a lions mane does no protect a lion it actually is a disadvantage in a fight since it makes the lion over heat faster. Here
"Charles Darwin was the first to suggest that the mane may be a result of "sexual selection" meaning that the mane may play a role in reproductive success. One hypothesis has been that the mane protects a male's neck in fights with other males, and that males that are more successful in fights would then have increased access to females. Another hypothesis is that the mane serves as a signal of male condition allowing males to assess each other's fighting ability and females to choose superior mates.
Our studies addressed both hypotheses. If the mane evolved by conferring protection on male necks, one might predict that the area covered by the mane is a special target of attacks during fights. Additionally, wounds to the neck area might be particularly dangerous. In these cases, there would be significant evolutionary pressure on males to develop protection in the neck area. However, when we examined wounding patterns both in adult males, and in females and sub-adult males (whose neck areas are bare), we could find no evidence that the necks were special targets, nor that wounds to the neck were especially dangerous. These results suggested that the mane's primary function might be to signal male condition."
"Using an infrared camera, we measured the surface temperatures of male and female lions, and found that male lions were hotter than females. In addition, males with darker manes were hotter than males with lighter manes. These results suggest that the mane imposes costs in terms of heat stress, and that only superior males can afford to withstand these costs. For inferior males, a dark mane would be a serious handicap such that the costs would outweigh the reproductive benefits. "
Means that the dark colored maned lion would most likley overheat faster
So no manes do not protect the lion and have yet been proven to do so.
Now u say lion are superior experience and fighting skill which is also not true at all. Lion spend most of there life sitting around and only fight when there pride needs them which is not often.
Tiger on the other hand fight other predators and tiger quite frequently and have just as much fighting skill if not more then lions on average.
siberian tigers are known to kill and eat brown bears and black bears.( the way of the tiger page 43) tiger are known to kill leopards and sloth bears along with dholes(the way of the tiger page 43)
tigers rely on strength and fighting abilities to survive( The encyclopdia of mammals)
so know lions don't fight more.
"It preys on deer, wild pig and bear, and will kill and eat panthers and other tigers." http://www.pbs.org/edens/bhutan/a_tiger.htm
Tigers sometimes kill and eat leopards, other tigers and other carnivores like bears."
http://www.szgdocent.org/resource/aa/cats/a-tiger.htm
Tigers are territorial—they live alone in large areas that they defend from other tigers... Among these territorial adults, the risk of death remains high. Males typically do not live as long as females because they are more likely to engage in violent fights with other tigers to protect their territories."
- The Encarta Encyclopedia
"Adult male tigers are aggressive towards other males and they will not share their territory. It is not uncommon that males are killed during territorial fights and that's one reason why there are less adult male tigers than there are female tigers."
http://www.tigrisfoundation.nl/cms/...e.asp?pageID=22
"In February, 2001, two male tigers met with "unnatural deaths " inside the park. Park officials said they died of "territorial fights""http://www.indiatraveltimes.com/current/corbett.html
Also history it self says tiger beat lions
"... When the Romans set tiger against lion in the Coliseum, the tiger INVARIABLY won..." When the Romans set tiger against lion in the Coliseum, the tiger INVARIABLY won..."
"In the Middle Ages a few lions were kept in European menageries in Germany, England France and Italy. The best known of these early zoological collections was one belonging to Henry I of England that was eventually moved to the Tower of London, where it remained until 1840.
Occasionally lions where forced to fight tigers, but apparently the tigers always won. This observation was confirmed more recently in the 1950's by a keeper in the Bronx Zoo, where a lion cub named Zambezi and a young tiger named Ranee were raised together. There occasional fights always resulted in a victory for the tiger. Alfred Martini, the keeper, described the tiger as being the better fighter, “like a clever boxer against a heavy hitter, shrewder and trickier. (Mel and Fiona Sunquist, 2002 page 287)"
The Living Edens- these were fights to the death.
Not to mention Wild Cats of the World, which states the same thing, but instead of saying invariably, they say almost always...
"Look for "Roman Times", this book talks about how the Caspian dominated the Barbary Lion at will."
"Matter of fact its says the Barbary Lion was no match for the Caspian Tiger. They seem to suggest that .
book Tigers: The Ultimate Guide b/c it explains how the tiger was the beast that dominated all other beasts including barbara lions
picture
http://www.mnemosyne.org/emb/pix/fu...1566_pic201.jpg
ALSO video evidence also shows tigers winning
Tigress beating Barbary lion which is a male.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...q=tiger+vs+lion
Scientist saying that he believes a male tiger would win most every time
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askas...00/zoo00192.htm
Bangle tiger beating a lion. There sights showing the same video.
"http://www.upstanding****ingcitizens.org/phpbb/uploads/lion_gets_handled.wmv".
http://www.boards2go.com/boards/boa...amp;user=Pranav
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...632&q=tiger
May 2nd, 2006 10:24 PM
Dum Dum Dugan is online now!
