't put this in the article. Thats it. John9834 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! That's what we're ALL trying to say, Sohola. Dora Nichov 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

John, cut the bull... What exactly do you mean by "tigers simply can't prey on adult crocodiles or large brown bears"? Are you this dense? It is simple: THEY CAN AND THEY HAVE and therefore it will be mentioned. The article mentions that tigers "sometimes" prey on crocodiles, leopards and bears, so I don't understand your issue? Everyone knows that these are predators themselves, and everyone knows that predators usually take ungulates and the like. Fact is they have preyed upon crocs and larger sized bears, so it stays. TheGoodSon 10:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not degrade this discussion to a juvenile argument on inter-species conflict. Anyway I hope this clears the confusion: Adult elephants: The article is quite clear that tigers do not prey on them. Both avoid each other. Adult crocodiles: Tigers do kill them as the photo makes clear. There are reports of tigers killing saltwater crocodiles in Sundarbans. Brown bears: Himalayan Brown Bears are occasionally eaten by tigers. I dont know about brown bears in the Russian wild. Bear predation by tigers in India is very rare. Usually they avoid each. User:Sohola

"PREYED ON" and "KILLED" are NOT the same. Dora Nichov 06:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not helping your case by screaming. I thought I pointed out that the article says just that so I dont see what the problem is. You still havent justified your points. And there is no justification whatsoever for starting a revert war. User:Sohola

L-O-O-K, tiger fans!

By the way, you're not proving that tigers prey on crocodiles with that photo (though I know they DO), who knows if the tiger was killing for FOOD. If it was a deer, of course it was for food, but a crocodile? That's different. Dora Nichov 09:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your credibility is only going lower with those links to lairweb and the provocative nature of your argument. It just proves that you have no qualification to edit on wikipedia. Though I have repeatedly pointed out that the article does not say crocodiles are usual tiger prey, you seem to persistant in accusing the article of saying that. By now it is quite clear that you would shame a stone in a "who is more stubborn" contest. Btw, that photo is not meant to prove anything but just gives a perspective on the tiger - good photos of wild tigers are very rare and this happens to be a very good one. It is an award winning photo. Anyway, the history behind the photo is that the crocodile was trying to steal the tiger's prey when the tiger arrived and decided to kill it. It did not eat it. It just killed it in a fight that lasted 2 hours. You can read the full story at http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=70025 User:Sohola

Yes tigers attack crocodiles, but small ones. Any confrontation with a larger crocodile only happens when the crocodile starts it. On that certain event (photo), where a 9 foot crocodile tried to mug its kill, the tiger proved to be victorious; it was lucky, without being bitten, it tired the animal and mounted on. It may not be so lucky at all times. Also note that it took a lot of time for the battle to end due to the fact that the teeth didn't penetrate the skin on the neck and the tiger had to try to go for the skull. Therefore if it happened anywhere close to water, (I’m not meaning at the edge of the water) the crocodile would easily go in the water and get rid of the tiger on its back if it couldn’t catch the tiger at the first chance. This is valid for 8-10 feet crocodiles. Crocodiles grow at least twice that size. A tiger will certainly avoid any contact with a larger crocodile, plus there is no way a tiger can kill a crocodile of that size, due to the fact that the skull of such a crocodile will not even fit inside the jaw of a tiger. Although contact with a large crocodile will still occur when the reptile takes the opportunity to prey on an unaware tiger at the waters edge. John9834 09:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if a large crocodile managed to ambush a tiger, that will spell the tiger's doom. By the way, I think I've thought of an idea that may be a good compromise.

  • First, remove the link to the crocodile vs tiger picture. It doesn't prove that tigers prey on crocodiles. (Yes, but I know they DO).
  • Second, move the imformation about bears toward the end, closer to the crocodile facts. Then, add a sentence: "But encounters with both bears and crocodiles can prove fatal to a tiger, and tigers prefer less dangeous prey."

Any objestions? Dora Nichov 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If there's no objections, I'll change it as I said. Dora Nichov 10:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Under freakish circumstances, almost any imaginable outcome is possible in a meeting between two predators. The bigger predator or predatory unit usually wins over the smaller one. A large-enough pack of dogs would probably scare off a tiger... but such a meeting is unlikely. More likely a tiger would kill any dog that it got the opportunity to overpower singly. We should be discussing meetings between adults of different species. Just as a dog would probably kill an infant crocodile if it got the chance, an adult croc would kill any dog because all dogs are much smaller than adult crocs.

It would be unconscionable to stage death-matches between superpredators as did the ancient Romans, so we are unlikely to know what happens should a tiger meet, for example, a leopard seal, an animal far out of its range. Even the most common meeting between superpredators (humans and dogs) ordinarily results in no harm done. So how would we know what predator can dowhat to another predator unless we see it directly in a natural setting?

As a strict rule, superpredators are good defenders of themselves, so an encounter between predators nearly-evenly matched is a mistake. Even in victory, the 'winner' can get hurt badly and itself become vulnerable to some later encounter. Tigers wisely choose deer over crocs or even humans because deer offer few bad consequences, even if they catch or ambush deer with some difficulty. --Paul from Michigan 06:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. The problem is, whether anyone objects to my solution! Dora Nichov 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I just remembered something. Crocodilians get tired easily and produce lactic acid very quickly and in a short time the amount of lactic acid concentration in the blood proves to be lethal. Even when tackling large prey like buffalo crocodiles rest afterwards to pay the oxygen debt. Large crocodiles like Sweetheart (a 17 foot saltwater crocodile that died after being caught) can actually die in such stress when trapped and hauled on to the beach or truck, if the struggle lasts for long. When we talk about a struggle that lasted for two hours (tiger-croc), its very dangerous for a crocodile even though it’s not large. The crocodile that the tiger wrestled with was only about nine feet long, but the time period was very long. This is even very dangerous for a hatchling. Therefore virtually the tiger didn't actually kill the crocodile. It's a big surprise that a crocodile could last two hours in such a struggle, therefore it's the only logical explanation as the neck and body armor doesn’t allow any serious damage and the skull of a nine foot long mugger can’t fit inside the jaws of a tiger. If the tiger could kill the mugger in anyway it wouldn’t last as long as two hours, with at least one hour of it at the back of the crocodile. No matter what happened the perfect conditions have to be set (very very far from the water) for the tiger to be lucky (that is only if the tiger can manage to get on the back of the crocodile without being bitten) Even if the water were in ten minutes reach the crocodile would slip into the water to pay its oxygen debt. This is even valid for eight-nine foot crocodiles; therefore I’m not talking about crocodiles between ten to twenty three feet. For young crocodiles of course the situation is different with thinner skin, smaller skull and less weight and strength. The tiger can overpower such immature crocodiles. I want to say a couple of the things for the crocodilian point of view as well. Crocodiles are one of the few animals that tackle their prey by pure strength, unlike big cats, which usually kill large prey by strategically biting the throat or sometimes the skull. A tiger wouldn’t be able to kill a buffalo with blunt teeth. For crocodilians the difficulty of tackling depends only on the weight (and proportionally with withstanding strength) of the prey, once contact occurs. Therefore a tiger at the riverbank is easier prey (not to catch, tigers are fast) than a buffalo, which is at least two-three times heavier. I suggest we end this dispute. It already lasted very long.

About big brown bears. The sentence “the Siberian tiger has been the more successful in battles between the two animals because bears taken by tigers are often smaller sized bears” clearly states (by saying often) that, although rare, tigers can also kill large brown bears. There is no need to add a sentence like “however tigers can and do kill larger brown bears.” It’s just too much. John9834 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all that. If the crocodile vs tiger fight happened near the water, or if it the crocodile ambushed the tiger, the crocodile would win. Dora Nichov 00:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Face it - tigers can and do kill bears larger than they are, it's a fact and I have it sourced. Crocodiles have also been killed by tigers, even tigresses have killed crocs (as this video here proves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCV7xe1iSxg). User:TheGoodSon

I don't think you have read the explanation above. Probably you don't understand what lactic acid or oxygen debt is, but what he explains is correct. Also that video is no news. Everybody is aware of it and it has been talked about. The video is cut making you think the tiger physically killed the croc. As seen from the video the tiger's attacks have no result on the skin of the crocodile. At the end of the video eventually the crocodile dies but slowly and breathing deeply to pay the oxygen debt. BJK1903 10:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thegoodson, do you really read what others post here. You have said face it. Tigers have killed larger brown bears. That’s what he says. The sentence before clearly explains that. The second sentence is repetition. There is no need for it. Also if you are adding an extra sentence you have to note that bears also kill tigers.

Dora virtually tigers can’t kill crocodiles anywhere neither on land nor in water. You have to completely isolate the crocodile from the water. Even then it dies by itself. It’s not killed.

Note to tiger lovers; how can you not understand explanations done so scientifically but keep on insisting what you want to believe. BJK1903 10:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! The tiger didn't kill the crocodile directly. But I think it can be counted as killing indirectly, because the crocodile was tired out from struggling with the tiger. Still, if the the crocodile had gotten the tiger, there would be no hope for the tiger. Dora Nichov 11:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a story about that picture states as follows: And she finally did ,her strong bite ripping out its shoulder. Says Parashar,”It was the first time in my life that I’d seen a tiger attack, much less kill, a big crocodile”

Fine. But there's no denying it's an abnormal event. Dora Nichov 09:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are hilarious. There is no blood in that picture. Ripping? You write good stories though. Nice tone and ambition.

There's no blood at all... Dora Nichov 08:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jonh9834 up there wrote this: Almost all ele. passed the test, tigers were trained to combat ele. Huh, if you want to lie, give us a good story. If you want to ridicule tige tiger to save the face of your pathetic 1 ton croc, you make a big mistake. Tigers were pitted against ele. in ancient time till the 19th centuries. Where? Do you even know that? And do u know what happened to those tigers and ele. ? I am the one originally put this inf into the article, as I have been with this issue for years, but I agreed to see it removed without putting it back, as there is no need for this stuff in an introduction article about tigers, i already clarify it, so it doesn't matter for me. if u don't know about something, don't write about it, I don't want to be rude against anyone. Ele. is afraid of tigers, something as true as the sun setting in the west. And croc is obviously no exception, to make you please. --S--

THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!

How many times are we going back and forth between removing the image of 'Tigress killing crocodile' and replacing it with "Tigers prefer large prey..." paragraph and vice versa!? Sahands aug 30, 06

BJK1903 and John9834 are possibly the same person. And he/she has called on user Dora Nichov to take part in the revert war. Though I have pointed out that the article doesnt doesnt say crocodiles and bears are tiger prey, they persist with their silly reverts saying that the article says they are prey. Their behavior can be explained by the nature and content of John9834's previous edits related to crocodiles. It is time they are reported. They seem to edit the discussion page only to scream out loud but not consider any reason. User:Sohola

We're not screaming, OK? THIS IS SCREAMING/SHOUTING. Dora Nichov 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You say, I'm the same person with BJK1903?! Now this is really of the limits. You always talk without really knowing what is really what. TheGoodSon once said I added the lion, shark predation examples to the crocodile page, but in fact they were there for years. I'm a new person here. The edits of BJK1903 date back to March. You just can't accept that many people are against the idea of yours. You say I'm shouting and screaming, this is unbelievable! I'm the only one who is reasoning here. I typed paragraph after paragraph to be able to explain you another point of view, opposite to your one-track minded ideas. Unlike me, you and your fellow friends replied my messages with anger and aggression, making funny points like "don't fish make up the most of a crocodile's diet?", full of nonsense, talking and fighting like kids, swearing words like "bull...", and now you tell me I'm screaming and shouting without considering any reason? Don't be funny. Grow up. You are the ones here that turned this reasoning into a fight. Other than creating subjects that lead to arguments and hassle, like declaring two users to be the same person, talk like normal civilized people. John9834 08:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. You dont have to get hysterical. I have a soft spot for crocodiles too but I am not bothered by that photo and the article because it doesnt say crocodiles are usual tiger prey (it would be wrong if it said that). That photo is there because it is a prize winning photo that gives a rare and exciting glimpse into a wild tiger's life. user:Sohola

Just be more civil and stop threatening us and making silly assumptions, also discrediting our research. I checked my animal encyclopeida and my mammal encyclopedia and both said stuff about the biggest brown bears up to 1000 kg. Dora Nichov 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dora, yes, the biggest of brown bears are 1000kg, but the biggest of tigers aren't 300kg. The biggest tigers are nearly 400kg. No one said that tigers take 1000kg bears, but they do prey on bears. Even tigresses have preyed upon bears. Generally, bears taken by tigers are smaller (Siberian tigers wiegh about 500 lbs on average). However, tiger have been recorded taking bears that were considerably bigger than tigers. It's a fact. I don't understand what the problem with that is. User:TheGoodSon

I actually meant my last message for Sohola, 'cause he said that 1000kg brown bears don't exist. Dora Nichov 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont think I want to participate in juvenile disputes about weight of bears but I think I am obliged to point out your incredible stupidity. You are confusing pounds for Kgs. They rarely ever exceed 700 Kgs (if ever) and if you didnt know, most inland Grizzlies and Kodiaks average at about 350 Kgs (never going above 450 Kgs). Only coastal Kodiak bears achieve the extreme end of their weight range. The largest polar bears can reach 800 Kgs (only in captivity). Sorry to disappoint you. Btw, take my advice and stop destroying your credibility any more then it already is. Your "animal encyclopedia" is perhaps the one that only exists in your vivid imagination. Here are some links:

User:Sohola

THAT'S why I said you're not civil. Imagination... huh. Dora Nichov 10:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I didn't come here to argue about the weight of bears. Dora Nichov 10:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can't stand it any more! Sohola, we came here to talk civily with you, and what did you say? You made stupid assumptions without evidence like XXX is the same as OOO. Swearing... Threatening to report us. Did you come here to talk or rant? Also saying silly nosense in general, and assuming that our infromation is 100% BS. Telling us we're dense, and stuff. Saying my encyclopedia is just my imagination. I'll have you know that it IS not my imagination. It's just you assuming dumb things again. Even if YOU didn't say all this, the people on your side did. Are all tiger fans uncivilized? It sure looks that way. You may think this message is slightly similar to John9834's above. What did you reply to him? "Calm down." Huh. What kind of apology is that? This isn't about tigers, crocodiles, elephants or bears anymore, Sohola. This is Even More Serious Matter. Dora Nichov 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I frogot to add that you're always speaking without knowing what is what. All you do is be aggresive as you can be and... you know the rest. Dora Nichov 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh! I rest my case. We understand some people suddenly become all hysterical once their BS is exposed. I will let my links and google answer for me. User:Sohola

See? That's what I mean! You think you're sooo right, and everyone else is sooo wrong. I DIDN'T write that because you accused me of false information, but because it's true. Period. Dora Nichov 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. First, both my animal encyclopedia and my mammal encyclpedia are NOT my imagination. They DID indeed say that brown bears grow up to 1000kg. It's not my fault. If you think that's wrong, then you should blame the authors (DK) and not me. Dora Nichov 09:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are so very funny declaring two users to be the same. Hahah. BJK1903 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I became "hysterical" (at least that was how Sohola put it). Dora Nichov 00:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yo! I'm new here! Why's everyone arguing? Radical3

Recaption or remove!

The "tiger killing crocodile" image is itself no proof that tigers kill crocs larger than themselves. A tiger would of course kill and eat a smaller croc that it could overpower, and it would of course scavenge a a dead croc of any size, but just the same it is easy to imagine a crocodile snatching a tiger cub. So what?

Both creatures recognize each other as mutually dangerous, and both would likely back down if they perceive themselves as equals or near-equals. Most likely a croc goes back into nearby water and the tiger goes away from the water -- much as humans and dogs ordinarily back down from each other should they enter a threatening situation.

Crocodiles are tough-skinned, and they seem wholly-unsuited as victims of the lethal neckbite that all cats characteristically use against prey of significant size. The croc's neck is just too big for this tigress to kill it. The photo shows the tigress, much smaller than the croc, attacking behind the neck, which is not how one would expect a tiger to attack a large prey item.

All bets are off if a croc threatens a tigress' cubs, of course.

I checked a link on the page for Tiger and found found the photo [3] It won a photography prize, but it is titled: Tigress on crocodile. No mention is made of the tigress killing the crocodile. It would seem that the photographer had no cause to believe that either the tigress had killed or was about to kill the crocodile. I could even as easily imagine this tiger riding the croc in some horseplay, the croc coming out of the situation none the worse for wear. But that's all speculation. "Tigress on crocodile" does not imply "tigress killing crocodile". This photo no more proves that a tiger kills crocs larger than itself any more than does a photo of a man upon a horse show that humans eat horses. --Paul from Michigan 21:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Read my posts above for the story behind the photo. The photo is not going anywhere. Censorship is not a tenet of Wikipedia. User:Sohola

The photo stays, but the caption has changed to reflect the ambiguity of the scene depicted. Whether tigers kill crocs appreciably bigger than themselves is not demonstrated in this photo. It could be a tigress scavenging a dead crocodile or even a tigress 'riding' a crocodile in a sort of play. I'm not satisfied with the earlier caption and have chosen to make it less specific -- and consistent with the source, which titles the picture "Tigress on crocodile".

If the tigress were larger than the croc, then I would have bettwer cause to believe that she could kill the croc in the photo. --Paul from Michigan 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)\

I dont think you followed my previous message. This photo is part of a well documented video and series of stills. The tigress killed the crocodile and then didnt eat it. Here is one source. You will find lot more information on it if you google. http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=70025 thanks, User:Sohola

The link beside the statement about tigers preying on crocodiles should be removed though. 'Cause it simply links to the picture, which doesn't prove that tigers feed on crocodiles. (The tiger may have killed it, but didn't eat it). Dora Nichov 12:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. User:Sohola

I am now satisfied that, although the incident is a freakish situation (a drought had practically dried out a riverbed that a croc needed more than did the tiger), the text relating the incident clearly stated that the tigress killed the croc, although she did not eat the croc. The croc may have been weakened badly, and without its usual defense (going into the water) the croc was easy to kill.

Severe droughts happen, and in such cases a croc loses its advantage to any giant predators (tigers, lions, or possibly bears) that it might fend off or escape easily in normal times. If it is weakened by hunger or overheating, even the crocodile is vulnerable. In normal times, when the water gives cover or refuge to the croc, the tigress either backs off or gets killed. --Paul from Michigan 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Even in that freakish situation the tiger wasn't able to kill it. It died from lactic acid in its blood. The tiger doesn't have any effect on a crocodile even 9 feet in size. John has clearly explained that above in "serious issue". BJK1903 10:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. It's the same with immobilizing the tiger (speed is it's usual defense) and putting it in front of the crocodile. Easy meal for the reptile. BJK1903 11:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "...croc may have been weakened badly, and without its usual defense"
  • "...It died from lactic acid in its blood"
  • "...speed is it's usual defense"
  • "...putting it in front of the crocodile"

All of you have to crazy to expect these ridiculous POVs to carry any weight in a wiki article. Realize that you are just embarassing yourselves.

POVs? Are you kidding me. This article is full of POVs and some people are trying to remove them. What are you trying to do? Don't take this discussion into another point and don't keep reverting it back. BJK1903 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It was already agreed that the photo is not going to be removed. You dont have the right to dictate terms here and it doesnt help your case that you have repeatedly started revert wars.

Who says it was agreed that the photo was going to stay? Are you the decision maker here? It may be a good photo, it may make the tiger look nice or it may even be an award-winning photo but it is not related with the article. Therefore putting it there is POV. The photo shouldn't stay there. It's not objective. BJK1903 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion above. The photo stays.

I wrote the discussion above. You haven't explained anything. You can't just decide whether the photo stays or not. There is a logical explanation in what I'm trying to say. BJK1903 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think the photo shouldnt be here? Because it shows a tiger killing a crocodile? Someone might not want to have photos of tigers sleeping or yawning. It doesnt make sense.

I don't see any reason for the photo to be removed either. Dora Nichov 09:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

I removed the following line from the introduction:

The tiger's beautiful blend of grace and ferocity led the legendary author and conservationist, Jim Corbett to remark - "The Tiger is a large hearted gentleman with boundless courage...".

This seems rather POV to me, but within a few hours Thegoodson placed it back without explanation. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, so please why this is vital to the introduction. RexNL 11:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a famous quote by a great hunter/conservationist/wildlife author. It was probably placed back because there was no reason to remove it and it was removed without explanation in the first place. The quote is very telling and it poignantly sums up why so many people love and respect the tiger. The introduction is the right place to put such a quote. User:Sohola

If you would have read the edit summaries and my comments above, you would know that I didn't remove it without explanation. Secondly, I disagree that the introduction is the right place of this quote. A Wikipedia article should consist of reliable, undisputed facts; the introduction in particular. If you add a quote like this, you basically tell the reader that tigers are beautiful. Although there are certainly many people who love and respect the tiger, this is still POV. This is also the reason why I removed the claim that tigers are the "most powerful" cats, which seems to be supported by a children's website only. No authorative work would claim that tigers are the most powerful, simply because power can be measured in a million ways and there's no objective way so tell which animal is the most powerful. RexNL 20:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind if the phrase "most powerful cat" is removed. However I disagree that the quote is asserting anything: quotes present views without being assertive. You missed the crux of that quote - it doesnt preach that the tiger is beautiful but just presents why Jim Corbett liked it. In doing so, it provides an insight into some people's opinion on tigers. It has the same effect as stating that lions are symbols of heraldry - they are symbols of heraldry because of their strength, braveness and beauty. Thanks, User:Sohola

tamil tigers

It is the national animal of the unrecognized country tamil eelam and the mascot of the tamil tigers.

I think that needs to be mentioned,any suggestions?

Donnyt 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, is this a joke? What is a "unrecognized country" and why is it important enough to be mentioned here? User:Sohola

Remove Traditional Asian medicine

i think you have to remove or probably abridge the section "Traditional Asian medicine". Cure cancer using tiger tail may sound wrong but there is vast majority of people willing to get their hands on this stuff especially the desperate. I didnt know that tiger tails could "cure" skin cancer or stop convulsions but only after reading this. Any thoughts about this?

,,,,

The people who use tiger parts in 'traditional medicine' would probably be unable to tell a tiger part from a part of a lion (not so obviously threatened) or perhaps even a dog (an animal very much on the menu in southeastern and eastern Asia), and an animal that has surprisingly much in common with a tiger in behavior and physique. I think that there must be the idea that the tiger has some magical properties because it is a tiger, and that by eating a part of a tiger, a person acquires some of the characteristics of the deceased tiger.

This sort of 'traditional medicine' is poorly suited to double-blind tests that could prove or disprove the contention that a dead tiger has some curative powers. I suspect that part of the charm of such lore is that by eating parts of a dead tiger that humans have killed, a person shows mastery over one of the most formidable creatures still alive.

Maybe the 'traditional medicine' lore fits the POV dispute and belongs on the discussion page instead of the main page. --Paul from Michigan 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiger Weight

We should make a distinction between average weight and rare, extreme weights. On average tigers don't weigh up to 320kg. Of course there are tiger of that weight, especially Siberian tigers, but these are rare. For Bengal tigers for example only one specimen weighed more than 320kg. 318kg and 310kg specimens are second or third in ranking. These are record instances even for the second largest of the subspecies. Even Siberians weight 225 kg on average. This generalization should be about the average weight of the tiger and we should also consider smaller subspecies. As the paragraph says, differences occur for different subspecies.

My suggestion is we should take an average for males and females of each subspecies. (This already exists in the article) and then take the averages of those average weights to determine the average weight for Panthera tigris.


 Male        Female

Siberian 225 160

Bengal 220 140

Sumatran 120 90

Indochinese 180 115

South China 150 110

Malayan - -

Average 179 123

Increase average as Bengals make up the most of the population

Final 180-200 120-140

I think this is very logical. We don't even give the exact average; we increase it by about 20kg. We should also note that there are instances of tiger more than 300kg. We should use terms like average weight, normal maximum weight, and record weights. 85.96.215.62 08:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Average weight will only work if you take the quantity of tigers making up the wild. You need to form a proper average.

What Happened to this Artical?

Yeah, whats happened to this artical? Looks like since yesterday someone has come on and redid the entire thing in the form of a School Paper. It even has a Signature Down at the bottom. Links, Subsections, and Pics have all been deleted.

The photo and article

First of all putting the photo in the article is plagiarism. It's a copyrighted photo and it's against wikipedia's policies. Nobody removed the photo from the article, although I'm still not convinced. Secondly that event happened in an abnormal situation or as Paul says a "freakish" situation. Therefore applying this to a general concept would be incorrect. You take and animal from its habitat (drought) with no sign of its natural environment around and weakened for days and still it takes another predator to kill it (in defense) actively or passively (lactic acid) two long hours on top of it's back. This is not normal. In normal conditions, the animal would drag itself into the water and get loose, if it couldn't bite in the first place. Plus that animal was not full-grown. I don't know why you can't agree with such a reasonable and objective point of view. I'm just going to create another scene just out of the top of my head. Please just try understand it. You can take any land-based predator you want. A tiger, a lion, a jaguar, a bear, anything. And assume it has been out of its natural environment (land) for days and it can't reach it. We know three out of the four are well adapted to water environments but not for a long time of course. There is a risk of hypothermia etc. Let's say a huge herd of wildebeest is migrating across the water (don't ask me how they got there) and if they swim towards and over any of the four, they will drown and will be killed in a short time, maybe they would already be dead of hypothermia or drowning (maybe lion). Would you conclude the wildebeest killed the animals? I wouldn't. It's an abnormal situation. John9834 09:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... You've got a point there. I agree. Dora Nichov 10:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The video I linked is of a crocodile killed while attempting to steal a tiger's prey, not the same circumstance the croc in the picture. Thus, the long discussion of the worn out, juvenile croc is not necessarily relevant. Visit the Web page for the Sunderbans project. A naturalist there reports that while the crocs and tigers typically stay away from one another, he knows of a desperate female tiger killing and eating an adult marsh mugger croc. Such interaction does happen.

What we're saying is, it does, but not often. Dora Nichov 09:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To me the current wording connotes that it is not a common occurrence. I could see amending it to read "Tigers have been known to kill crocodiles on rare occasions" but I don't think it needs to be completely deleted. Ronnymexico 14:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that single event occurred in abnormal circumstances, with an unhealthy animal and in an abnormal environment. (For further information read above and 3 other headings above). Therefore it is wrong to apply it to normal situations. In an encyclopedia generalizations should apply to all conditions. Tigers can take small crocodiles as prey. Therefore the adjective "small" should be added to the text, saying tigers do avoid interaction with mature crocodiles, especially males, because on the other hand adult crocodiles do prey on tigers and all other big cats. Male saltwater crocodiles and large male muggers can take leopards and tigers, Nile crocodiles can take lions, leopards and cheetah (Although not a large cat). Large black caimans and possibly large Orinoco crocodiles can take jaguars. In Florida large male alligators have been known to take Florida panthers. Due to these facts writing that information in that way is misleading to people who don't know anything about these animals. By the way I'm not talking about any worn out juvenile crocodile. Juvenile crocodiles are about 2-5 feet. A tiger wouldn't have any problems with an animal that size. The crocodile in the picture and the video is the same animal. The thickness of the tail shows how desperate it is. John9834 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned before the information I received from the individual currently working in the Sunderbans, where tigers, salties, and marsh muggers cohabitate. His statement was that he knew of an instance of a tigress, desperate to feed her cubs, killed and preyed upon a large marsh mugger. I don't know the exact circumstances, but I tend to find this information to be credible and it is available on the Sunderban project Web site. He also stated that to his knowledge and after discussing it with others working on the Sunderban project, tigers and saltwater crocs steer clear of one another. This evidence flies in the face of the claim that crocodiles prey on adult tigers, something you assert as fact but it uncorroborated apart from a few Web sites that indicate that it would be possible. Evidence of a salties actually preying upon tigers would be welcome to corroborate that fact, for my understanding is in concert with the Sunderban naturalist that they typically steer clear despite the fact that tigers are active and frequent swimmers.

Likewise, you say nile crocodiles "can take" lions, leopards and cheetah but there is little evidence of such predation. I do know of one instance of a smaller lioness being taken by nile crocs, but most Web sources that claim lion predation are completely unsupported. The jaguar/black caiman interacion is the same story. Even if some evidence can be produced along these lines, I am quite certain that big cats are not typically viewed as prey for crodidilians, which you seem to intimate.


There is little evidence? Are you kidding me? There's millions of evidence of crocodiles preying upon large cats. I can give you three links to the most reliable sources about animals in the world. [4] [5] [6]. What else can I do? National Geographic, Discovery Channel and Crocodile Specialist Group (Worldwide crocodile organization made of many zoologists and herpetologists. The most reliable source you can find) all prove this obvious fact. They would add the detail of small lionesses if that was the issue. They said lions, it contains everything. Crocodiles aren't fussy eaters, they don't really care how it's prey tastes. People have found drums in crocodile stomachs. Plus crocodiles kill with mere power, unlike big cats, which kill strategically, without really overpowering its victim, especially bigger prey. (If you read what's above I wouldn't have to explain these again and again) If a crocodile can take down a one ton water buffalo why should it have any problems with a 200kg cat? The only thing that matters is the prey's weight and withstanding strength. This removes the question whether the size of the cat really matters, as all cats are smaller than buffalo. Look at discovery channel website, it has been proved (of course don't share the same habitat) that large crocodiles can even take a polar bear one on one and simply tear it into pieces. I guess taking a tiger or lion face to face is much easier, unless they react and flee. The reason why you can't find lots of evidence about it is, cats of the genus Panthera aren't primary crocodile prey due to the fact that they rarely get close and cats are cleverer than ungulates and scan the water for crocodiles and watch out. Therefore interactions rarely occur. Even when such interactions occur a cat's strong reflexes sometimes saves it. Crocodiles know how fast cats are; therefore don't usually attempt to catch one unless it has great camouflage or the cat is unaware. Otherwise it would waste its precious energy for nothing. For example in these photos [7] [8] the two lions are aware of the crocodile. The closer one (female) is desperate to drink water and drinks water very carefully with one eye on the crocodile. It would be silly and useless for the crocodile to attack from such a distance when the advantage of cover is lost.

Not finding information about this in many websites doesn't prove you that the information is wrong, because not every source contains every information. If you find a source that says crocodiles can't prey on large cats, then you would think about it. I don't understand why you took this seriously; it's not the topic. I didn't even put anything about predation on the article; I just said they present danger, which is obvious from those jaws and teeth. About that video. We have talked about that situation for many times now. It's an abnormal situation therefore it's not a reliable source by any means. Therefore I'm removing it for the moment. Please don’t add it again. If you link that article from the Sunderbans project website, we can analyze it together.John9834 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


You continue to maintain that the video is an abnormal situation, and yet previously you were buying into the claim that the crocodile died from a lactic acid buildup simply because another contributor speculated it to be the case. I read an article about the incident, mentioned above, that stated the tiger actually killed the lion and ripped it's shoulder out. And drought is far from an abnormal situation in India if you know anything about the climate there. I'm not sure what you believe those pictures show either, I see a lioness drinking and watching a croc, it certainly would be natural to do so with a croc in such close proximity but it is far from any evidence of crocodile predation on lions.

As for why a crocodile would willingly attack a buffalo and not a lion, the answer is pretty simple. A lion brings much more formidable weapons to the table than a buffalo, i.e., its teeth and claws. Moreover, it's much quicker with superior reflexes. Thus, it would be a much bigger risk to a crocodile even at a smaller weight. I don't see anything in the first link about crocs preying on lions, the second and third mention lions as secondary prey and I have conceded that I have seen a documentary showing a croc taking a lioness at water's edge. However, I believe it is far from common and I can link for you countless sites that state "a lion has no natural enemies." Moreover, those sites list hippos as occasional croc prey. If you know much about nile crocs you're surely aware that a healthy adult hippo has little to fear from a crocodile and in fact commonly kills crocs that venture too close to the "harem." Nevertheless, sick or young hippos are occasionally isolated and taken. But, the fact that hippos are listed as croc prey should not be taken as meaning that healthy adult hippos are taken, and the same goes for male lions.

The idea that a croc could successfully take a polar bear because of that "animal matchup" site does not exactly resonate with me, given that they also have the lion successfully defeating the rhino and brown bear. Lions do not attack adult rhinos one on one as I'm sure you know and a one on one battle against a full sized brown bear is a tall order to say the least, and yet the site gives the lion the edge.

As for the crocs and tigers, if you honestly feel that the size of the prey is the only criteria, what is your explanation for the fact that saltwater crocs, despite the fact that they're even larger than their Nile cousins, do not attack tigers, which unlike lions are frequent and active swimmers. This would present easy opportunities for an ambush if a croc was so inclined. And yet, from the Sunderban Tiger Project Info site: http://www.sundarbanstigerproject.info/, in the Guestbook (you have to click on that, there is no direct link), one of the naturalists there states that they typically steer clear of one another although he knows of a marsh mugger killing by a tigress in Nepal. If crocs were simply concerned with prey smaller than buffalo, don't you think they would take the opportunity to prey on tigers, which are frequent swimmers in the Sunderban region where their habitats overlap? I will leave the video out of the link and simply replace the text since you don't seem to want the video to be included, but I don't think the wording of the text is unfair as we know of two documented instances of tiger predation on crocs. 71.248.25.226


Are you really serious about this, because you don't seem to be. I just looked at the Sunderbans Project website and one person (can be anyone) has posted a simple message in the Guestbook. GUESTBOOK?? Is this the new style for sourcing or am I missing it? How can you think of it as a reliable source? Now I have big suspicions about your credibility and logic. John has posted 3 of the most reliable sources in the world and you are opposing him with a simple guestbook message, and yet there is no specific information about the size of the animal. How can you not believe NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, DISCOVERY CHANNEL or related Groups full of zoologists and discredit them? All clearly state adult crocodiles can prey upon large cats including lions, rare or common it doesn't matter. If he had intended to put it on the article I would understand your anger (because of your anti-objective nature), but why now? A freakish situation doesn't mean that it can't happen in nature but it isn't a normal situation. Also if the animal is unhealthy due to the environment then it is again not a normal situation. It’s so funny; where did you come out with the adult hippo predation? Who says they do? In normal circumstances, crocodiles usually don’t. You don’t read what you read carefully. In all of the sources it says young hippos.

A crocodile takes its prey head on and often directly attacking the head. Therefore don't underestimate a buffalo. A buffalo's horns are much more dangerous as it is much longer then tiger teeth, especially in a couple of second confrontations. Clearly seen even from the video that a tiger's claws or teeth have no effect against the tough hide of the crocodile even for continuous biting and scratching and gnawing that lasts for hours. After a very short attack of maximum five seconds the crocodile would come out of it pretty with really nothing. Maybe with scratches around the mouth where the skin is softer.

John was the first person to bring out the lactic acid out “on the table”, although I also did agree with him. This makes the sentence “another contributor speculated it to be the case” rubbish. He is right, if you read what is written above you wouldn’t come across with already talked about and meaningless questions. You say “lactic acid accumulation” and “freakish situation” are two different things. It is crystal clear from the explanations done before that they are the same. In fact he explained the lactic acid theory linked with only and ONLY with abnormal conditions. Otherwise it wouldn't happen. If it didn’t happen in a freakish situation why would there be a lactic acid build-up? Here is the original explanation:

“Just remembered something. Crocodilians get tired easily and produce lactic acid very quickly and in a short time the amount of lactic acid concentration in the blood proves to be lethal. Even when tackling large prey like buffalo crocodiles rest afterwards to pay the oxygen debt. Large crocodiles like Sweetheart (a 17 foot saltwater crocodile that died after being caught) can actually die in such stress when trapped and hauled on to the beach or truck, if the struggle lasts for long. When we talk about a struggle that lasted for two hours (tiger-croc), its very dangerous for a crocodile even though it’s not large. The crocodile that the tiger wrestled with was only about nine feet long, but the time period was very long. This is even very dangerous for a hatchling. Therefore virtually the tiger didn't actually kill the crocodile. It's a big surprise that a crocodile could last two hours in such a struggle, therefore it's the only logical explanation as the neck and body armor doesn’t allow any serious damage and the skull of a nine foot long mugger can’t fit inside the jaws of a tiger. If the tiger could kill the mugger in anyway it wouldn’t last as long as two hours, with at least one hour of it at the back of the crocodile. No matter what happened the perfect conditions have to be set (very very far from the water) for the tiger to be lucky (that is only if the tiger can manage to get on the back of the crocodile without being bitten) Even if the water were in ten minutes reach the crocodile would slip into the water to pay its oxygen debt. This is even valid for eight-nine foot crocodiles; therefore I’m not talking about crocodiles between ten to twenty three feet. For young crocodiles of course the situation is different with thinner skin, smaller skull and less weight and strength. The tiger can overpower such immature crocodiles.”

Do you really read what others say? The photos aren’t a proof for lion predation. They are put there to say crocodiles only attack lions if the lions are unaware. The sources for predation are number 4, 5 and 6. Again I am giving out his original explanation:

“Crocodiles know how fast cats are; therefore don't usually attempt to catch one unless it has great camouflage or the cat is unaware. Otherwise it would waste its precious energy for nothing. For example in these photos [7] [8] the two lions are aware of the crocodile. The closer one (female) is desperate to drink water and drinks water very carefully with one eye on the crocodile. It would be silly and useless for the crocodile to attack from such a distance when the advantage of cover is lost.” BJK1903 14:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I also checked the Sunderban Project page. While it is a "Guestbook," it appears that in this case the Guestbook serves as a forum for questions for those involved with the project and the respondent, along with noting one incident with a tiger and crocodile in Nepal, does say that tigers and saltwater crocodiles steer clear of one another in the Sunderban region. This does cut against the idea that crocodiles will readily ambush big cats and only fail to do so because of the lack of opportunity (due to wary lions or whatever) since tigers do swim frequently. I am not as interested in this lion interaction with Nile crocodiles since this is a tiger page, those sources do mention tigers as potential prey although I would agree with the previous poster that many sources state that male lions have no natural enemies to fear other than man (noting that females can be outflanked by significant numbers of hyenas). So where does that leave us? It seems that everyone here has an agenda depending on which animal they "prefer." I don't know what the end result should be on this tiger/crocodile passage though.


As long as National Geographic, Discovery Channel and CSG say it, it is correct. Other websites can be out of update or may lack knowledge. Many websites say for example, bears don't have predators, but tigers do sometimes prey upon bears. You can find many examples like this throughout the net. They write it as long as that animal is a serious predator or at the top of the food chain, although there may be examples of several predators, or simply becasue of lack of knowledge. BJK1903 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Personally, I would find written primary sources more convincing than Web sites, you never know who is responsible for Web site content while the author of a book is austensibly standing behind it's content. I am not sure that Discovery Channel site is more convincing than any other site that lists lions as having no natural predators, some of which are zoo sites that are maintained by zoologists. I agree with the comment of the anon poster two spots above me, it seems that everyone has an agenda. BJK1903's edits all pertain to tiger/crocodile interaction. BJK, this is a tiger page, are you interested in educating users about tigers or maintaining the "reputation" of the crocodile on this page? To me the former is the more worthwhile goal. Calling that text vandalism does not make it so, the text about tigers and crocodiles states that they generally avoid one another and that tiger killing of crocs is not common. There is the miuch discussed photo/video as well as the anecdotal evidence from the Sunderban site. This is enough for me, especially since I have seen television programs that have shown tigers killing crocodiles. The passage should stay.


Don't even try to change the direction of the criticism. This debate started from your dense point of view and the way you write wrong information, misleading people with false information. Yes, wikipedia is for education, not for proving to be something. These were some of my first words when I started this debate. What’s so funny is you say BJK1903 tries to repute crocodiles, in fact this article tends to repute tigers with information that don’t apply to tigers. This is going on in this article for a long time now. This entire conversation started from the untrue status of the article. Many have tried to correct biology of tigers. Some other user underlined the fact that the quote in the introduction is POV that affects readers, which is true. Others have tried to change the size restrictions given in the article, into correct numbers. But all have come to a barrier of one or two dense users.

There are websites you trust and websites you don't trust. Discovery Channel and National Geographic are no doubt the biggest organizations about animals on earth. You don't have the knowledge or the authority to judge information on any of the two sites. You say you believe in books because authors stand behind their content. There you have the biggest example to this. Discovery and National Geographic give out that information under their reputed name and trademark. I want to laugh. All one-track minded ideas aside, I can’t understand how dare you oppose National Geographic or Discovery Channel. I don’t know and can’t belive why we are talking about this. This is really of the limits. It’s so weird that you proved yourself to be unreliable enough to not to be listened to in any topic, because this isn’t about tigers or crocodiles, this is completely about being self-centered and ignorant. You have already argued about it too much. Be grown ups and don’t oppose every logical information others provide. You are not helping your case with meaningless explanations, funny sources and aggressive attitude.

You may say some funny guestbook is enough for you to believe what you want to believe, because you are already one track minded. It’s obvious, after that much of explanation, that it’s impossible to change your ideas because you are dense. Although the guestbook may be enough for you, it’s not enough for the truth. Therefore it’s not counted as a source and won’t be used. Neither will be the video. It’s a cut video from a gag video website plus it happened in abnormal situations. By the way your “reliable” guestbook also states that crocodiles prey on tigers. And sign your name after you write something. John9834 14:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that all involved parties could probably stand to show a bit more maturity, and I will include myself in that mix. In response to the last post, it seems to me that the Sunderban Tiger Project is a credible source on this topic. Does it say that crocodiles prey on tigers? I must have missed that, could you tell me where? Also, the video of the tiger killing a crocodile has been presented on the Discovery Channel in the past, in fact, I am fairly sure that's where the narration comes from. I have no idea whether the site it currently appears on, for the record. My opinion remains that the passage should remain in the prior context since it does not maintain that tigers routinely or regularly kill crocodiles but rather, merely mentions that it has been known to occur on occasion. 149.79.54.95 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Just as a follow up, I found the guestbook item you referenced about crocodiles "preying on tigers." I'm sure the expert there is thrilled with your contribution to the debate. You see, he can be referenced at other portions of that site as an expert in the field rather than an anon user making up data to suit his own purposes, as you did in his Guestbook. 149.79.54.95 16:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Don't blame anybody else; I put it on the guestbook just to show you anybody can post anything in a guestbook. I don't say the project website isn't a reliable source. Guestbooks aren't. BJK1903 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


It's clear that the guestbook is a forum where members from the project respond to user comments. Are you seriously insinuating that the user "Adam" is falsely presenting himself as the "Adam" listed on other places on the Web site as naturalist working on the Tiger project? Sure any user can add anything, but it is clear that "Adam" is a worker from the Sunderban Project responding to anonymous queries. 69.251.212.48 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You get this wrong. I'm not blaming anybody. As a general rule of thumb we shouldn't source guestbooks. BJK1903 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


No one was "sourcing" the guest book. It was given as a reference for the users on the talk page who continued to maintain that: 1) the video/photograph was an isolated event and 2) crocodiles prey on tigers. It was not used as an article source. 71.248.25.226 14:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody posted anything about tiger predation on the article. Secondly the event in the video is actually isolated and not natural. You can read the information above. BJK1903 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In Africa

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is it true there were once tigers in Africa? I vaguely recall reading something to that effect when I was young.

yep, sadly humans drove those to extinction (though some of it was due to other natural causes).

Thought so. Thanks. :D

Really? Which wild tiger species or subspecies lived in Africa than? So far as I know there have never been tigers in Africa. However there is evidence from fossils that the sabre-tooth species was found in many parts of the continent until about a million years ago. But was that a real tiger? Peter Maas 11:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A qoute from [9]: "Tigers in Africa dwells largely in the domain of the latter; Carmel Schrire announces at the book's outset, on the authority of the fossil record, that there are not now nor have there ever been any "real" tigers in Africa (3). This acknowledged, Schrire's contribution to a history of animals and empire is not a trivial one; Tigers in Africa directs the reader toward the importance of the idea of the tiger in the construction of the Cape Colony's past. To this end, Shrire demonstrates how the myth of the tiger in Africa was a colonial fiction and in doing so operationalizes the tiger (in sometimes uncomfortable ways) as the governing metaphor in her discussion of the Cape Colony's history." Source: Warren, James H. "Tigers in Africa: Stalking the Past at the Cape of Good Hope (review)" Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History - Volume 4, Number 3, Winter 2003, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Peter Maas 11:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Panthera tigris was always restricted to asia, it never lived in africa!!--Altaileopard 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?

I can't understand why you keep insisting on putting wrong information in the text. It's obvious from above that it is false. 85.97.11.49 17:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's far from obvious. A few crocodile advocates decided the incident described was an anomaly. Another source was introduced, which was derided and vandalized by the croc advocates but was evidence from an actual wildlife expert. The wording at issue makes it clear that such incidents are not common. 149.79.54.95 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the websites you proposed say anything about the sizes of crocodiles taken by tigers. I (probably others too) have no problems if the adjective small is added to the sentence. We had talked about the video in the past. The tiger could kill that nine-foot crocodile (it doesn't matter if it died from lactic acid or anything else) in the video in two hours on top of it. This doesn't show that tigers can prey upon crocodiles instead are not capable of killing them (adults) because in normal circumstances, meaning in a normal environment it is impossible for the tiger to kill a crocodile of that size as the crocodile would probably get into the water max in 10 minutes (won't last for hours), mostly in a matter of seconds. Therefore if a tiger gets close to an adult crocodile (nine foot and larger are adults) it is putting its life into danger. It must either back off or it will get killed. And we all know that crocodiles are capable of getting much larger than nine feet. Nobody here are advocates of crocodiles nor don't like to know crocodiles getting killed by tigers. You are acting a bit stubborn. If you think about it one second you can sort out the logic. Please try. What I’m proposing isn’t pov. According to wikipedia putting pov in the article is wrong but the discussion page is created just for that purpose. Here we should agree on something and both sides should contribute to it, because the sources are inadequate. BJK1903 16:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact that the links don't give any specific indication of sizes doesn't mean that you can automatically presume the "small" limitation. Moreover, there was no reason to eliminate all of those links. Do you feel that we should assume nile crocodiles can only kill "small" lions because the links do not specifiy the size of the lions on the Corwin page in the crocodile entry? The tiger did in fact kill the crocodile in the video (see newspaper account from the person taking the video) and the claim about tigers not being able to do so in normal circumstances is speculation on your part. The stubbornness is coming from your end, refusing to acknowledge that tigers can and do kill crocodiles on occasion and then attempting to speculate on conditions that you don't know anything about in order to explain it away when it is proven. Sorry, but there is no foundation for the "small" limitation on the crocodiles in the entry. 70.22.102.128 17:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The bit about the crocodiles stays simply because tigers (even females) have been known to attack and kill crocs. User 70.22.102.128, good retort to this inept crocodile fancier - who is on the verge of being totally banned from editing anything on Wikipedia if any of the factual stuff in the Tiger article is changed into their opinions and fantasies. TheGoodSon 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Solution

I see there has been a very long debate going on here. I think both sides should come together and try to find a solution to this. There is no reason to hassle i think. According to the titles created by many people above, in my last edit I underlined three points of controversy; weight, bears, crocodiles. I personally requested a change in the weight section but nobody replied my message. 85.97.15.135 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The bear and crocodile sections have been resolved apart from your edits. After many requests for additional source material, the crocodile comments have been substantiated with sources beyond the single video. The passage makes it clear that interaction between tigers and crocs is rare. The bear language reached a compromise a long time ago and should be left as it was prior to your edit. 149.79.54.95 15:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The weights remain. Tigers don't range up to 485 lbs, that is idiotic. Tigers can be as big as 800 lbs, as has been recorded in the wild. More destruction of this article will call for severe action. TheGoodSon 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say tigers don't range up to 485lbs. Of course there are larger tigers in the world. But it's and not average. I'm adding the detail for the larger specimens. BJK1903 13:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a war going on here. You don't have to swear all the time with that attitude. Try to negotiate with manners here. BJK1903 13:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cease editing the crocodile and brown bear language, the former being substantiated now with additional sources (whereas the source given for crocodile predation on tigers merely says tigers have to be wary of crocodiles, and as TheGoodSon mentions that passage may be unnecessary anyway). The bear section has been agreed upon for some time now. 149.79.54.95 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that nobody agreed upon anything. It has just left out because of you persistent destructive attitude. BJK1903 14:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you wish to agree is irrelevent because our scientific sources simply do not agree with your assertions or fantasies. I have been down the road of "playing nice" and it never seemed to work. You (BJK) and John9834 might be the exact same person, along with the anon user who keeps reverting everything. Know one thing - I will NOT agree to a single thing or any of your reverts, so this is futile. You are not going to get far because I will keep on reverting your vandalism and I have already talked to an admin regarding your vandalism. The article is clear - tigers can and do kill crocs, albeit this is rare. It is also clear regarding the bears - tigers can and do kill bears (mostly smaller bears), but as the source given indicates tigers can and have killed larger bears. So I don't understand your fussiness. You're acting like a little flustered school girl. Regarding the weights, the opening statements about the physical traits of the tiger are just that an opening and an introduction - it does not state that tigers weigh 700 lbs on average, it gives a range of 440-700 lbs, which is realistic. It gets more into detail as each different subspecies is discussed later on in the article - none of the tiger subspecies weigh much over 500 lbs on average (the largest being the Amur tiger). Your vandalism will not get you anywhere, it will get you blocked, I promise. TheGoodSon 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

85.102.185.87 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)== Explanation==

One last time, here's the explanation you seem to be looking for. The passage about hybrids and the tiger weights has been addressed by Thegoodson and I will defer to him if he wishes to add to it, but to myself and some other anon users his explanations above and source material seem reasonable.

Turning to the diet/prey paragraph, there is no need for "small" in the first sentence referring to bears as that interaction is discussed and sourced in further detail later in teh paragraph.

The sentence about crocodiles states that crocodiles are killed on occasion, thereby connoting that it is relatively rare. Moreover, the next sentence clearly states that they typically avoid one another and that predation is rare. This material is sourced from multiple locations. Moreover, none of the sources say anything about "size of the animals" determining the interaction between them. In other words, the sources provide no such limitation. The alleged source given for tigers fearing predation from crocodiles is extremely ambiguous and does not state that they serve as a "prey" item, only that they must be wary of crocodiles. As another user noted, this is probably not relevant to the tiger biology and diet page anyway. Refer to the crocodile page where there is no information about crocodiles serving as prey for tigers, even though the source material is much more substantial and specific in that regard. Finally, the sentence about tigers occasionally killing larger brown bears is properly sourced and should remain. Hopefully this clears things up for you. 149.79.54.95 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User 149.79.54.95, keep up the good work and be vigilant in reverting all their ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertions and statements. TheGoodSon 17:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Goodson, do you think maybe we should say "wild" instead of world" when referring to the tiger's size? I agree with you two on the other edits. Current page seems neutral and informative. 69.251.212.48 02:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I see you have done this, another time in the past. I'm talking about myself; I have nothing to do with the other users. As I read from this page, BJK and John also are not the same (at least they say so). It's funny you bring up the same thing all over again. If they reply you with a similar kind of accusation (meaning the anon users and Goodson to be the same person), there will be a bigger argument going on and it will be unstoppable. This message is to them not you. So please don't bring up this topic again. I see you describe yourself as being nice, but I don't see anything close to it. People approach you with maturity and logic, asking for your opinions, but you reply them swearing like "bull..." and "acting like a little flustered school girl" which is also gender discrimination. You see yourself as the guardian of wikipedia's policies but you do not seem to act like one.

1) The wording of the article isn't neutral unlike you declare it to be. In GENERAL tigers don't weigh up to 700lbs, but in the range of 400-440 lbs. This is the average taken from all subspecies not Bengal or Siberian only. I have done it in a civilized way above, under a separate heading and nobody replied to it. You don't seem to understand from civilized discussion, so I see why people had to go into a war with you: to draw your attention. It is mathematics not POV. I gave numbers taken from wikipedia and took an average. Plus I added an extra of 45lbs just for you to accept it. The paragraph clearly says all subspecies have different characteristics and they are explained in the subspecies section. We can't limit it to Siberians or Bengal as well as small subspecies like the Sumatran. In fact even Siberians weigh 495lbs on average. Unlike these facts the article says in general male tigers weigh between 440-700lbs. The heaviest Bengal tiger in the wild was only 568lbs [10], which totally disproves the weights given in the physical description section.

2) I think the word “species” should be added to the sentence “Tigers are the largest and heaviest cats in the world”. This way ligers would be out of question.

3) The sentence “Statistically though, the Siberian tiger has been the more successful in battles between the two animals because bears taken by tigers are OFTEN smaller sized bears” uses the word OFTEN, not always. Therefore we can understand from this sentence that sometimes tigers kill larger bears. The addition of the second sentence is repetition just like the one I changed in the Nile crocodile article; saying lions are prey 2 times in a row. By the way the source you provide doesn’t say anything particularly about large bears. It says “According to Baykov, tigers can handle bears, black or brown, of almost their own weight…” meaning tiger can kill brown bears almost their (tiger’s) own weight. In the second paragraph it says adults but not large brown bears. All adults don’t have to be large, especially females which can be as small as 300lbs.

4) Crocodiles. This seems to be the longest dispute going on in the article. There’s evidence for both groups of animals (big cats, crocodilians) preying upon each other. I see none of the websites sourced in this article and the ones I looked at explains these interactions in detail, especially sizes of the two animals in question. It seems impossible for a three-foot crocodile to kill a big cat or a small cat to kill a large crocodile. Therefore the explanation should be hidden in this detail, which is the most logical explanation. I hope everybody accepts this. It is more likely that the bigger of the two has the edge. You seem to oppose to the idea that the word small should be added for crocodiles. I understand this objection because none of the websites say so. In the discovery channels’ website [11] there is no detail about the sizes of the Nile crocodiles that prey upon lions. It just says “It is not uncommon for these predators to kill and devour large and surprising prey, such as young hippopotamuses, buffalo, giraffes, and even lions and porcupines.” Then if we accept that tigers kill any crocodile of any size than we should also accept that any Nile crocodile even a hatchling can kill any lion. This is of course unacceptable. We know it is impossible. The size limitations are not written, not because there are no limitations but it was forgotten. On the other hand we know that saltwater crocodiles are more aggressive and larger than their African cousins. Also they show no fear of anything even humans (unlike Nile crocodiles) who hunt them for their skins. Saltwater crocodiles have been seen preying upon sharks, like this bull shark. [12] If a large Nile can take a lion, it is possible for a saltwater crocodile to take kill a tiger. I’m not suggesting putting this on the article. All I’m trying to do is create a logical explanation for possibilities. One user opposed to changes (crocodiles being potentially dangerous for tigers) done in the article saying that the website [13] only says that tiger must be wary of crocodiles. Why do you think tigers should be careful when they are around crocodiles, because crocodiles mock them? Of course not. Because crocodiles present danger to tigers. What else can it be? It has been written in the Bangalinet website just after the sentence that says tigers are at the top of the food chain to add the exception of crocodiles, because it's against the idea of tigers being THE top predators. Instead they are A top predator. I found an article about crocodiles and their predators in the Discovery Channel Website, by Adam Britton. He adds the detail that big cats can kill crocodilians smaller than seven feet, but stand no chance against an adult crocodilian that is around fourteen feet long and weighing half a ton. [14] There are crocodiles almost twice that length and trice that size (weight) so I think I’m making a point here. A insist the word small should be definitely added to the article.

I hope this effort and research will have a positive effect on this discussion. We should talk and discuss like mature and civilized people, without fighting and swearing and try to look at things with an objective point of view; we shouldn’t be stiff with our ideas, because one person can’t know everything, others can know different information on various topics. Both sides should treat each other with respect. I’m not on either side so please don’t address me like that. 85.102.185.87 11:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Crocodile interaction with tigers are related with the topic, just like bear-tiger interactions because the title is the ecology of the animal not diet. Also one of the sources in the article [15] states that on average males are 395-440 lbs while females are 308lbs. 85.102.185.87 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I guess you are addressing Goodson but there are many users of us who are supporting the article the way it was worded. Britton was the crocodile advocate on Discovery channel's "Animal Face Off" program so I am sure he is going to take the side of his animal. Dave Salmoni is similar expert and he says big cats are able to handle crocodiles of any size. In any case, Britton's Q&A reminds me of the Sundarban Q&A that seemed so unacceptable to other users here, see above. Moreover, he is talking about lions and leopards which do not have any bearing on tigers, which are the subject of the piece at issue here. "Small" addition is definitely not appropriate based on the many sources that do not place limitations on the size of the crocodiles taken by tigers. And this business about crocodiles presenting "danger" to tigers may be true, but since tigers are frequent swimmers (not like lions) and always in the water, don't you think there would be some evidence of crocodiles taking tigers more than an article saying tigers need to beware? Sundarbans are prime area for interaction and yet expert there says he has never heard of estuarine croc taking a tiger. That is pretty strong evidence to me. Saltwater crocs preying on bull sharks has no effect on anything here. 70.22.102.128 11:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all you automatically revert everything without even reading the explanations. First read it, respond to it. Then revert if you don't agree. Even when you read it you don't read carefully. I'm not addressing anyone; I said "they-> John and BJK" might address him/her when they read the speculations about themselves. I warned both sides to avoid accusation of irrelevant topics. Britton isn't only known as the advocate of crocodiles in Animal Face-off. He may have done it after years of work, because they invited him to. He is a very well known herpetologist, published many books and is an important a member of the Crocodile Specialist Group (they published much over 10.000 pages of work), and you have no right to minimize his knowledge or discredit his objectivity, saying "his animal". Only you may be involved in such fantasies, not him. There is no evidence that Dave Salmoni, who is addressed as a feline lover, has said big cats of all sizes can deal with crocodiles of all sizes. You have to source this. There may be evidence of crocodiles preying upon tigers but we may have not come across one. You have to make detailed observations and stay there (India) for years just for that certain topic to come to such conclusions. Every conclusion is done after years of work on a specific topic. Locals address crocs taking tigers but neither you nor I would find this reliable. There are many "unknowns" in our world. People discover new species, even big vertebrates, everyday from already known places. An unknown isn't any kind of evidence. Therefore if an expert hasn't heard of an estuarine crocodile kill a tiger, it isn't evidence that crocodiles don't prey upon tigers. It's a new fact that we know lions are preyed upon by crocodiles. If we were discussing this ten years ago then you would say the same for the lions. 85.102.185.87 12:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also tigers are very intelligent animals, they would avoid waters infested with crocodiles. So it is hard to document. 85.102.185.87 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


This is false. Tigers do not avoid waters infested with crocodiles. The entire Sundarban region is "infested" with estuarine (saltwater) crocodiles, and yet tigers are seen swimming there all the time.

The logic of the following statement "if an expert hasn't heard of an estuarine crocodile killing a tiger isn't evidence that crocodiles don't prey on tigers" is stunningly off base. An expert hasn't heard of house cats preying on grizzly bears, so I guess that doesn't mean that house cats don't prey on grizzly bears. Yes, that's an absurdity, but the logic is exactly the same. There are countless scientists and zoologists studying tigers in the wild, you would think some of them would indicate that tigers sometimes serve as crocodile prey if that were in fact the case. However, you somehow reach the conclusion that even if they have not heard of it, it still happens! Stunning.

On the other hand, experts have heard of tigers killing or preying on crocodiles. In addition to the sources listed, there have been television programs that make the same claim. I remember reading as much in National Geographic a few years ago.

The other poster above mentioned Adam Britton as the Discovery Channel expert on crocodiles. Yes he has credentials for that role, but if you actually watched the Face Off show you would have seen him state that it was his opinion that lions would not have success against larger crocodile specimens. However, he made it clear that it was simply his opinion and not based on observation on actual interactions. He admitted as much. The lion expert said the same thing on the other side. It has been stated on the Jeff Corwin page that lions can sometimes serve as prey for crocodiles. I have seen a Nova program that made the same statement. It also made the statement that crocodiles sometimes serve as prey for lions so it seems that there is a mutual predatory relationship there. It also made the claim that crocodiles tended to avoid adult male liond and lions tended to avoid large crocs. This is no surprise. But no such evidence exists on the tiger so it is not particularly relevant and provides no foundation for any sort of interaction between tigers and estuarine or mugger crocs.

I can only speak for myself, but I have read plenty of primary source material about both tigers and crocodiles. You seem to think that everyone is editing this page willy-nilly with no knowledge on the subject. This is not the case. My impression is that you had a pre-conceived notion of how you believed tigers and crocodiles interact and wanted to conform this page to your belief, or else you had a preference for how you wanted to believe they interact and tried to conform this page to that impression. Unfortunately it is not entirely accurate. There is no evidence that a tiger is limited to "small" crocodiles for example, but you have made logical leaps and tried to bend other irrelevant topics to indicate backing for your position. I am sorry but I do not agree with your reversions and do not feel that you are correct in claiming "vandalism" when those of us who believe in the neutral, sourced version choose to eliminate your edits. 149.79.54.95 13:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Your "mission" is clear. You are editing the tiger article and related articles in a way to exaggerate the capabilities and physical traits of tigers. It's not only crocodiles. Why are you deleting all other statements? Yes tigers don't weigh up to 700lbs in general. You just have to accept that. They are the largest species not any cat. Ligers are larger. Yes bears sometimes kill tigers and in fact that source you provide says tigers kill bear as much as their own weight, not more. A couple of days ago I erased the part that said "amur tigers eat crocodiles" and "an amur tiger killed a large brown bear with two swipes of its paw". Are you kidding me? There are no crocodiles where amur tigers live. You have to source the "tiger killing bear with its paws". Today I looked it up. The bear sentence was there again. Guess what who changed it. Our friend 149.79.54.95 did. He/she couldn't put the crocodile statement because it is out of question. Crocodiles in snow. Interesting. The info about crocs killing lions were removed everyday from both crocodile and Nile crocodile pages. Your aim is clear from the nature of your edits. Rather than blaming an anon user who suggests an objective solution, try to see your faults.

I think the version he/she suggests is the most objective one. I wasn't happy with his version either. Because it still stated that tigers do kill crocodiles, not small ones. Everything is sourced and it's clear from his language that he is hundred percent objective. A house cat killing a grizzly isn't the same with a crocodile killing a tiger. But a relationship between a lion a crocodile should be much similar to a salwater croc and tiger. The sizes and strength of the animals are very similar. So it's not impossible. You say those interactions don't and can't happen and blame him as if he claims they happen. Can't you read? He says its ambiguous. You can't use it as evidence. It may happen. I guess he/she put it there because user 70... claimed its solid evidence. No it's not. If a croc can kill a lion, it can probably kill a tiger. No way near the cat-bear example. Up until a couple of years ago we didn't know that crocodiles could prey upon lions. Now we do. Possibly we can hear about a similar interaction with salties and bengals. The two cases are similar. But we will never hear about a house cat killing a bear. Of course there are crocodiles in the Sunderbans where the tigers live, not especially in places where the a tiger decides to swim. John has explained this before. They are clever animals and they can scan the water before going in. They don't have to swim side to side with crocs.

There is no proof of crocs avoiding large lions. You always talk without sourcing your ideas. Last week I watched a documentary about lions, a pair was crossing a river. The narrator said that it is very dangerous for the lions because a crocodile could easily kill them both. I didn't watch animal face-off episodes but the website posted above has nothing to with them. Everthing is sourced. You are the ones who want to change the article to the way you want it to be. BJK1903 15:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Crocs avoiding large lions is not the issue on the tiger page. I thought I made it clear that I was referring to a television program I have seen on the Discovery Channel. Yes, that is not a valid source for this article, but that is beside the point for the purpose of the Talk page.

Once again, there is no evidence of crocodiles preying on tigers. You can speculate based on lions and crocodiles but it is not relevant to tigers and crocodiles. Tigers regularly chase prey into the water, watch just about any program about the Bengal tiger and you'll see this. And yet you would have us believe that they somehow scan the water to make sure there are no crocodiles around before chasing the prey animal. There just isn't support for your claim that they serve as crocodile prey other than "perhaps we will hear about it one day." That's well and good, but let's wait until that day arrives before including it on this page.

One last point: you continue to claim that "everything is sourced" and yet the "size determines the outcome" phrase is not sourced at all. The links provided do not make such a claim. As a result, there is no "sourcing" of that phrase, despite your protests to the contrary. 149.79.54.95 15:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of talking about many different things, however I must insist that ligers be at least mentioned. Yes, tigers are the largest cat species in the wild, but they are not the largest cat. This is well documented, and deserves mention to help the reader understand the difference because it is relevant to tigers, especially when you claim they are the largest. Simply leaving it at that can be misleading to the reader. In any case, the words "most powerful" are subjective, and should be left out in an encyclopedia. Size can be measured, power can't. Inforazer 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

The above dispute has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal. I think it's gone on long enough without a resolution. Thanks in advance for cooperating.--Caliga10 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I'll be sad if they resolve it. This is the most fascinatingly bizarre dispute I have yet to see on wikipedia.

Agreed in that it's definitely been amusing. But I'm getting tired of seeing Tiger and its talk page at the top of my watchlist at all times. :)--Caliga10 16:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to mediation at all, but I am slightly confused as to why you'd complain about seeing the page at the top of the watch list without trying to contribute to the debate yourself to help force a resolution (or else just take the page off the watch list if you don't care). Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to be flip or complaining about mediation. I'm just trying to encourage additional participation from those interested in the subject at hand. 149.79.54.95 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Two reasons. 1. I'm not informed enough about this particular issue to feel qualified to weign in, and 2. even if I felt that I was, I really don't want to see this problem get worse, which is quite likely if more people join the debate unless it is moderated.--Caliga10 16:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, if you know nothing about tigers, why is it on your watchlist?

64.236.245.243 17:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

When did I say I know nothing about tigers? I said I'm not informed enough about this particular issue, meaning the tigers vs. crocodiles debate.--Caliga10 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not just about crocodiles vs tigers Inforazer 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It seemed to me like this was the immediate argument, but yes I see that there have been other disputed items, too. The subject of the debate is not what's relevant here and not what prompted the mediation request; what prompted the request was the continual edits/reverts and vitriol on the talk page.--Caliga10 17:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was thinking that more people might help build a consensus at some point but maybe I have it wrong. 149.79.54.95 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely correct. However, as I stated I don't think I'm informed enough to make a worthwhile contribution to this particular issue. Effective mediation will hopefully permit a consensus to be built. Also, may I suggest that you create a Wikipedia user account? It will be alot easier for mediators to work with you if you have a personal account rather than posting anonymously.--Caliga10 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Position

I believe that the article would be accurate if it simply stated that tigers are also known to kill and prey upon crocodiles. This assertion is supported by the sources provided. I guess my point is that I believe I and others who agree with my position have already compromised significantly to appease the crocodile advocates in stating that "tigers kill crocodiles on occasion," that predation is rare, and that the predators typically avoid one another. While these limitations and qualifications are in fact accurate and paint a more clear picture for the reader, they are the sort of detail that may lead the entire article itself to become longer than recommended and even unwieldy if carried through the entire piece.

Changing gears slightly, the wording I take issue with is as follows:

1. The qualification that tigers can only kill crocodiles on land

I have seen video of a tiger killing a crocodile in the water on a Discovery Channel program. I understand that this does not pass for a source here, but it forms the basis for my belief that this is possible, whereas the sources provided do not qualify tiger predation as occurring solely on land. Thus, I feel this limitation is unwarranted.

2. The assertion that "size is the determining factor" in these confrontations

Again, none of the sources state that tigers are only capable of killing small crocodiles. It would obviously be easier for a tiger to kill a small crocodile than a large one, but that goes without saying and is so clear that asserting this on the page would be absurd.

3. The assertion that tigers are in danger from crocodiles when entering the water.

The tiger's love of the water is well-documented, including on this page. However, no source material makes the claim that crocodiles even occasionally prey on tigers, although there is clearly the opportunity in their mutual habitat. The closest any source comes is the one that states that tigers must be wary of crocodiles when entering the water. However, it does not go as far as to list tigers as typical or occasional crocodile prey and my interpretation is that the site is theorizing that tigers could potentially face attacks from crocodiles. This may be the case, however, I do not think it is fair to include this information unless sources actually state that tigers serve as crocodile prey, crocodiles are known to kill tigers, crocodiles sometimes kill tigers, or something along those lines. There is a tangential discussion about lions being hunted by Nile crocodiles that does not have any bearing on the behavior of tigers and saltwater crocodiles in their habitats.

Another point is that the main or saltwater crocodile pages do not state that crocodiles face predation from tigers, even though that is incontrovertible. Thus, even if tigers did face crocodile predation (a point that I do not concede without evidence to the contrary), I agree with the way the issue is treated on the crocodile pages and do not think it would be appropriate to list that here.

I also do not understand the repeated deletion of the tiger/crocodile video as a source material. It is a fascinating depiction of the interaction between the two predators and is extremely useful as a source, having first appeared on the Discovery Channel. I realize that some have argued that the event is an aberration, but feel that the addition of other sources to the mix shows that this is not an isolated event and maintain that the wording used helps provide context and does justice to tiger/croc interaction.

Finally, regarding the liger, I will admit that I have a bias against the recently widespread fascination with these captive hybrids (in large part due to "Napoleon Dynamite") because tiger conservation efforts require full attention to tiger/tiger breeding. In my view, the effort to create more ligers could be better used to breed more captive tigers with the goal of replenishing natural populations. I understand that they are larger and perhaps that should be noted somewhere on the tiger page. I guess I would at least prefer to see the liger information lower on the page or in the footnote next to "tigers are the largest and most powerful cat in the wild" rather than at the top of the page, simply because I would rather not feed the current pop culture liger craze. I fear that I haven't expressed that opinion particularly well, if someone would like clarification please let me know. 149.79.54.95 21:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


First of all I'm happy to see that everything has cooled off here, because only then we can find a solution to this problem. My intention wasn't to fire things up. I had seen and read this debate for a month now and I wanted to find a solution to it, ending the dispute by making both sides happy. That was why I brought up the lion-crocodile interaction. It wasn't any effort to put tiger predation on the article. It was explained just for you to accept that it is possible. If you look at it carefully I had changed the word predation and put danger instead, referring the website because until for now, we read no source saying crocodiles prey upon tigers. Nile crocodiles preying upon lions is no evidence for tiger predation but it shows that it is possible, since they are similar animals. It wasn't put directly in the article, but was explained in the talk page because some users didn't accept the website as a source. It was done just to convince some users, because they were reverting it back, although the word predation wasn't used.

I have to object to the fact that you are against stating the sizes of the animals involved, because of the same reason I gave before. In the Discovery/Animal Channel website it says that it isn't uncommon for crocodiles to prey upon lions. It doesn't give any detail about the sizes of the crocodiles which can kill lions. However we know that it is impossible for a two foot crocodile to kill a lion. This doesn't mean we should put it this way, excluding the detail for large crocodiles, in the Nile crocodile page. It is similar here in the tiger article. It doesn't mean that tigers can kill any crocodile of any size, which in some cases with 23 foot, 3000-3300lbs crocodiles, it makes any big cat look like a house cat next to it. There is evidence from experts that size plays an important role in these interactions. In addition to the source I stated in the previous titles I found another page. [16] It is again by Adam Britton. His knowledge in this topic is far more greater than ours. This is his profession for at least fifteen years and he is an expert in this field. It is very rude to minimize his credibility, which is done before. So this is clear evidence that size plays a very important role. We should definitely add it to the text. He also underlines the fact that Nile crocodile-lion interactions are the closest. I still don't insist we should use it the article, it would be better not to because it isn't the same thing. It only makes things imaginable for people who are against the idea. 85.102.185.87 23:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I also don't understand why you revert parts about tiger weight. They are sourced and mathematically proved. 85.102.185.87 23:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You also for no reason revert parts marked with {{Fact}}. Ex: blue tiger, 860lbs bengal tiger etc. 85.102.185.87 23:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely do not believe that your intent was actually to make both sides happy, I believe it was to continue the pro-crocodile agenda with minor changes. I agree with the above comment that we definitely should not include that "size is the determining factor" on this page because there is no evidence of this on the sites that note tiger predation of crocodiles. I do not understand the logic of saying that because a "two foot" crocodile can't kill a lion, it follows that we can assume tigers can only kill small crocodiles. A "two foot" croc is obviously not what anyone is referring to when they speak of an adult Nile, estuarine or mugger crocodile. Comparing a two foot croc with these subjects is like comparing a cheetah to a tiger. The reasoning that a full grown adult croc would be needed to kill a lion in no way indicates that an adult tiger could not kill a large crocodile. The logic you are using is highly flawed.

I also don't understand what is supposed to be proven by that linked site that it would not pass as credible under anyone's criteria. The authorship is not clearly verifiable and it is not an actual content-maintained site so much as an e-mail list. It is suspiciously similar to the Sundarban guestbook that was rejected as a source above despite the assertion of content provided by a field expert. And it is clear that the author is talking about a hypothetical face-off and not predation. Saying that a larger crocodile would have a better chance against a tiger than a smaller one in a hypothetical fight is not close to saying that a tiger is not capable of killing a large crocodile.

I do not understand the statement that nile crocodile-lion interaction makes this "imaginable" to people who want to believe it. User stated one huge difference between tigers and lions is comfort in and around the water. Tigers love to swim and are comfortable in water and lions are naturally more cautious around it and try to avoid swimming when possible. This is one difference that changes the whole spectrum. And it seems like you believe that crocodiles are above lions on the food chain anyway. This is not the case, lions also are known to kill crocodiles. But that is a digression once again.

70.22.102.128 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


User 85.102.185.87, I have tried to be nice several times, but it has never worked. I refuse to sit back and watch others ruin a good article. John and BJK have done nothing but try to somehow prove that "tigers are no match for crocs", which is just absurd. I have quoted Sunquist (a renowned biologist, who specializes with tigers) on this issue and yet they still believe that they know more. Sunquist (among other scientists) have stated that tigers (both sexes) can and have preyed upon crocs. Crocs, especially large specimens are sitting ducks to tigers or lions outside of the water. Think lactic acid, cold-blooded reptile, poor stamina, and bad maneuverability. I think the article is quite accurate in regards to the crocs - tigers have been known to prey on crocs, though predation is rare. Regarding the size of tigers - they can range anywhere from 440-700 lbs and can even go up to 800 lbs +, as has been recorded in the wild. I don't see anything misleading or inaccurate about the statement (Bengal, Siberian and Indochinese tigers make up over 95% of wild tigers, they are the three largest subspecies). It goes into further detail about weight ranges and average weights as each of the subspecies is discussed individually.

Someone keeps mentioning ligers as if they were a naturally occuring species. Tigers are the largest cat SPECIES in both the wild and captivity, ligers are a product of two distinct species. They are hybrids. Nobody knows exactly why ligers grow to the sizes they do, there are several circulating theories, but no real answer. Ligers are full of deformities, and are even believed to have some sort of growth disorder. The article clearly states that tigers are the largest cat species in the world, this is quite accurate. TheGoodSon 21:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lions in Africa are not the point here. Can everyone please keep to the tiger? It seems like a debate between the tiger experts and those in favor of the crocodile. I think on the tiger page the tiger advocates should prevail when the data is documented. I agree with the explanation that there is no need for the part of the article that says tigers need to be wary of crocodiles because the crocodile page does not state that crocodiles are prey for tigers. I agree with the Goodson that ligers are not naturally occuring big cats and therefore tigers are the largest of the big cat species. 69.251.212.48 03:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Goodson now I really question your intelligence or there has to be another explanation to this. Either you have concentration problems or you are trying to play word games with us. Anon user suggests to add the word species to sentence "Tigers are the largest and heaviest cats in the world" and you say it already "clearly states" that tigers are the largest SPECIES. No it doesn't, it's missing. This is objection is a proof why people shouldn't listen to you on any subject, including this entire debate, because you are unstable with your explanations and object to any obvious thing. Your credibility isn't anywhere in the acceptable range.

Although it's late, I realized we have been giving up our precious time for nothing. That much effort helps nothing with one-track minded people like you. So I will be short and clear. I'm summarizing what's above.

1) Weights given as general weight are incorrect. Tigers weigh between 180-200kg (395-440lbs), tigresses weigh about 140kg (308lbs) in general. [17] It's the same source you give out for some other details in this article. It's not something "crocodile advocates" found on the internet.

2) Other certain weights such as weights given for subspecies are incorrect as well. The largest bengal tiger in the wild was only 258.2kg (568lbs), nowhere near what this page suggests (390kg or 858lbs). [18]

3) You don't have the right to delete places marked with {{Fact}}. If you want them to stay source them. This is also the reason of the problem in #2.

4) The source you provide [19] doesn't give any detail about large bears, informs only about bears up to the tiger's size/weight. Nothing about large bears. It says adults however. There are small adult bears especially females.

5) The source [20] makes it clear that although tigers are apex predators they aren't safe all the time. They have to be careful of crocodiles, because crocodiles present danger to them. There isn't any other explanation why tigers should be wary of crocodiles. The articles by Adam Britton [21][22] also make it clear that size determines the outcome of these interactions, saying a lion or a tiger doesn't have a chance fighting a 14 foot crocodile (average saltwater croc size is 15-17 feet). One of them may be in e-mail form but the other one backs it off with a clearly verifiable authorship.

6) Please don't make funny remarks like comparing crocodiles to sitting ducks (I just laughed at that). John9834 18:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


That site says "while in water they [tigers] sometimes have to contend with crocodiles." This is the sole bit of evidence that you present to somehow elevate crocodiles onto this "even plain" with tigers where they supposedly prey on one another depending on circumstances even though there are multiple sources, including that one, that specifically say tigers kill and prey on crocodiles and depict tigers preying on crocodiles. That phrase doesn't even go as far as to say that crocodiles kill or prey on tigers. It certainly hints that tigers face potential attack from crocodiles, but that's as far as it goes. And I do continue to wait for someone to explain why this page should make reference to tigers "having to contend with crocodiles" when we do not state that crocodiles serve as tiger prey (something proven much more emphatically in the source materials) on the crocodile pages. The Britton "sources" (that e-mail list remains highly questionable for reasons stated) have already been discussed, it's clear that he's giving his opinion rather than actually reporting on what has been seen or reported in the wild (as he admits on the Discovery Channel "Animal Face-Off" program. He's certainly an expert in the field of crocodiles but his view that a large croc would prevail against a big cat is still an opinion as opposed to his reporting of what he had seen or been told had occurred in the wild.


Tigers do not range 395-440 lbs, that would be smaller than lions, which is just ridiculous because tigers can be over 25% larger than lions. John, if you do not like my "funny" remarks, don't bother coming here (you disappeared for while, now you are back with the same nonsense and crocodile fantasies). Your "crocodile dreams" are shattered, tigers are an overmatch for crocs. Leopards are also known to attack and kill crocs (NILE CROCS), haha! Here are two separate incidents for you to eat:

1. "The leopard drags the crocodile up onto the shore where they wrestle in the dry dirt. The crocodile thrashes about, snaps its jaws and claws at the leopard’s belly. The croc is bigger than the leopard. Most probably also more powerful… but not nearly as agile as the cat is. Throughout the struggle the leopard maintains its grip on the side of the croc’s throat. Agility allows the leopard to exploit an opportunity to flip the croc on its back… and in this position the croc is just about helpless. Its tail, a lethal weapon, can not be swiped at the cat. Nor can it help propel the croc forward or help anchor it.
The leopard then heaved the crocodile into the bushes and beyond that. Hal did not witness the end of the affair but says that the croc appeared lifeless as it was dragged off." http://www.5050.co.za/inserts.asp?ID=5394

Now, best of all here are some pictures from a TOTALLY different incident in which another croc falls victim to another leopard (this time a FEMALE LEOPARD).

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7144/v4082201be4.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7056/v4082202oj5.jpg
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6361/v4082203uu9.jpg

It's obvious that crocs (just as I said) are nothing but sitting ducks to big cats on land, let's not even get into the largest and most powerful felines, tigers. I don't know if you are blind, but if you can't read have someone try to read to you the opening in the tiger article, where you will find that it states tigers are the largest living cat SPECIES. Where is it missing? Regarding the size, let's see what BBC says... http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/19.shtml! Regarding your dubious "largest tiger was a 568 lb": Wrong! That tiger was not the largest tiger recorded, it was the largest tiger recorded by MODERN SCIENTISTS. Guess what, that tiger was over shadowed by larger males more recently, including the well known famous "Tigers of the Emerald Forest", Hairy foot and Madla. The largest tigers recorded were both well beyond 800 lbs, one a Bengal and another a Siberian. Here:

"The largest member of the cat family (Felidae) is the protected long-furred Siberian Tiger. It is also called Amur or Manchurian tiger. Males average 3.15m 10ft 4in length from the nose to the tip of the extended tail, stands 99-107cm 39-42in at the shoulder. It weighs about 265kg 585lb. In 1950 a male weighing 384kg 846�lb was shot in the Sikhote Alin Mountains, Maritime Territory, Russia. This weight was exceeded by an Indian tiger (Panthera t. tigris) shot in northern Uttar Pradesh in November 1967 which measured 3.22 m 10 ft 7 in between pegs (3.37 m 11ft over the curves) and weighed 389 kg 857 lb. It is now on display at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA." http://www.4to40.com/recordbook/index.asp?counter=4&category=mammals

You should really be more critical of your "sources", John. That "Animal Planet" source you gave regarding the weights has some faults, including a statement about a "930 lb captive lion", which is absolutely incorrect. That was a CAPTIVE SIBERIAN TIGER, named Jaipur. Jaipur eventually got to 1025 lbs and than went back down. The largest captive lion was an 827 lb lion from the UK named Simba. Get your sources right, it's obvious that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. You are just helplessely trying to feed off crap that you don't even know is correct or not. Here is the bit about Jaipur:

"The largest tiger ever held in captivity, and the heaviest 'big cat' on record, is a nine-year-old male Siberian named 'Jaipur', owned by animal trainer Joan Byron-Marasek of Clarksburg, New Jersey, USA. This tiger measured 3.32 m 10 ft 11in in total length and weiged 423 kg 932 lb in October 1986." http://www.4to40.com/recordbook/index.asp?category=&counter=463 TheGoodSon 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Goodson, if you had given little effort to understand and read other edits, we wouldn’t have quarreled about many useless things. The word species isn’t missing in the intro, it is missing in the physical traits section. And all this time you were yelling back at us for nothing. I’m not blind, you are. If you compare edits in history you would see where people were editing, but you were busy reverting everything in your path. And nobody is saying anything about putting ligers on that page. It was offered to add the word species so that it would automatically make liger speculations trash. Then nobody could object saying ligers are bigger. Ligers aren’t species. Everybody agrees on that. For some reason it is brought up again in the discussion as if people were wanting too see info on ligers on that page. That entire mess was created just because of the objection to the word species, or it was a misunderstanding. To prevent these things from happening, please read carefully.

Also nobody said tigers couldn’t be bigger than 440lbs. You are telling me to be careful about my choice of sources, but as I said I didn’t search and find it on my own. That website that says tiger weigh between “395-440lbs” on average is actually evidence to others information on the website selected/provided by you, including the most powerful cat info. This was brought up first by the anon user with the ip starting with 85. Read the discussion titled “Tiger weight”. He suggests to use the term average weight (for 395-440lbs) and say tigers can weigh more. There he says, we can talk about terms like average weight and maximum weight. Everybody knows tiger don’t weight more than 600lbs on AVERAGE (cap to prevent misunderstanding), even siberians. As the sentence begins with “Although different subspecies of tiger have different characteristics, in general male tigers weigh between” the average weight given after that sentence should be applying to all tigers including the Sumatran. After that sentence we can say however larger subspecies of tiger can weigh up to 600 lbs (sourcing the bbc website) or MORE (meaning 700lbs siberians), and add the examples of feline giants. This isn't anything new. It was suggested to be done this way from the beginning. Nobody wants to restrict tiger to 400lbs.

If you have a problem with the source that says largest wild Bengal tiger is 568lbs, don’t blame me. Again it’s not a source I found. I got it from previous posts. Even if I didn’t choose it, it’s a reliable fact, yes it’s Animal Planet, and Peter Jackson is an expert on the topic. It’s at least more reliable than 4 to 40 website. Even if they guarantee taking info from Guinness Book of World Records, the record book had had wrong information before, because most measurements done by hunters aren’t scientifically correct and they usually like the exaggerate their hunts, that’s a classic. For years Guinness Book of World Records said great white sharks could be up to (see great white shark) 11m (36 feet), which we know today that it’s not right. So there is no guarantee that the tiger was 860lbs, as it wasn’t measured by scientists, as you say. “That tiger was not the largest tiger recorded, it was the largest tiger recorded by MODERN SCIENTISTS” We can only accept measurements by scientist as reliable. There were people/hunters claimed seeing/killing and measuring crocodiles over 33 feet (10.5m). According to these measurements we can’t say modern day crocodiles can grow up to 11m. If you have problems with the Animal Planet statistics discuss it with Peter Jackson. As long as that info is on that page, it will be presumed to be correct.

I'm not shattered with those pictures. I had already seen those, in fact I had a video of that particular event, I couldn’t find it. I knew and admitted that big cats could take smaller crocodiles. Those crocodiles in the pictures aren't adults. A leopard can't roll an adult crocodile like the one in the photo. Even if it was a “sitting duck” the leopard wouldn’t be able to lift it off the ground and roll with it, the weight wouldn’t allow it. There are reports of jaguars taking small caiman etc. That's no big surprise. I'm not against the idea of big cats killing crocodilians. Size is very important here. Things change when crocodiles are small. Nile crocodiles are above leopards in the food chain and it will be bogus to claim the opposite with those pictures. Leopards dealing with immature crocodiles is no proof to adult interactions of the two animals. I have no “fantasies”, in fact I like to see predators fighting to death, no matter what the outcome is, but it’s clear from your enthusiastic tone (when found the photos) that you have and the kind of examples you provide, you have fantasies and dreams about big cats and can’t accept that big cats can have predators. You can’t say a leopard is a Nile crocodile predator unless you find evidence of predation on an average 14 footer adult Nile crocodile. You have to compare adults here. Crocodiles prey upon big cats [23]. Crocodiles prey upon leopards [24][25][26] and lions [27][28]. Check this out: This page says that saltwater crocodiles are a threat to tigers. [29]

You were angry when people brought up irrelevant examples like “crocs prey upon lions and leopards” so why are you doing the same thing.

Note: For the lactic acid to be dangerous, the animal must be struggling for a very long time. (like the one in the video, for two hours.) Even if a crocodile wrestles with another animal on land on the bank of a river, it can retreat into the water when lactic acid builds up. That’s why many accept the video as an unnatural, isolated event, because there is no water around, within two hours reach. Enough with the sitting ducks please. It's funny; it makes you laugh in such a serious debate. John9834 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

TheGoodson's first link to the leopard attacking the crocodile says as follows: "it was a leopard that launched an attack out of nowhere on an adult crocodile," but you still continue to cling to this claim that the leopards are dealing with immature crocodiles. This is completely ignoring the evidence that was presented to you.

Also, even if leopards are capable of preying on "small" crocodiles (which is merely your unsupported claim, but just for the sake of argument) it would not be true that crocodiles are above leopards on the food chain. Once again, this claim exposes blatant bias on your part. If each animal preys on the other than they are level on the food chain.

Maybe part of the problem is this comment: "I like to see predators fighting to death." That's not my interest here, my interest is to portray apex predator interaction accurately based on the information at hand rather than theorize and fantasize about fight outcomes. You still have not shown us anything that shows saltwater predation or killing of tigers, which is the point of this page anyway (although I guess the porcupine link was a new twist). You have also once again not explained why you feel that we need to state on this page that crocodiles "are a threat" to tigers when we do not say that tigers prey on crocodiles on the crocodile pages. 70.22.102.128 15:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are eminently good reasons for large predators leaving each other alone. First, predator-predator confrontations in which one attempts to kill another near-peer for food are rare because of the consequences. Even the victor is likely to get hurt badly. Deer may be slower than bears, but it's obvious that a tiger that challenges a bear faces death or crippling injury even if it wins the contest. Most predators seem intent not so much upon winning 'wars' as on getting food.

Prime illustration: domestic dogs and domestic cats of like size (cats are so much like tigers in all but size that they would be no less dangerous to humans if they were so large, and much tiger-like behavior is to be found in dogs as well as some horrible teeth and claws) respect each other. Friendship is far safer than aggression among two well-matched predators that understand each other well because they are much alike.

Another: dolphins and sharks. Sharks tend to keep a distance from a pod of dolphins that can ram a shark to death should they judge the shark a danger. But dolphins are even more voracious predators than any sharks, and the shark that keeps a safe distance from dolphins might get some fish that miraculously escape a dolphin only to end up in the reach of the shark. Collaboration, if not co-operation is generally safer and more rewarding between superpredators.

Interspecies aggression between superpredators is most likely an accident. although human perversity (foolishness or profit). Something so absurd as a meeting of a polar bear and a crocodile is possible -- but it would be likely if we moderns performed the unconscionable act of reviving the Roman spectacle of pitting predators against each other. Circumstances would themselves dictate the winner; in cold waters to which a polar bear is accustomed, a crocodile wouldn't last long enough to attack the bear. The polar bear unaccustomed to tropical waters would overheat before getting a chance.

The limit of my taste, and that (I believe) of most people in animal encounters is either in documentation of wild behavior (killer whale kills seal pups -- knowledge is valuable) or human-animal dares in which the human has a calculated escape from a predator such as those of the late Steve Irwin. I have no desire to pit a tiger against some other predator not in its own range (let us say a polar bear, a leopard seal, a walrus, or an American alligator).

I am satisfied to know that a dog 75% of my mass has the tools with which to prey upon me, and is stopped only by socialization, fear, or affection. I know also that entering the well-established territory of a dog defending other dogs, humans, or even cats despite warnings (ferocious barking) to back off is unwise in the extreme.

So we can largely ignore superpredator encounters in determining which one is 'worse' or 'more magnificent' than another. No Roman-style staged conflicts between animals -- please! --Paul from Michigan 14:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)




I probably instinctively forgot the source saying "adult", not because of my ignorance, but because I had seen a series of photographs of the event the story mentions (I had remembered it as a video. It's pretty much a video anyway). That website isn't a scientific website, you can't be sure if they know how big an adult crocodile is. I was right. They added the word adult because of nothing, probably to make the story more exiting. I found the official page of Hal Brindley (the series of photos). In fact it's the same crocodile in the pictures, which Goodson claims to be another event saying "TOTALLY". [30] His style and aim isn't right. Try to be objective. This is just another example of his ignorance.
I said that: "I like to see predators fighting to death (don't forget the other half of the comment) no matter what the outcome is", not because I'm a psychopath. I don't care which animal dies or lives. I have no fantasies. I also want to portray apex predator interactions accurately, but with users like Goodson we won't get close to that. John9834 17:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

John, you keep harping on about the "568 lb" tiger. Honestly, do you know anything about tigers? Do you keep track of studies/research? From your rants, I can tell that you do not. That 568 lb tiger was eclipsed by several other tigers after him, all scientifically measured. Futhermore, the 846 lb record Siberian Tiger was accurately weighed by Soviet SCIENTISTS in 1950. The other, 858 lb tiger, was also weighed several times with witnesses. The tiger is on display in DC till this day and is accepted by the scientific community as an accurate measurement, who are you to say otherwise? Face it, tigers can range anywhere from 400-700 + pounds. Bengals average 490 lbs, Siberians 500 lbs and more. I'm done with the crocodile issue simply because it is obvious that tigers can, do and have killed them. You do not want to "portray apex predator interactions accurately". You want to sugar coat things to suit your fantasies by saying "crocs are small" and the like, all of which is unsubstantiated. I bring up a case where a leopard kills a croc and you claim the croc was "small", yet the article clearly states that the croc was larger. Whether you like it or not, tigers have killed crocs (muggers and salties). You on the other hand have yet to prove that tigers have been taken by any croc, live with it. TheGoodSon 16:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Cut the crap. Goodson you are blind. You don’t read what I WRITE and even what is WRITTEN IN THE SOURCES. You take words out of sentences, turn them around and try to accuse me of things I’m not saying.
I never said the heaviest tiger was 568 lbs. I said the heaviest BENGAL (I’m not picking numbers according to my will, it’s from Discovery) was 568 lbs and you explain to me that the heaviest siberian was 846 lbs. What’s so funny is, this fact (heaviest siberian) is already written in the article I used as evidence for the 568lbs [31] bengal. This is a proof that you don’t read what is WRITTEN IN THE SOURCES. Your every objection is an insult to Peter Jackson. This is very boring. Every user has to explain things twice for you to understand. We don’t have to.
This is unbelievable. Did you even read what I wrote or the source I posted in the previous message. Read your source. [32] See the name Hal Brindley? The article says, “Hal Brindley of Washington DC in the USA was too late to photograph the start of the incident” And now look at the source I posted in the previous message. [33] See those are the photos of the incident. Now read my previous post. Do you get the point now? I hope you do. Read the explanation in YOUR source and look at the images in Hal Brindley’s site (read and watch). They are the visualizations of the text. Even some of the text is the same. You are talking about research but you are even unable to read what is put in front of you, which has already been researched.
That’s what I’m talking about. This article has got enough of your ignorance. Now it’s your time to step aside and stop ruining this page, exaggerating tigers according to your dreams. John9834 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
568 pounds does not seem to be the largest bengal tiger by any stretch of the imagination. Many larger ones have been recorded. Obviously the heaviest Bengal would be the heaviest weight found in reliable sources, not some random weight you could find quoted for the heaviest Bengal on record. No reason to ignore sources like this one, which comes from the Smithsonian Institution's magazine documenting an 857 lb Bengal tiger:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/1995/november/object_nov95.php
If Jackson says that the heaviest Bengal was 568lb, it's just that he has not heard of any heavier; it does not prove that they don't (or did not) exist. Such speculation would be POV or worse, POV with an agenda. 24.195.5.193 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Rick, NY.


Incredible, just incredible. John, you really are as stupid as I thought you were. Notice I made a distinction between the largest Siberian tiger weighed and the Bengal. Here, (try not to lose me on this), the largest BENGAL TIGER was weighed with witnesses in attendance in 1967. The tiger went on to be mounted in DC, at the Smithsonian Institute. It is recognized by the scientific community as an accurate measurement. Then, I told you that the 568 lb Bengal tiger was eclipsed in size by several other Bengals after him, including two males named Hairyfoot and Madla. Can this be anymore clear? I'm not even mentioning the male found in Nepal or the other one in India, both were 700 lbs. The Siberian tiger weighed by the Soviet scientists is a whole other issue. You can keep harping on and sugar coating things about the crocs, as far as I am concerned that discussion is: CASE CLOSED. TheGoodSon 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Please remove Category:Animals that prey on humans per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 27 so the category can be deleted and the log closed. Thanks.—Chidom talk  07:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ligers: the biggest cats

It looks like multiple issues are involved in the edit war, so I'll try to isolate this particular issue. While Ligers are indeed bigger than Tigers, this fact is not significant enough to be mentioned in the introduction. When discussing what species is largest, people generally want to know about naturally-occurring cats. Human-enabled hybrids can be mentioned later in the article.

Also, please sign comments with ~~~~ and use colons (:) to indent replies. --Yath 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no scientifically documented weights of ligers exist, we must be really wary of claimed weights for ligers. I think Wikipedia must restrict itself to books/papers published by zoologists on these topics. Even though ligers are most likely heavier than the heaviest tigers, this is still POV at the moment since it has not been scientifically documented. Also there are problems with sampling: Captive animals are grossly overweight and since there is no such thing as a "wild" liger, there's cannot be a decent sample to judge this question. 24.195.5.193 20:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Rick, NY.
The article liger has credible sources backing it up which all state that ligers are larger than tigers. The captivity argument is meaningless, as the comparitive weights are judged from both captive tigers and captive ligers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.236.245.243 (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2006
I move that we disregard any and all comments from editors who do not see fit to sign their names to this discussion. I have proposed myself as a possible mediator in this discussion on the Mediation Cabal page, and I would welcome any and all signed comments regarding this issue on my talk page, so that we can try to resolve it once and for all. Right now, this endless discussion is probably one of, if not in fact the, primary reason this article has not yet reached good article recognition. However, as stated above, I think that it would be impossible to work with editors who don't see fit to sign their names, and thus I will be forced to ignore any and all unsigned comments. Thank you. Badbilltucker 19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tiger & lion weights, and tigers and crocs

Hello everyone, I can present sources from scientific publications to verify the following average weights for tigers if anybody is interested.

Bengal Tiger (Nepal) average 235 kg (517 lb), range 200-261 kg (440-575 lb) ( A technique for capturing and immobilizing tigers. Smith, JLD Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 255-259. 1983)

Bengal Tiger (south India) average 223 kg (490 lb), range 209-240 kg This is from 2 sources: 1. K. Ullas Karanth, PhD thesis, 2. K. Ullas Karanth, "A view from the Machan".

Bengal tiger (south India) average 216 kg (476 lb). R. Meinertzhagen, Some weights and measures of large mammals, Journal of Zoology, 1938.

No hunting records were used for the above, they are all in journals in the field of wildlife biology from the few people who have ACTUALLY WEIGHED wild tigers. The largest tiger subspecies (the Amur) is not represented here, but everyone knows they are larger than Bengal tigers.

For lions, the following weights are available:

African lion, average 187 kg (411 pounds), south Africa, range 150-225 kg (330-496 lb). African lion, average 193 kg (420 pounds), Zimbabwe, range 172-216 kg (379-476 lb)

The above are from Smuts, GL, Comparative growth of wild male and female lions (Panthera leo). J. Zool. (Lond.) 190: 365–373

African lion, average 172 kg (379 pounds), Kenya. This is from Meinertzhagen, the same source reported for the last of the tiger weights above.

---

Coming to the heaviest tigers (Bengal only), we have:

1. 857 lb (388 kg). This giant is preserved in the Smithsonian Insititution, see here: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/1995/november/object_nov95.php

Also see Tom Brakefield: Big cats: Kingdom of might.

2. 705 lb (Nepal), see George Schaller (The deer and the tiger)

3. 700 pounds (Central India); M D Goering-Jones, see Tom Brakefield, Big Cats, Kingdom of Might

4. 645 pounds (North India); See George Schaller (The deer and the tiger)

5. 608 pounds (Central India): Maharaj Kumar of Bikaner, Gwalior (See Rowland Ward, Records of Big Game)

6. 595 plus pounds (two tigers), see Eric Dinerstein, "Return of the Unicorns: natural history and conservation of the greater one-horned rhinoceros. These two tigers were captured in Nepal as part of scientific studies, in 1981 and 1984.

7. 600 pounds (See Mel and Fiona Sunquist, Tiger Moon). This large male was captured in Nepal.

---

As for tigers killing crocs, there is this one from Dr. Mike Birkhead (a PhD is zoology from Oxford) and Valmik Thapar, a famous tiger conservationist. Apparently, the tigers in Ranthambore have specialized in killing 14 ft crocodiles. One particular tigress is called a croc killer.

http://www.mikebirkhead.com/programmes/search_tigers.html

There is also another picture of a crocodile being killed by a tiger which (as some objected to in the previous photo) actually shows blood.

http://indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=1247

http://indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=1502

This is a very well known and documented phenomenon and there has even been a documentary of the same. If you want to see this in action, please check out the feature on tigers the "Two brothers" DVD. It actually shows a croc being killed by a tigress.

24.195.5.193 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Rick, New York.


Thanks for the additional source information. I think we can safely put to rest this debate about "size being the determining factor" in tiger predation of crocodiles, as the notion that tigers cannot successfully kill large crocs has been emphatically disproven. 70.22.102.128 22:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's surpising how people (even experts) confidently state that something is not possible when all you need to disprove them is one observation. 24.195.5.193 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this whole dispute is finished as far as I'm concerned. It looks like you guys feel the same way. Of course, John will come here and distort the truth, misquote people, and lie...but who cares? I'm calling for a lift on the protection status and for the blocking of John for instigating this edit war and consistent vandalism. I think we have decisively won this. TheGoodSon 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand the reason of the triumph. There's nothing new since the last time I got here. In fact you have disproved yourself as weights proposed by user 85.96.215.62. has been accepted. You have been rejecting them since the proposal has been done, but somehow "his/her" numbers have been posted here as if to disprove him/her.Goodson your explanations on the topic are no interest to this page. You have to find evidence for your numbers, and those sources must be reliable. You also have to be polite to others. John has a point here. He talks about largest Bengal tigers and you reply him giving evidence to Siberians.

It has already been agreed on to let crocodile incidents to stay on the article. We already have sources for that. The new photos show a dead crocodile, there is no evidence that the tiger killed it. The tiger is smelling the carcass, probably in an attempt to obtain chemical information, which is usually done in first interaction. The animal was probably dead anyway. I see that another T.V. program website has been posted. According to my observations these websites can make mistakes, maybe on purpose, to make their products amusing and pull viewers in. We have already seen an example to this in the leopard-croc page. They are probably referring to the crocodile in the video and generalizing it. BJK1903 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the "most powerful cat??" discussion and once again saw how unreasonable and fanatic tiger fans are. See for yourself. John isn't the only one who is sick of their fanatic nature. BJK1903 19:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It had not been agreed to leave out the claim that "size determines the outcome" of crocodile/tiger interactions. The information provided proves that this is not the case. 70.22.102.128 19:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think sticking to websites like tv program sites would be wrong as some experts have also agreed on the opposite. BJK1903 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you're grasping at straws in your efforts to continue this debate. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement that a tigress specialized in killing large mugger crocs. First it was this long diatribe about no blood being drawn by the tiger in the previous video that had been linked, a claim that has been emphatically disproven. Then it was the claim that the video was misleading because it was an anomaly and no one knew of any other instance where tigers killed adult crocodiles. Then it was the claim that the sites which affirmed that this does happen were misleading because they referred to tigers killing small or juvenile crocodiles (despite any proof of this whatsoever). And now it's that the site claiming that tigers kill large adult crocs is unreliable. I can't imagine what will come next. 70.22.102.128 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just add one thing: in Hunter hunted TV show on NGC a few months back, tiger swims and attack people in the river where sharks and crocodiles lurking behind. Neither dares do any harm to the tiger. If that's not enough, I just watched a clip on youtube: tiger sees a croc(adult, of course) in the river, it rushes forward to attack. The croc, frightened, flees deep into the water. Convincing? tiger fears not crocs, but the reverse is untrue. A picture or a movie is worth a thousand words. I don't like opinion, and i'm not here to give one either.

Note: It's best if we are here to share good inf about the species. The inf collected from visual sources (TV, pictures) is best, next comes good books and creditable web sites like panda.org. If you come here by collecting inf from an arbittrary site e.g. the larweb.org, then beter don't discuss it here, as anyone can put up such a web site with whatever contents they want, much of them are subjective, like I can create a web site tomorrow and put in article saying that a 700 kg tiger has been found, well, something like that.

Unsourced, "I watched a documentary on" kinds of opinions have nothing to do with wikipedia and are of no use in this debate. Should I do the same thing? You say tigers don't fear crocs?? Watch this video. [34] The tiger even fears this considerably small sized mugger when it positions itself towards the cat. Just look at the expression in his face.
The site that says tigers kill fourteen foot crocodiles is not reliable evidence. I already disproved the similar (tv program) website that claimed the crocodile the leopard killed was an adult. As another user already said, the photos are of a dead crocodile; it's also no proof. Even still the crocodile isn't large. Your sources haven't changed anthing. You also disproved yourself accepting the weights proposed. Don't play words games in this page as if the debate has already ended. Due to the given sources that piled in time, we have enough evidence why tigers should be careful around crocodiles. John9834 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


That video shows that tigers "fear" crocodiles? You must be kidding. Now I've seen it all. Sorry, but you're really grasping at straws here. The sources have changed something, if only because they've provided further support for the original contentions of many of us that tigers are known to prey on crocodiles on occasion, there is no evidence of crocodile predation on crocodiles, and there is no size limitation on the crocodiles that tigers can successfully kill. 149.79.54.95 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Your sources don't prove that size is not a limitation. That TV programme site is no proof to that belief. That’s that person’s opinion, probably after seeing that video, generalizing it. On the other hand we have sources that state the opposite, which are articles of experts; reliable sources. You are the one who is “grasping at straws” as there is no evidence, trying to hide the fact that the site isn’t a reliable one. There are solid facts that tigers should be careful when around crocodiles and that crocodiles, especially salties are a threat to them. Look at what Adam in your guestbook tells about crocodile predation on tigers. [35] He says (He is an expert as you have said) that it’s not impossible. However as these interactions are rare, it’s hard to document. Please don’t bring up that media site again we all know it’s no proof to anything. I also watched that video. If tiger’s the predator why is it watching from a distance growling at it and jumping back when the crocodile opens its jaws. Would the tiger do that to a deer? It’s very close in shallow water. Why doesn’t the tiger attack? The crocodile in that video is at most 8 feet and weighs less than the tiger. The crocodile is closer to the camera, still looks much smaller than the tiger. BJK1903 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
John9834 and BJK1903, you must be confusing me with someone else because my previous message on this site was my first ever. Hence I have not "disproved" myself (I assume you meant contradicted). Anyway, that is not the major point ... but I am quite astonished that you would question the credibility of people like Valmik Thapar. The man is a legend. He is every bit as famous as Dereck and Beverley Joubert. He narrated the 6-part BBC series "Land of the tiger", has researched tigers for over 20 years and has authored numerous books on the animal. For more info on him, I can direct you to the Wiki page on him and a simple google search will uncover more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmik_Thapar Also, as I said earlier, Mike Birkhead is a PhD in zoology from Oxford university (see http://www.mikebirkhead.com/people.html) and has numerous award-winning nature documentaries to his name, including "Tigers of the Emerald forest", "Land of the tiger" etc, which have been featured in BBC and animal planet. You can see a clip from his latest film (called Tiger Zero and documenting the vanishing Bengal tiger) at Discovery channel website, where the narrator is none other than Thapar: http://www.discoverybroadband.co.uk/broadband/broadband.jsp?site=uk&template=freeclipplay&clip_id=57 In short, I cannot believe that these men would put their hard-earned scientific credentials on the line to indulge in some temporary gimmickry for no good reason! The link I posted may have been "nothing new" but I thought some people would be interested in it and that does seem to be the case. Maybe you should let people make up their minds on the croc predation by tigers and leopards for themselves rather than trying to impose aribtrary censorship on Wikipedia. 24.195.13.173 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Rick, NY

Here is YET MORE evidence for the same author: the IUCN's (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Cat Specialist Group have also quoted Thapar that predation by tigers on crocs happens: http://lynx.uio.no/lynx/catsgportal/cat-website/catfolk/tiger-03.htm This is not a theory; it is a well-documented scientific fact. 24.195.13.173 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Rick, NY


BJK, I just saw your absolutely ridiculous rebuttal (if you can call it that) under the header "most powerful cat??". I must say, you have issues. If the larger tigers are not the most powerful felines in the cat world, then by all means enlighten us. Fact is, tigers and lions are anatomically almost identical. Difference lies in size/weight, weaponry size, chest girth, paw size and overall power and strength (all of which the tiger has absolute advantages in, be it at average size or at upper limits of range). Considering that tigers can be considerably larger than lions, wouldn't you think that these tigers would be considerably more powerful? Even at average, Bengals and Siberians are anywhere from 70-100 pounds heavier. The funniest part was this: When you write powerful in the context of tigers and lions, naturally you assume you are talking about the greater prowess as a fighter. So naturally we "assume" we are talking about fighting prowess? You are kidding right? Have you ever looked up the word "power" in the dictionary? Have you taken physics yet? In anycase, what does fighting prowess mean to a cat and what would it mean to a human? Cats are all equiped with deadly claws, jaws, and aggression. They are ALL territorial creatures, meaning that males defend territories in order to maintain their status, breed and have access to an abundance of prey. This is ingrained into their genes. Mortality rates due to interspecific conflict fluctuates all the time in all cat species. Different factors contribute to this, one should be obvious (cough...population...cough). A good search at "youtube.com" will yield some interesting videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B17hqXAdYlI (two females)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4VJ0-dONMw (first two males; then two females)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9EiZEVFWB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adctnEoI_FQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ_C76JFxTk

TheGoodSon 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interactions between tigers and lions would have been interesting in the past but they are now curiosities since tigers and lions do not overlap in distribution. If the phrase "most powerful cat" causes a lot of offence, it could be left out in the larger interest of making a better tiger article. But the croc predation is really important and interesting as several people have pointed out. It is also current research and we should probably add that fairly large crocs are taken on occasion. I also think this is sufficiently important to go into the croc pages 24.195.13.173 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Goodson you really have problems. For another millionth time you proved your lack of concentration. Don’t ever dare to come to me with this kind of crap; I can’t be as patient as John. I only wrote 2 sentences in the “Most powerful cat” talk. They are:

(1) Jaguar. BJK1903 19:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC) and

(2) I agree with the jaguar being the most powerful for its size, as I have stated. 70.22.102.128 please sign your ip after you state your opinions so that we wouldn't have to go into history to figure it out. BJK1903 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do you make up the rest? What’s so awkward is, my statement (2), and the paragraph before are obviously from different users as in (2) I asked for that user to sign therefore it won’t get mixed with my sentences. All you have to do is read. If you can’t read get out of this dispute. You are mixing things up. That’s all you do. All you want to do is object. You object to any logical thing (other than tigers and crocs), and at the end you end up in saying the same things the users you object have stated.

I apologize from i.p. user 24.195.13.173. I mixed you with Goodson. I do not question the credibility of Valmik Thapar, unlike many users, like Goodson, who have questioned the credibility of other experts. I respect him. I had questioned the credibility of the website as another similar website was proven to be incorrect. BJK1903 14:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree!! ^_^ I'm another patient guy, though. All I do is reply and wait... Dora Nichov 14:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK! This whole crocodile vs tiger thing is completely out of my hands! *bangs head* But just remember...I'm patient... Dora Nichov 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

If anyone can volunteer to mediate the case and honestly state that they're neutral on the matters, please feel free to do so. There is one assistant mediator assigned, but those with an ear to sort out the problems are welcome.

Before joining in the case and suggesting changes to the article, please review the verifiability and reliable sources policies, as they may be of use in this situation. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this case still require mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

to the positive contributors

You have done well, keep up the good work, and don't get bothered by the nasty comments and rididulous arguments put in the discussion page by some users. To make it short, I am keeping a copy of an old version of this article(the one that appears during the time the source has been blocked) as a benchmark. If any malicious user tries to ruin the page with falsified inf, I'll erase their edits and restore the old good contents. --S--

I agree with the above. This is a good, solid, article about an important animal. I am grateful to those who have brought substantive contributions to it, and hope that the arguments will come to an end soon, if they haven't already. Badbilltucker 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation

Good god! After browsing this talk page (I can't claim to have read all the silly debates in great detail), I have just one question: What if a tiger with a laser met a crocodile with a chainsaw? Who would win then? Huh? Shouldn't that be included in the article?  :)

Ok, on to more serious matters. In the section on the Siberian Tiger subspecies, it says, "A six-month old Siberian tiger can be as big as a fully grown panther." Unfortunately, "panther" is a disambiguation page, and I'm not sure what type of panther is meant. Is that a quote from somewhere? (And if so, why isn't it cited, grumble, grumble.) I'm going to change it to leopard for now (the middle-sized of the three cats most commonly called "panther"), and if anyone knows what was actually meant, they should feel free to change it.

Regarding tiger size and crocodiles as tiger prey

I think that the question about whether the liger is larger than the tiger can be easily resolved if we change the statement to "the tiger is the largest cat species", as ligers are not technically a species. I can also see that the question regarding tigers preying on alligators could be resolved by perhaps indicating on the pages of the appropriate subspecies of tiger that those specific subspecies have been known to prey on crocodiles, if it is only documented in the cases of some specific subspecies. I guess the other major question, which based on my own limited knowledge I myself cannot answer, is whether the existing list of tiger prey is otherwise so inclusive that, given the percentage of times that crocodiless are tiger prey, they are frequent or significant enough to be specifically named as prey in this article? Are there any other prey of tigers which might be more frequent/significant prey of the tiger which have not yet been mentioned? If yes, then I would think that the crocodiles should not be included, as more significant prey of tigers are not specifically named either. Badbilltucker 20:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Tigers NEVER eat alligators, only crocodiles, as there's no aliigators in the range of tigers. Tigers ARE the largest cats because ligers are a man-made species, and not a natural one. About whether tigers normally take crocodiles -- well, I've said all I've wanted to say in the above talk sections, and if you want to find out more consult the tedious, highly descriptive and very long accounts given by the arguers also in the above sections. Dora Nichov 12:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my attention to my error regarding alligator/crocodile, which on the basis of your comment I have since corrected. But my second question wasn't really about crocodile consumption, but rather what constitutes the average diet of the average tiger. IF crocodiles are, as it were, the next most-frequently consumed prey (based on either frequency or volume) after those already listed, then I think a reasonable case can be made for its conclusion in the article. IF they aren't, then I think that there isn't sufficient reason to include it, until and unless all the more-frequently preyed-upon animals are included as well. Regarding your point on tigers/ligers, actually, ligers cannot reproduce, and thus are not technically a species. Keeping the single word "species" in "largest species" should be sufficient to resolve that question. Badbilltucker 14:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Crocodiles aren't normal tiger prey, that's for sure. They'd rather take something like deer -- not so dangerous and probably tastier. (No tough armor). Dora Nichov 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

MAP needs updating

http://www.savethetigerfund.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=TCL_Media_Kit

See the link above and please replace the current map with the map at this link. It is the combined work of 160 of the world's leading tiger researchers. You are welcome to ascribe it a creative commons 2.5 licence with Save The Tiger as The Author

Brian Gratwicke, Assistant Director Save The Tiger Fund —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian.gratwicke (talk • contribs) .

The maps you've linked show no tigers in China except for the far North, which is obviously the Siberian tiger. Does this mean the South Chinese tiger is extinct in the wild? --Tommyknocker 23:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Average Lifespan

Dude, a tiger could totally beat up a crocodile...

Anyway, on average tigers will live for 10 to 15 years out in the wild and 16 to 20 years in captivity [36].

We've had a lot of talk about crocodiles and tigers, and I think it depends on the size of the combatants and location of the struggle. Figure out what I mean yourself, it's pretty obvious... Dora Nichov 14:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You got the size wrong, AGAIN!

You know, this is getting out of hand. What makes ANYONE here think they can put down an average size for a species that ranges so greatly?!

The size statemenent needs to read as follows:

There are 5 species of tigers, all ranging greaty in size from a 300 lb Sumatran to a 700 lb Siberian.

That's how your write it! Not a "They AVERAGE 440 to 700 lb". Geez! You tiger fan morons! Always forgetting the little guys in the set, huh? Always about the Bengal and the Siberian.

Just shut up will ya PLEASE!!!!! I mean duh there are smaller subspiecies of Tigers, But there are larger ones too. It just so happens that the largest Tiger subspecies the Bengal and Siberian are the largest cats in the world. Stop hatin on that fact. Lions are smaller htan those 2 (really 3 if you include the Caspian which was about the same size as the Lion) Tiger sub-speices. Tigers are thusly the largest cats on Earth POINT BLANK,The only thing that can counter that fact is complete ignorance.

Also with this whole Tiger vs Lion thing my GOD... I have seen a few of these forums talk about a head ache. You all argue the same old facts on every thread, with the same level of enthusiasm I mean damn. One argument that is quite silly is that the Tiger and Lion are equal in the strength and the "Lion fans" argue well they have identical anatomies,OKAY BUT ONE IS BIGGER THAN THE OTHER, More mass means more strength, hence the Tiger is stronger than the Lion Oh I mean the Siberians and Bengals are stronger than Lions. Then once that arguments laid to rest it goes into well the Lion is more aggressive than the Tiger and a bunch more non-sense. I just think that it should not play a role on this article. As said countless times on this page this site is ment to educate NOT to FORFILL CHILDHOOD FANTACIES.

I agree totally. Dora Nichov 11:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are idiots, plain and simple! I didn't say one damn thing about lions. I said you got the damn size for the tiger wrong. The tigers range in size from 300 to 700 lbs. That's a fact, so I don't see how you find a 700 lb average! Fucking tiger fanboy morons! The cat, looking at all 5 species, averages about 400-450 lbs. That's a reaslistic statement. And don't bring Lions into this, it has nothing to do with this. Again, IDIOTS!


Ha Ha I got you Mad. Why do we have be morons???? You silly rabbit once again their are OFFICIAL Tiger subspecies which all have different weight classes (Am I going too fast). The Tiger Sub species labled Siberians and Bengals have the 2 largest weight classes of any other cats on Earth. The African Lion maxes at I believe 550 (all though average 420) The Siberians and Bengal max more and average more than African Lions. How simple can it get kid. "Scientist" don't average Tigers weights all into one like you're doing. It's Scientifcally proven kid. If you have a problem with that then take it up with them, But the fact remains Like it or not.

Why you are morons? Well, for one thing, AGAIN, there is no conversation about Lions in what I said, NONE. Obviously you can't read. I could care less how many of them are bigger than a lion,and I could care less how much the lion weighs. The point I made is this (try to keep up, moron): The tiger does NOT average 440 to 700 lb. That's a not an average for a species. What you did on that was give a mid to upper range of the two bigger species of the tiger. Taking all 5 species into a calculation will give you about a 440 lb average weight for the species. Sure, Bengals and Siberians average higher, but the other 3 average lower.

You people find it convinient to forget that not all Tigers are big. Here's a list for the ranges and averages:

Siberian: 390 - 700 lb (Average: 540 lb) Bengal: 390 - 570 lb (Average: 480 lb) S. Chinese: 290 - 400 lb (Average: 350 lb) Indochinese: 330 - 430 lb (Average: 380 lb) Sumatran: 220 - 330 lb (Average: 280 lb)

Now average the species up! (540 + 480 + 350 + 380 + 280)/5 = 406 lb!!! Take the smallest Sumatran to the biggest Siberian. That's how you get the range, numb nuts! The Tiger, as whole species (including all 5, not just the 2 big ones) averages low to mid 400 lb as a whole. That's a FACT! And the range for the species is not 440 to 700, it's 220 to 700. Anyway you slice it, the tiger averages a lot smaller than what you people are claiming.

And if you insist on bringing the Lion into it, the common range given is 330 to 550 lb. Making it average 440 lb. So you can all shut up about it. And fix the damn page! If you want to give specific sizes for each sub-specie, by all means. But if you are talking "TIGER" in general, the range is 220 to 700 lb, averaging the spices at about 450 lb. Morons!

It doesn't matter if you just average the range (220 to 700 lb) or average the averages of each of the 5 species... Either way you are in the low to mid 400s. Facts are facts!

The key point here is that I am NOT desputing the fact that the Tiger is the largest can in the world. The highest ranges of it's weight surpass any natural cat. However, it is important to remember that not all tigers are at that level. And using only the Bengal and the Siberian to give weight ranges and averages for the species as a whole is not scientifically accurate and very much biast.



BIAST TO WHAT??? I mean this is nothing more than some Tiger vs Lion crap. Please tell me what is the point of this information, if not to debunk the Tiger's size? I mean what in the Hell is your problem kid... I'm telling you that Tigers are broken down into Sub-species because for several reason and one being that their weight differ so greatly. Not once have I seen in a scientific article weather it be Savethetigerfoundation to zoo books state "the Tiger's average weight is...." It's always broken down into Sub Spicies. I mean are you grasping the concept of what I'm saying kid, There is nothing you can do to change this. I mean regaurdless of the "averages" you calculated the fact remains that the Sub species labeled Bengal (accounting for over 70% of the wild Tiger population) and the Siberian Tigers are the largest cats on Earth. If it makes you fell better rank the Lion on top if the Indo Chinese Tiger. I'm not trying to be "biast" or what ever else you're implying. Again kid please stop with this Tiger/Lion crap, that's all this little charade is. But let's just say I'm wrong please tell me the point of your message!


Fine, they are broken down into subspecies. Then the statement like: "Tigers average 440 to 700 lb" has no place in the article. Simple as that. Your own words. That statement is not true of every tiger species so unless you specify that it reflects the size scale of only the Siberian tiger you can't really use it. You're the damn kid here since you naturally can't grasp this. You people have no problem with putting down the weight of the lion but only list the top scale for tiger. Who's the fanboy? You have lion article listing it 330 to 500 lb. Actually, if you list the 700 lb for the siberian you should list at least 550 for the top of the Lion's weight.

The point I'm making, monkey boy, is that if you are talking Tigers as subspecies than you have no business stating a generalized average in that article. If you do want to give them the average weight of the species as a whole, then you statement is completely wrong and should read 220 to 700 lb. The fact is, you losers have puposly don't state the smaller species as it makes you pet look smaller. But use facts!!! And follow your own God Damn advise Dumb shit! If they are divided into sub species than remove the "Tiger averages 440 to 700 lb" as it has no place in the article, ACCORDING TO YOU!!!!

This is what is written in the article: "Although different subspecies of tiger have different characteristics, in general male tigers weigh between 200 and 320 kg (440 lb and 700 lb)" Now that statemnt is completely inacurate since 3 of the tigers don't even reach 440 lb! Not to mention, according to you, it should not even be there since it does not specify which subspecie you are talking about. So you gave the mid-top weight of the two biggest breeds and generalized it as a range for the whole species! Yet on the Lion page we got a 330 to 500 lb. You DO mention the small side of the scale but don't even add the top part which should read 550 lb. So it is Biast!!! The Lion is downplayed and the Tiger is exegurated!!! Fucking hypocrits!


Oui, You have no life do you you're fucking drooling ovewr your computer screen over some simple shit like this. Now I did see where the article says this and I must say that unless they have proof the ALL Tigers average this that it should be broken down into Sub Species. Until this is taken care of try going outside or hanging out with some friends (you do have some right) instead of obsessing over this Tiger-Lion BS.

1. You keep comming back to make comments just like I do, so stop pointing the "no-life" finger until you climb out of mom's basement. 2. Basically, I was right. Exactly what I said to begin with. The statement that talks about Tigers in general should read as follows: The 5 species of tigers range greaty in size from a Sumatran that ranges 220-330 lb to a Siberian that can tip the scale at 700 lb.

That's how it should be. Than you still get to plug it as the biggest cat, but you also reinforce the vital fact that there is a huge size range.

Hey, guys! I recently found this written by the tiger lovers who keep on vandalizing the article:

We are stupid morons with ugly faces and we have ugly butts and were stupid and we like to kiss our own butts.

the United States owns more Tigers then anywhere else in the world

From [37]

“ There are more tigers living in the United States than anywhere else in the world. Estimates range from 10,000 to 15,000 animals. By comparison, experts believe that there are at most 7,000 tigers living in the wild worldwide. ”

It seems like this might make a worthwhile addition to the article, but I'm not really sure where the best place to add this information would be... TerraFrost 06:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


That's quite sickening, when wild populations are struggling with low numbers and a stagnant gene pool, 10,000 animals are being domesticated and kept in cages for rich Americans. How many of these I wonder have been captured through the pet trade? All of them at some point must have had ancestors that were. If the owners are attacked they get what they deserve, it's not just a matter of animal cruelty, but the conservation of an entire species essential to it's natural environment. --Tommyknocker 13:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to add that many of these are probably hybrids of different subspecies, destroying thousands of years of genetic isolation and evolution (and possible future speciation). These hybrids also have problems with disease and retardation, meaning they will likely not survive if released back into the wild (much like the mass bred 'white tigers'). --Tommyknocker 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tiger national animal of USSR?

I didn't know that the Siberian tiger was the national animal of the USSR. I always thought the bear was the national animal of Russia even in the Soviet era. Though I do know that the Soviets used to like to exalt tigers and often even compared their military to a "fighting tiger". Anyone know anything about this? All the rest are right. Clone60

Lion Tiger page on Wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_VS_Tiger

Go there and add facts, and FACTS ONLY!

Tiger Hunting Evidence

You know, I've been reading all this crap about how a single tiger can bring down gaint gaurs, buffalos, rhinos, and even elephants... yet there is no evidence given. And I'm not talking about some chewed up carcass, I'm talking about photo/video evidence of the tiger in action. We all see lions hunting and taking on buffalo, giraffe, hippo, and even elephant on video. There is video footage of them taking down just about every large game in Africa. Yet there is nothing on tigers. Just a few chase scenes after a deer. So I say, all this Tiger superpredator is BS! There is no proof that a single tiger can take down a gaur or any other large animal! NONE! Any chewed up body could've died on it's own and the tiger just fed on it. It proves NOTHING! Where's the video and image proof of the tiger taking on a large animal? Just one! Or how about all them bear kills? Where's the evidence of that? Don't just quote some book or site, where's the actual evidence of the the tiger in action?

I'll tell you where... it does NOT EXIST!!! The tiger hunts small to average size pray, and that's all there is to it!

Sounds great! Don't know where u're from, but u make me laugh, that's a good one. Belive your pathetic argument, it will help you feel better. If you can say some big words here, why not go ahead and make change to the article???????????????????????????????????????????? You can't accept the fact that the lion(or croc, bear for that matter) is too small in the tiger's eye. What does the lion have to compare to the tiger? Strength, ferocity, skill, size? Uhm, lookes like none. The lion's and bear's only trick is to use their size, number(lion) and growl to awaken its opponent's worse fear and nightmare in order to break down the opponent from within, so they can win without struggle. But something like a tiger, growing up enduring so much pain and sufferings to become what it is, with so much self-confidence, has no fear. It obviously has no nightmare either. The tiger, except when facing human, doesn't know the meaning of fear. It spreads its right paw to deliver a smashing blow, tearing through the air, ripping the head of the lion(bear), knocking them down in an instant, breaking their will to fight in the process. Facing a tiger is facing death. The lion and bear need fangs to fight. But the tiger doesn't need a fang. It is a fang itself. It is on a completely different level, a different order of being. Lions may be King of beast. But tiger: the omnipotent overlord of beast, that's the implication not every one understands. In the master tiger's eye, the lion or bear are simply unskilled apprentices; that's more like it.

You spent a lot of time typing all those fantasies of yours... but tell me something, what does ANY of it have to do with the tiger hunting topic? You IDIOT! Another "I just want to belive the tiger can beat a lion" idiot that talks out of his ass in unrelated topics. Pull your head away from the tiger's dick long enough to read a book!!! Moron!

This is to the MORONS who wrote the ANTI-TIGER comments above me! Live in REALITY MORONS! Tigers do kill LARGE ANIMALS! It is a fact! There is even VIDEO evidence of a Tiger killing a adult CROCODILE( Go to youtube!)! There has been witnesses who have seen a Tiger kill a ADULT FEMALE RHINO and a ELEPHANT! DON'T BELIEVE ME? THEN RESEARCH IT! LIVE IN REALITY PEOPLE!

lion and tiger comparisons

lions are capable of amazing feats of strength. for example, a 416 lb lion can pull a carcass weighing 1000 lbs a distance of over 400 feet. that`s about a 60% difference in weight, so lions, as such, would need a muscle mass of about 60%. and this makes sense because with about 600 muscles in it`s body, higher percentages in muscle percentage is impossible at weights higher than 416 lbs, which i deduce must be a lions average weight. such a feat takes the strength of 10 men.

at 416 lbs, a lion has about 250 lbs of muscle. the average 150 lb man has about 40% of muscle. even though people have less than 1/10th the muscle mass of a lion, a lion`s muscles, at similar weights, are 40% stronger, due to their far hectic lifestyle.

recent reports from zoologists have found that a study of about 15 male siberians captured and released in the wild much smaller than previously thought, and not one tiger was found to weigh over 420 lbs.

lions, living in prides and having to protect the territory, are taller with big manes, as this aids in intimidation and helps to prevent a fight by conveying the message of being strong and powerful. even so, lions fight often, and 50% of all males die in fights with rivals. such fighting, over time, has made the lion a more aggressive animal.

tigers, living alone, have longer teeth and claws, an adaptation that suits a lone hunter. also, they have shorter legs. shorter legs produce more speed. example: limbs, when moved, fall in a curve pattern. shorter limbs have a shorter curve and so takes less time to reach it`s mark. also, the receptors that send the command to move has less distance to travel before it reaches the brain. the shorter the distance traveled, the quicker your reaction. with their short limbs, tigers are capable of great speed and agility, and are, on average, 15% faster than lions.

tigers, with their shorter limbs, use up more energy quicker, so they tire easily. that`s one of the reasons they live in forests; it provides the perfect cover for a shorter chase.

also, here`s some info from zoos and documentaries; a lion named moran from “planet carnivore” was said to weigh 500 lbs. it was said on ‘explorer that a male siberian weighed 500lbs. on ‘awesome pawsome’ it was stated that tigers usually weigh about 500 lbs in zoos. from a zoo mentioned in a previous post had a siberian tiger that weighed 600 lbs, and was very fat looking. a lion, similarly, at another zoo, weighed 600 lbs. one of clyde beatty`s lions weighed 650 lbs. a fight between a lion and tiger was mentioned that stated the lion weighed 500 lbs while the tiger weighed 450 lbs.

peter jackson, a big cat expert, says the heaviest lion weighed 930 lbs, compared to 932 lbs from a siberian tiger named jaipur. he claims there`s no difference size wise.


http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/wildk...t/expert_1.html

also, it should be noted that the heaviest CONFIRMED nepalese bengal tiger weighed 227 kgs, while the largest tsavo lion weighed 272 kgs.

mazak, a big cat expert, claims that record of the 857 lb wild bengal tiger wasn`t confirmed, and isn`t reliable. however, the largest wild lion weighed 702 lbs.

also, author of the book "tiger in the snow" claims he knows of no wild tiger over 650 lbs, and that hunters weights of tigers claim in the past were mere estimates.

as you can see from my above statements, tigers are no bigger than lions.jimmylionjimmylion (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

lion and tiger sizes answered

both lions and tigers average 416 lbs.

let me explain: both lions and tigers have been known to pull a 1000 lb carcass a distance of over 400 feet. they would need 250 lbs of muscle to achieve such a feat. i came to this conclusion by diving 4(first number of distance pulled) from 1000. i deduce that such a feat takes the strength of 10 men.

muscle mass decreases at weights much above 416 lbs, which i deduce must be the average weight of lions and tigers. there are reports of tigers reaching huge weights, but, according to mazak, those are merely estimates.

listen to this:

 The tiger is the largest of the living cats. Siberian tigers may weigh as much as 320 kg, but in general, captive males weigh about 175 kg and females about 125 kg. The lightest subspecies is the Sumatran; males weigh about 110 kg, and females 95 kg. The heaviest tiger recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records is a 410-kg captive male Siberian tiger: http://www.tigerlink.org/husbandry/husman1.htm

so, according to the above site, captive siberians average 175 kgs for males, 125 kgs for females. big cat expert, peter jackson, states that lions and tigers are basically the same size, and i agree. also, he says the heaviest captive lion weighed 930 lbs. lions are every bit as big as a tiger.