Interspecies conflict. Which animal is the ultimate carnivore?

Size:

Quite frequently the lion versus tiger question focuses on the Amur (Siberian) tiger. People mistakenly believe that the large size of the Amur tiger means a more aggressive animal and therefore a better fighter.

The fact is, that when it comes to aggression, the Amur tiger lacks the ferocity of its cousin from the Asian sub-continent, which, in turn, lacks the ferocity of the lion by a significant margin. For most people it is easier to understand this by comparing dogs. I own Great Danes which weigh in at 60-70 kgs each, yet the significantly smaller and lighter Doberman down the road attacked and injured my Dane. The difference is one of ferocity.

Also worth noting is that though the Amur tiger is slightly longer and somewhat heavier than the Bengal, the difference is less than popularly thought. Much of the Amur tiger's extra bulk is fat for warmth, and a false impression is also given by their thicker longer coat. The fights such as noted here are mostly historic ones. In the 1870s, the Purnea district of India (now north Bihar) was famed for its enormous tigers. Two shot during that period measured 11' 5" and 12' 4" respectively. To compare them accurately to modern Bengals it is necessary to subtract 7-8 inches as they were measured using a different system than is practiced today. Despite this they were massive animals, by any standard.

Compared to the lion, the tiger is longer and usually heavier, but it does not stand as tall at the shoulder. This can be seen in the above scale image which shows the relative size of a Bengal tiger to an African lion. Size comparisons can also be made between the adult male Bengal tiger and adult African lioness in the images on this page.

It is difficult to find good comparative images of these cats standing in close proximity, however these show the relative sizes reasonably well. Tiger Territory continues to seek better comparative images. When comparing the lioness to the tiger, remember that the female of a species is smaller than the male, so a male lion would normally be a little taller at the shoulder.

Conclusion:

*The tiger has a longer body, and is usually more powerful in the back legs, having evolved this way for great speed and unmatched leaping power. The lion evolved primarily for fighting, with a larger head and more power in the forequarters. Paradoxically this has made him a poor predator.

It seems obvious that there are a small number of tigers out there which are superior fighters to the lion, but across the majority of the animals, the lion would probably indeed be the King of the Beasts. The ultimate conclusion is up to the reader, and this article seeks not to give you a definite answer, only something to ponder on. Perhaps the final comment should come from animal trainer Louis Roth, who once said he had "seen enough fights to conclude that none of the theories is accurate; sometimes a lion would win, sometimes a tiger".

Side note:

The name 'King of the Beasts' can be traced back to the first century of the Christian era. Lions featured strongly on coats-of-arms, and were on the crests of various royal families, including the English, Scottish and Norwegian. In Asia and China the lion symbolised strength and power. Richard the Lion-Hearted received his name for showing particular bravery in battle.

Habits of the Tiger Index | Home