The fact that cats are proportionally more muscular than things like buffaloes, gorillas, elephants and BEARS is something that i find very interesting.
I think a good comparison is body builders (tiger) vs power lifters (bear) Where the tiger has more muscle but the bear has a combination of fat and muscle that gives it more mass and overall more strength
@@SuprememeCeratosaurus not really... the build of these animals are very different, and the difference in muscle proportions serve more functions than just burst of strength.
@@SuprememeCeratosaurus Just to add, the bear has more stamina because of it's fast reserves. Plus under all that hair, bears are wrote muscular. Look at two male Kodiaks fighting. They're scary. You can see the muscle definition under 10"of hair is quite telling
@RealPaleontology I lost my job due to sickness and haven't been very lucky finding another until now. My new job starts on Monday and I'm happy to help where I can soon.
Tigers are undoubtedly better predators than bears; they are probably the premier example of an ambush predator on land. I think once the element of surprise is gone though, the scenario changes and the advantage goes to the bear; I can't see a tiger taking down an alert bull brown bear ans bears are pretty solid "tanks" and good at guarding a kill. Even sloth bears have very good matchups against Bengal tigers. The tiger is the much better hunter and it isn't even a debate but what I suspect the data doesn't show (because outaide of direct visual observation it is hard to accurately achieve) is that a large male bear is probably going to win in a direct confrontation not least because a tiger isn't likely going to put itself in a situation where it loses it's greatest advantage, stealth. Anyway that's my hunch. I've been lucky enough to have the privelege of tracking Siberian tigers in Ussuriland during late winter back in 2015 and have had close encounters with many Alaskan brown bears back in 2022; I appreciate them both.
I agree with you, a Tiger is no match for an average male Kodiak or Polar bear but in my opinion It is actually evenly matched with the average Grizzly (probably being closer with the inland ones as those share similar weights with the biggest Tiger subespecies, while coastals are considerably bigger). Despite of that in my opinion you are not being fair by claiming that sloth bears have a good shot against a Tiger, as Bengal tigers regularly kill adult sloth bears while the opposite case of an sloth bear killing an adult Tiger was never documented or recorded. Your argument of Tigers and sloth bears being close in a physical confrontation because sometimes sloth bears can make them back down is the same as someone claiming that a cougar is a good matchup for an american blackbear/Grizzly bear because they sometimes achieve the same thing. Remember that animals don't have such a thing as honor and they will always act on what their survival instincts tell them in order to ensure survival. Ussuri Brown bears are a bit bigger on average than the average Grizzly and despite the fact that there's no evidence of a Siberian tiger killing a male adult brown bear absence of evidence still isn't evidence of absence, at the end of the day we can only speculate and this kind of fights heavily depends on the individuals
@@Andypo-u6j A tiger is no match in a heads up confrontation where both animals commit to fight. It doesn't matter which sub-species of brown bear we're talking about. Now, if we talk about Grizzly Sows or other inland subspecies, a big Siberian tiger might just be too big for a sow. A boar Grizz, even an averaged sized one, is going to be too much for a Siberian tiger to handle. In fact, I think this scenario boils down more to body language and psychology than anything. I think a big Siberian Tiger has a better chance to bully a Peninsular Brown or any other Coastal subspecies, than it does an inland subspecies like a Grizz. The inland subspecies have way more attitude, and are way more aggressive willing to fight over limited resources. The big browns, Peninsular, Kamchatcka, Ussuri, Kodiak, they are far more likely to go find something else to eat. Which animal is more likely to kill the other in an act of predation? The cat. I think that's obvious. If they just run into each other, or a hunt is unsuccessful and turns into a confrontation? The bear is going to win, almost every time. There is plenty of video evidence to support this, both from forced pit fights, and from wild encounters with Bengal Tigers and Sloth bears, where the Sloth bears are less than half the size of the Tiger, and still manage to run the exhausted cat off.
*Bite force:* *Collection of LARGEST skulls of Ussuri brown bears, reliably measured by biologist, measurements as follows:* *1 male: length 448 mm, zygomatic width 280 mm, ratio 0,625* *2 male: length 449 mm, zygomatic width 270 mm, ratio 0,6013.* *3 male: length 432 mm, zygomatic width 250 mm, ratio 0,5787.* *4 male: length 428 mm, z.width 238 mm, ratio 0,5560.* *5 male: length 406 mm, z.width 239 mm, ratio 0,5886.* *6 male: length 397 mm, z.width 240 mm, ratio 0,6405.* *7 male: length 399, z.width 264 mm, ratio 0,6616.* *8 male: length 380 mm, z.width 196 mm, ratio 0,5157.* *Then we have measurements of just big Siberian tiger skull (not necessarily the largest):* *Length 400 mm, zygomatic width 280 mm, ratio 0,7.* *It is an enormous difference, as out of collection of largest skulls of Ussuri brown bears only one managed to achieve width of Siberian tiger skull that likely far from representing upper limit, and even then the ratio difference was very big. Siberian tiger has definitely much stronger bite, but it's not only the strength, it is also effectiveness.* *Tiger fangs are much longer and also much thicker, even at equal skull width. Then we have the fact that bear jaw has herbivorous diet adaptations, their main teeth are not predatory-like, flat like that of humans, tiger teeth are like that of a true predator, very sharp curved, can cut bones like scissors, which again adds a lot of effectiveness to the bite.* *So tigers not only have much stronger bite force, they also have much more effective tools for this force application, resulting in much more superior bite effectiveness.*
And on top of that the Tigers skull is much shorter which gives it a major leverage advantage over the bear. Is designed to kill. The bears jewels in teeth are all purpose
@@RealPaleontology *Yes exactly. Cats have shortened skull for better transferring of force from arches to the canines. The ratio of width to length is 0,7 for the tiger, while even for the proportionally widest bear skull out of the sample it was 0,64 and with actually 4 cm thinner skull.*
I can't see any large cat standing a chance against a fully grown polar bear or a kodiak brown bear. Even the females would dominate that fight, especially if they have cubs. In 1895 there was a cage fight between a 550 pound african lion and a 700 pound american grizzly. The lion attacked, the bear caught him in a bear hug and hurt it bad enough that it didn't want to fight anymore. The lion laid down, the bear left it alone, the crowd wanted their money back. I don't know how youtube is about posting links so search for the article "When the Lion fought the Bear: Interspecies Cage Fighting on the Mexican Border" for the whole story. I'm fully confident that the polar and kodiak would dominate the ussuri too.
Possibly not. But I don't see what your point is? Of course there is a point at which size becomes overwhelming? But polar bears and Kodiak bears don't coexist with Tigers. I don't see the point of these rather childish hypotheticals?
@@RealPaleontology Who told you that tigers have higher bite force than brown bears? If you ever want to be honest, you need to read about the Siberian Tiger Project and how scientists see their relationship. Tigers will only take on very small females (usually less then 100 kg) or cubs. They do not go close to male bears. Why do you think that is? Why do you think the statistics show that bears take 35% of the tigers kill from them? Have you read about the pit fights between large male lions vs grizzlies and how easily the grizzlies killed them? Its not much difference between the two cats. And certainly not enough to make the tiger dominate a brown bear. Tigers are apex predators, but really poor fighters. Brown bears are poor predators, but apex fighters.
No one told me. I worked these figures out myself and then I published them in internationally renowned peer reviewed scientific journals. I've been studying and publishing on mammalian carnivores for over 30 years. I have a particular interest in finite element analysis, a computer based method of simulating the mechanical performance of biological as well as man made structures. Below are a few papers I've written or coauthored that are relevant. I've written dozens of others. You can find them here: scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=hUNupu4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Incidentally, I never said that tigers have a higher bite force than brown bears. I said that they have a much higher BFQ. That stands for bite force quotient. This is a means of correcting for allometry. I'll explain it to you if you don't know what that means. But basically, a tiger of any given size can exert a bite force roughly twice that of a bear the same size. Although this will vary a little between species. There is one exception among bears, that is the giant panda. It has a remarkably high BFQ for a bear. Maybe do some reading and get back to me when you're up to speed. Best wishes, Steve Christiansen, P. and Wroe, S. (2007), BITE FORCES AND EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATIONS TO FEEDING ECOLOGY IN CARNIVORES. Ecology, 88: 347-358. doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[347:BFAEAT]2.0.CO;2 Wroe S, McHenry C, Thomason J. Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Mar 22;272(1563):619-25. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2986. PMID: 15817436; PMCID: PMC1564077. C.R. McHenry, S. Wroe, P.D. Clausen, K. Moreno, E. Cunningham, Supermodeled sabercat, predatory behavior in Smilodon fatalis revealed by high-resolution 3D computer simulation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (41) 16010-16015,doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706086104 (2007). Wroe S, Chamoli U, Parr WCH, Clausen P, Ridgely R, et al. (2013) Comparative Biomechanical Modeling of Metatherian and Placental Saber-Tooths: A Different Kind of Bite for an Extreme Pouched Predator. PLOS ONE 8(6): e66888. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066888 Wroe, S. (2008), Cranial mechanics compared in extinct marsupial and extant African lions using a finite-element approach. Journal of Zoology, 274: 332-339. doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00389.x
@ The whole internet argument is hypothetical. That's the fun in it. We're not all scientists. It's the same dumb stuff as what animals could you beat in a fight.
I think it’s entirely possible larger individuals existed in the past but with their reduced habitat and numbers, it’s just exceedingly unlikely to have any of them reach that size today. This isn’t just true for bears and cats, it’s true for any animal that has had its range and population dramatically reduced. Even in the areas they still live, in many cases the quality of that habitat isn’t what it used to be and I know food availability is a part of that.
@@lukaslambs5780 i agree that larger individuals existed in the past,but i don't see them getting to 360 or 380 kg considering the fact that even captive tigers rarely exceed 300kg.Since captive tigers get regular food the will obviously grow bigger and heavier than their wild counter parts,so i would say at their absolute peak they probably reached about 270-290 with super rare specimens reaching 300kg
I very recently found your channel and i already love the way you structure your videos and your no nonsense approach to the topics at hand. It's always nice to see seasoned scientists give their own thoughts on things and not just a short summary on an article that has to quickly make a headline.
Great video!, and good research. I just disagree with one thing, the thing about fast twitch muscle fibers is that, while they do exert more power than slow twitch muscle fibers, that does not necessarily mean the tiger is stronger than the bear. Tendon placement and bone robusticity are certainly more important, bears have an undeniable advantage over great cats in terms of bone robusticity (you might be familiar with one of the studies) and more advantageously placed tendons as well for generating strength. Not to mention, Ursids in general have much shorter and stouter spines than tigers or any pantherine as a matter of fact. Which is even more advantageous towards generating strength and increasing its stability while being on all 4s. They are also just significantly more heavily built animals. So it seems that the bear should definitely be the stronger and more durable opponent.
Yeah I agree. The thing about Bears when compared to other Carnivorans such as Cats or Dogs is that their muscles are attached more distally to the bone joints. This would give them greater leverage for force generation at an expense of speed when compared to other Carnivorans such as Cats and Dogs. For instance, if you look at the deltoid pectoral crest on the humeral bones of these animals, you would see it's very apparent that the crest is not only longer, but also more defined and rugose in Bears when compared to Cats. This suggests that the muscles attached to the crest would be more distal to the shoulder joint in Bears, hence increasing the leverage for force generation. And since the crest is more defined and more rugose, the muscles attached there are probably larger and more forceful too.
I’ve seen videos of Sloth Bears holding their own against much larger Bengal Tigers. It seems tigers generally target bears that are smaller than themselves and rely on ambush to kill bears. In protracted fight, I assuming both the tiger and bear are the same size, the ursid would likely have a stamina advantage.
Yes, sloth bears will often stand up to Tigers, interestingly it depends on the distance between the bear and the Tiger when the bear first notices the cat. The short distance the more likely it is that the bear will stand and even charge of the Tiger. There is even a well documented case of a big male killing a Tiger. But Tigers kill way more sloth bears, and sloth bears constitute a small but significant part of the Tigers' diet in some parts of the range. But yeah, there is absolutely no doubt that these bears appear to be totally fearless. Kind of the honey badger of the bear world! Anyway, it just so happens that I'm writing up a prescription for this today and will publish pretty soon. I think you'll find it interesting... And yes, the more protracted the engagement the better the chances for the bear. But the cat has the advantage in pretty much every other respect.
@@RealPaleontologyI once came across a study that implied that large male brown bears were better at killing adult moose in Siberia than tigers or wolves. While I can’t link the study, I found its conclusion interesting.
1 thing i gotta disagree with is using bear fur or parts in tiger scat for this since you cant tell how the bear was killed only that it was eaten so it could have been hibernating or already dead
You can definitely tell whether or not it was hibernating by the time of year. But you are right you can't be sure that it wasn't scavenged from the scats. But you can usually determine whether it was killed or scavenged from examination of the carcass. And in the great majority of bear carcasses examined, 12 out of 13 from memory, the beer was clearly killed. But it is a fact that bears do sometimes kill the Tiger, but this is clearly a far less common event. There is even a pretty well supported instance of a sloth bear, killing a tiger in India. But again it's far more common for the Tiger to kill the bear. I'll be putting up a video on this shortly. Sloth bears I'm incredibly aggressive animals. Kind of the honey badger of the bear world
Like all big cats the largest specimens where killed hundreds of years ago...bears..big cats..and even antelope species..big males killed,the ones that had the best geno...the largest and strongest are all gone includes rhino, elephant,girraffe and even crocodiles....humans are beyond evil..that is why!
Yes that's what happened all right. The other factor is that all of their populations and ranges have been greatly reduced which of course playing it by the numbers means that the upper limits of size will be less
You are just a Tiger lover. They stand very little chance with a Grizzly, Brown bear or Kodiak bear. All about the same except for the slightly smaller Grizzly and even then, small chance a Tiger wins.
Just reporting the facts. I love tigers and bears. Incidentally, Grizzly bears and Kodiak bears are not separate species, they are both subspecies of brown bear (Ursus arctos).
there is video of a female sloth bear weighing no more than 200 lbs STALEMATING and actually CHASING AWAY a 400 lbs male tiger after a 10 minute fight.. a bear HALF the size BESTED a tiger.. its not logical to assume a tiger or lion can take on ANY bear of EQUAL weights. the tiger or lion MUST be bigger. unless there is video evidence.
There is video evidence of a five kilo honey badger chasing off a 200 kilo male lion. So what? There is video evidence of a 20 kilo wolverine chasing off a 150 kilo black bear. This really doesn't prove anything. Tigers pretty regularly eat sloth bears in parts of their range. In the study we looked at in that video nearly 10% of the bears were killed and eaten. Two were badly hurt. None of the Tigers were heard at all.
@@RealPaleontology be LOGICAL.. the honey badger didnt FIGHT the lion. it DETERED the lion.. the sloth bear ACTUALLY FOUGHT AND MADE THE TIGER RUN TWICE.. sorry but there is NO EVIDENCE ANY big cat can take on a ANY bear of equal size.. but the video of the sloth bear IS evidence toward MY POINT.
@@RealPaleontology on the flip side, lets take your logic of the hb vs the lion. there is video of lions killing HBs (with a lot of effort).. where are the videos of a tiger beating a bear of equal size? there are videos of them killing female and sub adult SLOTH BEARS but even MALE sloth bears only reach 300 lbs.. have yet to see a bengal take a MALE sloth bear.. please share any videos you may have.
4:45 when I try telling people that Bengal tigers are and probably were larger than their Russian cousins I get reported for misinformation😅great video!
@ there was a meta analysis published in 2005 by Dr. Jonathan Slaght and Dr. Dale Miquelle specifically about the sizes of these cats. They concluded that all recorded weights of Siberian tigers from early 20th century reaching 300 kilo or more were unreliable. The largest one they classified reliable was 254 kg by Baikov, 1927. They also found an average Bengal male was larger than largest recorded Siberian tiger Dima (206 kilo) and then Luke (212 kilo) in 2012 when talking about data collected by modern techniques.
@DeathAdder674 yes. And this applies to many species and subspecies. People use historical figures and assume that because a species may have reached a certain body mass a century ago, it's still must reach it now. Which is obviously very unlikely 4 species with vastly reduced rangers
@ I agree. I also wish these aspects were studied more in depth. India is doing great with tiger and other species conservation but there’s a lack of professionalism. Methods could be improved and we could know a lot more but many scientists just don’t care.
Interesting. Doesn't surprise me. Could you send me the details on that paper please? I suspect that this applies to many big carnivores. And even where the historical records are sound, for many species the maximum sizes among present populations is likely to be much lower than the historical maximums. Yet people always refer to these.
This has to be my favourite video on the channel, apart from the hyena's bone breaking myth debunking one! I'd also be fascinated by discussions on the morphologies of panthers. For example lions and tigers are a hot topic. A comparative morphology video of these two would be amazing. I've heard that tigers though heavier are more or less gracile compared to lions and that lions are a more robust morph among the two pantherines! Tigers seem to have a longer and more flexible, springy spine with stronger forelimbs and shoulders, whereas, lions have a more robust chest, back, shorter more rigid spine and broader hips and hind quarters along with a relatively larger skull. It'd be interesting to hear an expert's opinion and a breakdown of the physiology of such similar and yet very different big cats!
Thank you very much. The lion vs tiger question is kind of interesting. The thing is though, I don't really want to do something that's speculative. The best of my knowledge there is no real data on what happens when lions and tigers coexist. Basically because it doesn't happen. But I will look into it further
@@RealPaleontology An analysis and comparison of their respective anatomies and morphology would be cool instead of what happens when they meet or who'd win.
@@RealPaleontology i think your conclusions are spot on about bear tiger interaction. i came to the same, i think correct conclusions, based on mere intuition. tigers outclass bears in relative strength, speed, agility and predatory instincts, so if they are evenly matched in size, and the tiger has the advantage of a surprise hunting attack, tigers indeed can prey on bears, and there does seem to be indisputable evidence for it. bears often do have an apparent size advantage though, or weight anyway, but it may not be as big as it seems because bears can carry so much fat, while cats are so lean. so it is not a big advantage as it may at first seem. generally speaking though, the tiger would need the advantage of surprise attack to have any chance of preying on a bear. a bear that is aware and able to defend itself is a different story. then i think it will be a stalemate, unless the bear is very small. about the lion vs tiger debate, there is actually a vast amount of historical fight data on the subject, more than enough to draw a strong conclusion. i would call it colossal even. fights between the two species have been recorded exhausively in the circus 'lion tamer' acts of the early 20th century. ie there were literally thousands of fights. and it is not in any way open to debate which of the two great cats is the stronger and more dominant. it is of course, surprise surprise, the lion. the famous lion tamer clyde beaty is well known for stating 'a lion will whip a tiger every day, and twice on sunday. in his books he recalls fights between the cats, and the prime male lions always beat the big male tigers, often killing the tigers. one time a fight broke out in the tunnel and lion killed three tigers. in the film, the big cage, several tigers were needed as the lion killed the tiger before they had got footage. barbaric, but its history. he stated tigers were physically intimidated by lions, and generally fled or submitted to avoid a fight. his views are often disparaged by tiger fans, but all the other mixed cat trainers said exactly the same thing. seems the lion has many advantages over the tiger. contrary to popular opinion, lions are not smaller, standing several inches taller at the shoulder than male tigers. lions are faster, have greater endurance, heat tolerance, situational awareness, skill and shear aggression an will to dominate. it seems the roman saying, lion king of beasts is accurate and consistent will modern evidence. of course you will see a considerable amount of disagreement of this on yt debates, but this is all based on ignorance. superficially, tigers may seem to have an advantage if you buy into the claims of siberian tiger size (to which i say where are the remains in museums proving these sizes?). from what ive read male siberian/bengal tigers weigh no more than lions on average. and there have been some huge lions over 600lb which seem to equal the biggest verifiable tigers. and the tiger is consistently the worlds most popular animal in polls. but if you look into the subject seriously, its the lion that is probably the biggest cat, or at least equal biggest, and easily the strongest.
@@andy-the-gardenerI am not well versed in the debate about historical matchups but I am well versed in their anatomy. I will be referring to Bengal tigers from here on since they are the largest subspecies of tigers and the largest cats out there. Lions are not taller than tigers. They are about the same height, 3’3” to 3’5” on average at the withers. Similarly, tigers aren’t longer than lions. They maybe longer when including the tail, but talking about body alone (nose to tail insertion) they are roughly the same, around 6’4”. Bengal tigers are also heavier, about 60-70 pounds in mod and 40 pounds in average. Amur tigers are not the largest. Lions and tigers are pound for pound very comparable but there are differences in their body plans. Tigers are front heavy, girthier and more robust in upper body but lions have more mass in their hindlimbs and lumbar region of spine. At same body mass, a lion and tiger would be about equally strong. Truly the most 50-50 matchup ever, at least in terms of physicality.
The biggest most powerful member of the prey will always be avoided by the predator, Bull Cape Buffalo, Bull Gaur, Bull Moose etc, a big male Brown Bear would be no different.
@@RealPaleontology Only if it's sick, old or isolated, if Lions are hunting a herd of Buffalo they don't go for the biggest strongest Bull, and definitely not if it's only a single Lion. All predators instinctively go for the more vulnerable.
Very informative as usual, I consider myself one of them very passionate about this particular tussle. Unlike the "Lion Vs Tiger", this is way more interesting in my opinion. Having clearly very distinct carnivores tussling it out. Not only that, but two very large carnivores in excess of 150 kg in the same environment, very rare if not only in the Russian far east. Maybe the occasional Polar and brown bear confrontations, Lions and tiger in India. Reminds of the khabib and conor fight in ways, if the Felid doesn't take the bear out quickly it's gonna be a long day and the worse it gets for the striped killer. I agree 100% with your conclusion, large males very likely avoiding each other, knowing very well it's not worth the trouble. When it comes the bite force, I think it's established out of all the bears, the Polar bear has the weakest bite pound for pound. I think Brown Bears don't just have pound for pound stronger bite forces, but overall just more powerful bites I think if i am not mistaken
Thanks. And yes the brown bear does have a slightly higher bfq. I was one of the authors on the paper. But it's a marginal difference. Funnily enough, it's the panda bear that has the most powerful bite among bears, and buy a big margin
Definitely the bear has more stamina. It really comes down to the size differential. Clearly if the bear is big enough it will have the edge. Exactly where that cut off point is we will probably never know.
In any of these cases to me it's pomp and circumstance. If they are relatively equal in size but the tiger gets the jump on the bear I'd give it to the tiger, but in a scenario where the tiger just made a kill and a bear goes to steal it I'd favor the bear @@RealPaleontology
As far as I know, you're misrepresenting Seryodkin et al with the assertion that the tigers killed by bears did not include adult males. Same goes for the assertion that bears only steal kills from female tigers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that the article you're referring to specifies the tigers' genders in either case. Not sure it's much good being an academic and citing academic journals if it can't prevent one's bias from interfering with the task of accurately relaying information. I'd also say that it's misleading to insist that tigers are predators, while bears are just some kind of big, fat tiger parasite. The fact is that tigers scavenge just like bears and bears run down and kill their prey, much like tigers. The rate of incidence is different, but the general behaviours (emphasis on "general" here - tigers prefer to hunt by ambush and otherwise sneak up on their prey as best they can, while bears have absolute zero aptitude for stealth) are common. Seryodkin et al's article seems to me to make clear that not all tigers eaten by bears are killed by said bears and not all bears killed by tigers are killed by said tigers. Both species appear to engage in both actively killing the other for food (occasionally) and in eating the others' corpses (whenever the opportunity arises). I don't think anyone's seriously argued that tigers are killing every bear that they eat, but the video seems to imply it, for the sake of increasing the persuasiveness of an argument that is unfounded. Since a bear can digest prey in its entirety, it's rewarding for it to scavenge and contest kills, even if they're partially eaten. Tigers, on the other hand, cannot, so to get value out of a carcass, they need to be on the scene much sooner, before the parts that are edible to tigers have been eaten. Given their propensity for spending their time cowering in bushes, hoping for something unaware to walk by, their ability to get to other animals' kills in time is relativey low, but they are certainly not above putting it to use when they can. A bear's ability to dominate kills further allows it to conserve energy by actively hunting less often. On the other hand, a bear's complete inability to sneak does greatly increase the energy that it needs to spend to make kills, which discourages that activity. Thus, these are both predators at the very top of the same food chain, but in very different ways. Tigers are more capable and far more prolific as active hunters, but bears dominate the preferred method of both for acquiring meat - getting it for free.
The majority of this comment has very little to do with the actual discussion. The fact of the matter is that we have hundreds of confirmed cases of tigers predating on bears and very few to none confirmed cases of bears predating on tigers. There is a very obvious disparity here in peer reviewed work. That’s what the bulk of this video is focusing on. And he did not say that bears were just big tiger parasites. He stated that the tiger is built solely and almost perfectly for the act of killing while the bear is a generalist that predominantly eats plants and supplements it’s diet with meat. At several points during the video he highlighted the risk involved in a tiger attacking a bear and how this is not an entirely one-sided confrontation. But the facts of the world are clear: overwhelmingly, bears are prey to tigers and not the other way around. Obviously, almost nothing in nature is an absolute, but we need to acknowledge the facts of the world.
It's really not that deep. I find the "animal versus" community (or whatever the hell you call them) to be particularly juvenile and rather embarrassing. It's like watching a bunch of fourth-graders arguing over which superhero is stronger.
@@francisweller839If you're relying on Seryodkin et al for the "hundreds of confirmed cases" figure, congratulations on jumping on the misrepresentation bandwagon. The paper clearly explains that there is a big difference between finding that traces of hundreds of bears have been consumed by tigers and finding that they've actively been killed by tigers and indeed, goes into detail on some of the alternatives that compose that number. If we're going to "acknowledge the facts of the world", let's also not spread misinformation. That way, others won't have such a hard time determining said facts. If you think I'm also guilty of this, feel free to correct me. I think it would be more valuable than attempting to divert attention to different topics. The video is titled "Big Cat vs Big Bear" and attempts to compare the two, but knowingly uses false comparisons and selective omissions to undermine the bear's relative strengths. He did in fact contrast labels of "predator" and "kleptoparasite", strongly implying that bears are not predators, which is plainly misleading. The video is not an "actual discussion", it's a monologue. I can _discuss_ any aspect of said monologue and have chosen to discuss the parts that I find objectionable, because I see little point in discussing elements with which I agree. Tigers should be expected to kill more bears than vice versa, because they are ambush predators. They choose their battles and turn tail when they don't think they can win. They will leap for a bear's neck from hiding, at very close range, then immediately run away if they miss, preferring to try again later than risk tangling with a bear. When a bear kills a tiger, it's because the tiger has miscalculated. When a tiger kills a bear, it's because the tiger had a good hiding spot. Tigers themselves aren't fool enough to think they can kill a larger bear without the element of surprise. Nevertheless, when comparing like with like (confirmed cases in which the animal killed another and ate it), Seryodkin et al's paper does not suggest that tigers kill many more bears than the other way around, though it's certainly possible. However, this is just one aspect of the dynamic. Usually when tigers and bears meet, it's not as predator and prey, but as two predators, in competition over a kill. In this scenario, the bear is strongly advantaged. A brown bear has numerous beneficial adaptations which allow it to sustain itself without much active predation, but these adaptations do not undermine its competence as a formidable apex predator. I do not write this as a bear fanatic. I'm decidedly fonder of tigers, but part of this evaluation arises from a rational understanding of bears' bonechilling predatory abilities.
I think you're misinterpreting what Prof. wroe said about bears being kleptoparasitic. As in it not being a parasite, he merely stated that some bears follow tigers and then steal their kills after they do the hunting for them. That's what kleptoparasitism is. It's a behaviour; and is done by a few individual bears. And the fact is there are more instances of tigers predating on bears than the other way around, which he showed with the sources. That is not to say that bears don't hunt tigers or can't but rather that it's very uncommon compared to the other way around.
Of course bears are occasional predators. And some do systematically track down tigers and pushed them off their kills. Some do kill tigers 2. I'm not making a normal judgment here. Nor am i relying on a single source.
Dr. Wroe, the Amur Tiger or the Siberian Tiger, is not a Species, neither a Subspecies, but It was the population of Panthera tigris tigris, AKA the "Continental Tiger." Ussuri Brown Bears were Historically Found in the Korean Peninsula, Northern China, and even Russia, but now these Brown Bears were restricted to Russia and even Hokkaido in Northern Japan.
No sorry you're wrong mate. Just because someone proposed subsuming a subspecies within another doesn't make it so. Get onto Google Scholar and type in Panthera tigris altaica. You will find dozens of references to it post 2017 right up to now. This suggestion has clearly not been taken up by the majority of the scientific community.
Interestingly, accounts of pit fights seem to have the bear usually coming out on top against the big cats. Often times the bears breaking the lions and tiger’s necks with paw swipes.
interesting - what are the numbers? although regardless, unless we have the weights of the combatants it really doesn't mean much. If the bear is big enough it will have the advantage
I love bears 🧸, they're my favorite animal, even after I learned that they don't have soft fur, still after I learned that tigers outright eat bears, I just think to myself "you can't win them all, I guess" and bears are still my favorite animals, but about the time I found out I stumbled upon a tiger plushie out on the road.
Well Steve Wroe, The Siberian or the Amur Tiger possibly Preyed on Brown and Asian Black Bears, but also Prey on Sika Deer, Siberian Roe Deer, Wild Boar, Badgers, Manchurian Wapiti, and even Amur Moose, but also Preyed on the Extinct Wild Cattle such as Great Aurochs, which is belong to the New Subspecies described in Earlier Last Year in 2024, which is the Siberian Aurochs (Bos primigenius sinensis) mainly went Extinct in Central Asia, North-East Asia, Eastern Mongolia, and the Korean Peninsula in the 7th Century, when the last European Aurochs (Bos primigenius primigenius) died in the Forest in Poland in 1627 on the 17th Century. Tigers also restricted to Russia, and even North-Eastern China.
Very interesting! But unless they also key records of the sizes of these combatants then I don't think it's really going to tell us much. If the bear is big enough it will likely defeat the Tiger
You touched a lot on the tiger’s morphology but glanced over the bear. You also went into detail on several bear kills, but didn’t say much in the recorded cases of brown bears killing tigers. It makes you come off a bit bias. Size is not the only advantage a bear has. And pound for pound means next to nothing, when in the wild it’s never gonna be an even playing field.
I appreciate the research but there are still a number of areas where some of the conclusions are certainly inconclusive. Although I agree Tigers are pound for pound, stronger than Bears but not twice as strong…… Tigers can be less than half the weight of a large Bear and when considering a large Bear in its prime against a large Tiger in its prime, the Bear will simply overpower the Tiger. Although I don’t dispute your reports on Tiger predation on Bears and Bear remains in Tiger skat, this is not conclusive evidence that large Tigers are taking down large Bears in one on one fights. More over, given the Bears overwhelming strength and of course the natural over the top stamina of the Bear as compared to the very lacking stamina of the Tiger….. there’s only one conclusion to reach….. the Bear will simply overpower the Tiger and at that point, the natural stamina of the Bear along with its bad attitude…… the last thing the Tiger will hear is “here kitty, kitty, kitty !
Hey thanks. And I think you've misunderstood what I've said. Certainly bear remains in Tiger's scats doesn't prove that tigers are regularly killing big bears. But the evidence from scats does tell us something. They are eating quite a lot of bear, depending on the season and the region. Most of the bears they're eating are not eaten in winter, that is, they are not eaten while hibernating. The study of actual bear carcasses found in the field does strongly suggest that the great majority of the bears they are eating are bears that they've killed, not scavenged. Of these bears clearly killed by tigers, only one was a male, and that was a subadult 3-4 years old. There was no clear evidence of a tiger killing a bear larger than itself. Although at least one was pretty close in size to the tiger. I also pointed out that there are at least 12 confirmed historical instances of bears killing tigers. And there is also clear evidence that some bears track tigers and try to bully them off their carcasses. Sometimes this works out right, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes the two end up in a very uneasy truce, sharing the carcass. Sometimes the bear takes the carcass and steals it out right. Putting all this together my conclusion is that tigers kill more bears than bears kill tigers. Certainly tiger does not end up in 4 to 13% of bear scats. I also conclude that big male tigers and big male Ussuri bears seem to avoid each other. Probably because they both know that there is a very good chance that they could be badly hurt or killed. I definitely don't say that the biggest Siberian tiger can kill the biggest Ussuri bear, or vice versa. To me the data says that they have a very healthy respect for each other.
And please stop it with the hypotheticals. Let's just stick to the known facts and lay off this schoolyard my bears better than your tiger, or my tiger can beat your bear any day stuff. Really is very childish. That said, I reckon my dad could beat your dad in an arm wrestle any day!
@ Thank you for getting back to me, I found your post to be refreshing since it was obvious you had put a lot of research, thought and of course your professional insights and experiences into the article. Although I lean towards the power and stamina of the large Bear in a fight with a Tiger, by no means do I underestimate the strength and ferocity of a Tiger….. they are magnificent in every respect. I agree that in most cases, whether it’s a Bear stumbling onto a Tiger or vice versa, discretion would become the better part of valor as either one would most likely back away rather than risk serious injury. Thanks for the great post and I’ve subscribed to your channel.
No worries and of course there is a threshold point at which size will overwhelm any other advantage. Just where that point is entirely open to debate, but impossible to answer with any confidence with the available data. And I very much doubt that there will ever be sufficient to make a truly informed prediction. We’d need to have will documented data and results from dozens of violent interactions between big bears and big cats. I don't see that happening unless some rich psychopath finds a way to collect animals and force them into staged conflict. I hope we can both agree that this should never be allowed to happen.
Great video. I wonder if this mirrors the interactions between prehistoric cats and bears. I would also love to see you analyze tiger predation on elephants and rhinos.
No they would not be, depending on the numbers. Even lions can be pushed off their kills by hyenas if there are enough of them, and even killed. It's a numbers game.
Fascinating. I knew tigers sometimes hunted sloth bears, but I didn't know they could survive learning how to specialize in brown bears. I'm so in awe of the size of bears, it's hard to picture that a tiger could equal them. I spend all day watching the speed and agility of my cats, but it gives no insight into the strength of big cats. I suppose this might suggest that sabertooth interactions might have been more in favor of bears. If sabertooth species couldn't do a bite into the spine they might have avoided anything larger than a black bear.
Don't get me wrong, if the bear is big enough it will best the Tiger. Big male bears are pretty much immune from tiger attack and they will certainly push tigers of their kills. Although they may think twice about taking on a big male tiger.
Alright Prof Wroe you cannot put it off any longer. Give us your take on the ultimate predator fanboi showdown. Panthera Leo vs Panthera Tigris. We are waiting.
Its not really a competition both cats are generally the same sizes in the wild. Except lions fight way more often, normally take down far larger prey and have overall a more dense compact and muscular build
@@mdpriest8550 Male siberian tigers can reach a significantly greater size and weight than male lions. The tiger also likely has a higher bite force, and larger and stronger claws to boot.
@@bagelbanana1089 Not necessarily as similar as you might expect. I've heard that tigers though very slightly heavier are more or less gracile compared to lions and that lions are a more robust morph among the two pantherines! Tigers seem to have a longer and more flexible, springy spine with stronger forelimbs and shoulders, whereas, lions have a more robust chest, back, shorter more rigid spine and broader hips and hind quarters along with a relatively larger skull. So it could well be the case that lions are pound for pound a bit stronger. Anyways, t'd be interesting to hear an expert's opinion and a breakdown of the physiology of such similar and yet very different big cats!
@@surgeonsergio6839 that isnt entirely true. Tigers are the bulkier (more girthy) and more robust animal of the two when it comes to upper body but lions might have more robust hindlimbs and lumbar region.
According to my research, Baloo was never a match for Shere Khan. I personally don't need much more evidence for the dominance of big cats than Rudyard Kipling's tales 👍
Good video! When it comes to big predators of any kind, be they tiger or Tyrannosaurus, there is a lot of sensationalism and tribalism in online spheres. It's good to have an expert weighing in with impartiality.
@ ok but it needs to be seetle once in for all just lion big cat vs bear the tiger vs lion suffers the most from misinfo,like bias ytubere on either side
@@RealPaleontologywould you be interested in comparing some of their physicality and anatomy? I have shared a little bit of data on their size and limb anatomy in my channel’s community tab. I am sure you have more, and can better present it.
@ great 👍🏾, although I was referring specifically to the big cat vs big bear videos, since I figured you were alluding to your next video being a discussion about the interactions between a certain Indian bear and the tiger. I just was wondering if you were going to do another video after that discussing the potential predator-prey relationship between extinct cave lions and Eurasian cave bears.
I might do this occasionally, but I don't think I'll make it an independent series. But yes, I will upload another bear versus tiger episode hopefully tomorrow.
I agree tigers will have very similar muscle mass comparison to lion. Bcz a sample of 17 lions showed an avg of 13% fat and the data of two tigers show 13.3% but I found two more wild tigers fat data in the 17 lion study wich also had 10 malayan tigers as well. Unfortunately the malayan tigers were captive but they had two wild tigers of unknown species which had 13.8% fat.
@@RealPaleontologyTigers organs make 7.4% of their body weight n= 5, skin and fur 9.8 % ,fat 13.5% (taken from avg of 13.3 and 13.8),skeleton 12.4%.This implies the tiger has ~56.9% or 57% muscle
Aren't polar bears better for a comparison instead of the brown bears 1:43? Edit. My bad, i now understand why the decision, it's because they share the same territory
I agree with your assesment that the Tiger is an absolut killing machine, most kills of Bears by Tigers are ambush kills and are prodominatley against females, cubs and bears in hibernation, also Bears kill Bears in conflicts where Tigers come in and finish up by eating the remains, you mentioned that pound for pound the Tiger is stronger than the Bear but that does not matter when your opponent can be double your size, and you said that the only advantage the Bear had over the Tiger was endurance, a tiger has a window of roughly 2 minutes in which it has to gain controll and get in the deadly bite on the Bear, the Bear on the other hand can go full out Bear mode for 5 times longer than the Tiger. But it is really important to realize that there is another factor that is important to recognize, and that is the Bear is much tougher an opponent than the Tiger is, it can tank a lot of hits from the Tiger as the Tiger can be seriously injured by a single paw swipe. So in the wild Tigers will just like most carnivores choose the easiest and safest way of eating, this simply because they risk getting hurt thenselves in the endevour, and if this happens the Tiger cannot survive as it is a lone hunter, Bears are used to fighting eachother and getting beat up quite often, and if they for some reason become injured, in the short run they can sustain themselves on other things than meat as they are omnivores.
Please I am well aware of all these variables and the relative performance specs. I'm just not interested in these hypotheticals. What we do know is that in at least some parts of their range bears are pretty common prey for Tigers. On the other hand there's no doubt that some bears can kill Tigers too. And as far as we can tell big Tigers and big bears seem to pretty much leave each other alone. That suggest that in their own minds they're pretty evenly matched.
Well. Kinda disapointing. It always goes few other ways. They either make largest cat vs medium bear and either say hollow answer that only says data but no conclusion or gives it to tiger even though the bear that they are comparing ends up being medium sized bear.
@@timexyemerald6290 sorry mate I'm not playing that game. To me it's kind of pointless. But I have given you some facts. You can draw your own conclusions
Well as Prof. Wroe states it's not a matter of what would happen, but what does actually happen naturally. Larger tigers and larger bears simply don't interact because it poses to great a risk to both animals, hence, tigers killing smaller/medium sized bears, more often juveniles or females as they don't pose as great a risk. The same is true of larger bears killing female tigers and knocking them off kills. Being a predator is a matter of risk analysis: wolves and lions alike typically pick out the weakest or oldest of herd as it is just the easiest meal and poses the smallest risk. Being a 200kg tiger and fighting a 350kg bear is just too great a risk for one meal so neither would partake despite them likely being an even match, you wouldn't go to a restaurant with a 50% chance of being eaten by the chef.
In case everyone should know, asiatic cheetahs are a separate species from african cheetahs just like japanese raccoon dogs are a separate species from chinese raccoon dogs Cats (family Felidae) and dogs (family Canidae) are equally the largest and most diverse families of extant carnivorans with both families containing over forty-five extant species under twenty genera The forty-five extant cat species under their twenty genera are the Asiatic Cheetah (Acinonyx venaticus), the African Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), the Puma (Puma concolor), the Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi), the Leopard (Panthera pardus), the Lion (Panthera leo), the Tiger (Uncia tigris), the Ounce (Uncia uncia), the Northern Bohebao (Neofelis nebulosa), the Southern Bohebao (Neofelis diardi), the Jaguar (Jaguarius onca), the Afghan Manul (Otocolobus ferrugineus), the Himalayan Manul (Otocolobus nigripectus), the Mongolian Manul (Otocolobus manul), the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), the Common Lynx (Lynx lynx), the Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis), the Red Lynx/Bobcat (Lynx rufus), the Asiatic Golden Cat (Catopuma temminckii), the Marbled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata), the Bay Cat (Badiofelis badia), the African Golden Cat (Profelis aurata), the Serval (Leptailurus serval), the Caracal (Caracal caracal), the Jungle Cat (Felis (Sylviailurus) chaus), the Black-Footed Cat (Felis (Microfelis) nigripes), the Sand Cat (Felis (Ammofelis) margarita), the Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis (Petrofelis) bieti), the Asiatic Wildcat (Felis (Felis) ornata), the European Wildcat (Felis (Felis) silvestris), the African Wildcat (Felis (Felis) catus), the Rusty-Spotted Cat (Prionailurus (Poecilailurus) rubiginosus), the Flat-Headed Cat (Prionailurus (Ictailurus) planiceps), the Fishing Cat (Prionailurus (Zibethailurus) viverrinus), the Indian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus (Prionailurus) bengalensis), the Southeast Asian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus (Prionailurus) javanensis), the North Asian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus (Prionailurus) nipalensis), the Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), the Margay (Leopardus wiedii), the Oncilla (Oncifelis tigrina), the Kodkod (Oncifelis guigna), the Guepard (Oncifelis guttula), the Geoffroy's Cat (Oncifelis geoffroyi), the Andean Mountain Cat (Oreailurus jacobitus), and the Pampas Cat (Oreailurus colocola) The forty-five extant dog species under their twenty genera are the Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), the Channel Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis), the Short-Eared Jackal (Atelocynus microtis), the Bushdog (Speothos venaticus), the Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), the Pampas Fox (Bassarilupus gymnocercus), the Sechuran Fox (Bassarilupus sechurae), the Culpeo (Pseudalopex culpaeus), the Hoary Fox (Pseudalopex vetulus), the Chilla (Lycalopex griseus), the Darwin's Fox (Lycalopex fulvipes), the Crab-Eating Fox (Cerdocyon thous), the Eurasian Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), the American Red Fox (Vulpes fulva), the African Red Fox (Vulpes barbara), the Tibetan Fox (Neocyon ferrilatus), the Corsac Fox (Alopex corsac), the Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus), the Swift Fox (Alopex velox), the Kit Fox (Alopex macrotis), the Bengal Fox (Fennecus bengalensis), the Blanford's Fox (Fennecus canus), the Ruppell's Fox (Fennecus rueppellii), the Fennec Fox (Fennecus zerda), the Pale Fox (Fennecus pallidus), the Cape Fox (Fennecus chama), the Bat-Eared Fox (Otocyon megalotis), the Chinese Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides), the Japanese Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes viverrinus), the Side-Striped Jackal (Lupulella adusta), the Black-Backed Jackal (Lupulella mesomelas), the African Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus), the Ethiopian Golden Wolf (Flavocyon simensis), the Common Golden Wolf (Flavocyon lupaster), the Dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Golden Jackal (Prolupus aureus), the Coyote (Prolupus latrans), the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus (cladistically including the Domestic Dog (Canis lupus familiaris))), the White Wolf (Canis albus), the Sea Wolf (Canis crassodon), the Eastern Wolf (Canis lycaon), the Red Wolf (Canis rufus), the Pale-Footed Wolf (Canis pallipes), the New Guinea Singing Dog (Canis hallstromi), and the Dingo (Canis dingo) Since there are currently twenty-five extant families of carnivorans, here's all twenty-five extant carnivoran families from largest and most diverse to smallest and least diverse: 1) 45 species - Canidae and Felidae 2) 42 species - Herpestidae 3) 30 species - Mustelidae 4) 25 species - Viverridae 5) 20 species - Lutridae 6) 18 species - Ictonychidae and Phocidae 7) 17 species - Genettidae 8) 16 species - Otariidae 9) 15 species - Melidae and Ursidae 10) 12 species - Mephitidae 11) 10 species - Nasuidae and Eupleridae 12) 5 species - Procyonidae 13) 3 species - Hyaenidae and Cystophoridae 14) 2 species - Poianidae and Prionodontidae 15) 1 species - Nandiniidae, Odobenidae, Protelidae, Ailuropodidae, and Ailuridae
For what it's worth, otters are Mustelids. Lutri- *nae* is a subfamily, not a family. Same for Ictonychinae and Melinae; subfamilies of Mustelidae. Genets are Viverids, as is the African linsang. Coatis are Procyonids. The hooded seal is a Phocid. The aardwolf is a Hyaenid. The giant panda is an Ursid. Adding its constituent subfamilies, Mustelidae has the most recognised species of the Carnivoran families. Not terribly meaningful, of course. Beyond the biological species, taxonomic ranks are defined arbitrarily, but the present concensus is to arbitrarily define them as above.
@@Meevious, actually, Mustelidae and Viverridae are both polyphyletic, the former is now restricted only to the weasels, ferrets, and minks and the latter is now restricted only to the civets, whereas all other taxa have been removed from both families For taxa formerly part of Mustelidae, skunks and stink badgers now belong to the family Mephitidae, all fifteen extant badger species under seven genera and four subfamilies are lumped together into the family Melidae, the otters are now evaluated into the family Lutridae, and the zorillas, muishund, shulang, huro, grisons, wolverine, tayra, and martens are all lumped together into the family Ictonychidae For taxa formerly part of Viverridae, the feripaka (Nandinia binotata), linsangs (genus Prionodon), oyans (genus Poiana), and genets (genus Genetta) all now belong to the monotypic families Nandiniidae, Prionodontidae, Poianidae, and Genettidae respectively, mongooses are now evaluated into the family Herpestidae, and the falanoucs (genus Eupleres), fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox), fanaloka (Fossa fossana), and vontsiras (subfamily Galidiinae) that are all native to Madagascar are now lumped together into the family Eupleridae Also, Procyonidae is now restricted to only the raccoons (genus Procyon) and bassarisks (genus Bassariscus) and fossil genera exclusively found in North America, thus redefining Procyonidae as a primarily North American family whereas all primarily Neotropical taxa are relocated to a separate family, which is the family Nasuidae, Nasuidae consists of living species like the coatis, kinkajou, and olingos and even the recently discovered olinguito as well as many extinct South American taxa like the bear-like Chapalmalania Pinnipeds (parvorder Pinnipedia) are now currently divided into four extant families with hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) and elephant seals (genus Mirounga) being in a separate family from true seals (family Phocidae), which thus divides pinnipeds into four extant families based on morphological grounds, which are Otariidae (Sea Lions and Fur Seals), Odobenidae (Walrus), Phocidae (Seals), and Cystophoridae (Hooded Seal and Elephant Seals), the former two families constitute the superfamily Otarioidea and the latter two families constitute the superfamily Phocoidea The giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) is the sole living member of the family Ailuropodidae just like the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) is the sole living member of the family Ailuridae, therefore the giant panda is not a bear just like the red panda is not a procyonid, even though both still belong to the superfamilies Ursoidea and Procyonoidea respectively The aardwolf is not a hyena but still a member of the superfamily Hyaenoidea, within it, the aardwolf is in the monotypic family Protelidae Carnivorans are now currently divided into twenty-five extant families: Canidae (Dogs), Ursidae (Bears), Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda), Otariidae (Sea Lions and Fur Seals), Odobenidae (Walrus), Phocidae (Seals), Cystophoridae (Hooded Seal and Elephant Seals), Mephitidae (Skunks and Stink Badgers), Procyonidae (Raccoons and Bassarisks), Ailuridae (Red Panda), Nasuidae (Coatis, Kinkajou, Olingos, and Olinguito), Melidae (Badgers), Mustelidae (Weasels, Ferrets, and Minks), Lutridae (Otters), Ictonychidae (Zorillas, Muishund, Shulang, Huro, Grisons, Wolverine, Tayra, and Martens), Felidae (Cats), Protelidae (Aardwolf), Hyaenidae (Hyenas), Nandiniidae (Feripaka), Prionodontidae (Linsangs), Poianidae (Oyans), Genettidae (Genets), Viverridae (Civets), Herpestidae (Mongooses), and Eupleridae (Malagasy Carnivorans) Cats (family Felidae) and dogs (family Canidae) are equally the largest and most diverse extant carnivoran families as both families have now forty-five extant species while Mustelidae and Viverridae are both polyphyletic and are therefore heavily reduced into fewer extant species than traditionally known Carnivorans are also split into nine extant superfamilies: Canoidea (contains Canidae), Ursoidea (contains Ursidae and Ailuropodidae), Otarioidea (contains Otariidae and Odobenidae), Phocoidea (contains Phocidae and Cystophoridae), Procyonoidea (contains Mephitidae, Procyonidae, Ailuridae, and Nasuidae), Musteloidea (contains Melidae, Mustelidae, Lutridae, and Ictonychidae), Feloidea (contains Felidae), Hyaenoidea (contains Protelidae and Hyaenidae), and Viverroidea (contains Nandiniidae, Prionodontidae, Poianidae, Genettidae, Viverridae, Herpestidae, and Eupleridae)
@@Meevious, actually, carnivorans are now currently divided into twenty-five extant families: Canidae (Dogs), Ursidae (Bears), Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda), Otariidae (Sea Lions and Fur Seals), Odobenidae (Walrus), Phocidae (Seals), Cystophoridae (Hooded Seal and Elephant Seals), Mephitidae (Skunks and Stink Badgers), Procyonidae (Raccoons and Bassarisks), Ailuridae (Red Panda), Nasuidae (Coatis, Kinkajou, Olingos, and Olinguito), Melidae (Badgers), Mustelidae (Weasels, Ferrets, and Minks), Lutridae (Otters), Ictonychidae (Zorillas, Muishund, Shulang, Huro, Grisons, Wolverine, Tayra, and Martens), Felidae (Cats), Protelidae (Aardwolf), Hyaenidae (Hyenas), Nandiniidae (Feripaka), Prionodontidae (Linsangs), Poianidae (Oyans), Genettidae (Genets), Viverridae (Civets), Herpestidae (Mongooses), and Eupleridae (Malagasy Carnivorans) Cats (family Felidae) and dogs (family Canidae) are equally the largest and most diverse extant carnivoran families as both families have now forty-five extant species while Mustelidae and Viverridae are both polyphyletic and are therefore heavily reduced into fewer extant species than traditionally known Carnivorans are also split into nine extant superfamilies: Canoidea (contains Canidae), Ursoidea (contains Ursidae and Ailuropodidae), Otarioidea (contains Otariidae and Odobenidae), Phocoidea (contains Phocidae and Cystophoridae), Procyonoidea (contains Mephitidae, Procyonidae, Ailuridae, and Nasuidae), Musteloidea (contains Melidae, Mustelidae, Lutridae, and Ictonychidae), Feloidea (contains Felidae), Hyaenoidea (contains Protelidae and Hyaenidae), and Viverroidea (contains Nandiniidae, Prionodontidae, Poianidae, Genettidae, Viverridae, Herpestidae, and Eupleridae)
I have often thought about and mused over these questions... Some other youtube videos have long suggested, as your video did, that in MOST cases, 'larger' tigers do best 'larger' bears. There does seem to be, also as evidenced by your video, much obvious and collaborated data to support these assertions. Case in point: Much evidence of Siberian tigers preying on various bear species, instead of the other way around.... However, it seems logical as your youtube video suggested as well, that if we pit the largest male Siberian tiger against the largest male Siberian brown bear, we don't have and likely will never have enough data to conclusively answer who the victor would be most the time. It could very well be an extraordinarily-even match up, a coin toss, in terms of which species might win the majority of the time...
Exactly. I think big male Tigers and big male brown bears tend to leave each other alone. I found no clear evidence of a real showdown between them. Obviously if the bears bigger enough it will not do the Tiger. Just how big that needs to be we don't know. And I find it amazing that that folks gets her worked up over these hypotheticals. I mean really what does it matter!
If only we had the ancient Romans data. They used the scientific method. For example, they 'd tie a bear from northern Europe to an African lion and would goad the animals into fighting. It 's likely that thousands of these battles occurred over the Roman Empire 's 500-year history. With such a long, bloody record, it would seem that Rome could answer innumerable 'who would win ' animal fighting debates. Unfortunately, only a few written accounts of interspecies combat have survived into modern times, and these are severely lacking in specifics. Thanks to Romans we do know Tigers almost always beat lions.
True there would have been thousands of these hideous scenes. But even if we had these data what would it prove? My interest is not in who might win in a hypothetical species a versus species b contest. I want to know what actually does happen in natural ecosystems
YEEEESSS!!! I have read several (although not all, I will rectify that) of these articles myself, including the one with Dima. Neither coworkers not peers at school thought tigers predated on bears, so I went and did the research and made two separate presentations. It wasn’t as thorough or elegant as this (and I have been taking notes), but it was enough to convince my coworkers to agree that the situation was more complicated than they first thought. My classmates were not moved from their previously established camps, however
Who do you think would win in a fight of big Bengal tiger and big saltwater crocodile? Or bettwen large jaguar and black caiman? Heck, maybe video about felids vs crocodilians in general would be a good topic? I know about some accounts of such conflicts, but I would appreciate an opinion of someone with good knowledge of big cats.
I would suggest you start doing paleontological versus series like Jurassic fight club did, except you actually do it in a scientific and nuanced way. What I mean by this is take two prehistoric creatures, review their stats and see which one was likely to fight I think you'd be perfect at this because you're not just a paleontologist, you're a paleo biomechanist, meaning you've actually studied how these things function and how they used their weapons. If you ever did something like that, do megistotherium vs amphicyon giganteus (these two actually coexisted)
And I don't mean let them kill each other like monsters I just mean honestly review their stats how they stack up against each other and who the winner might be or even if there's a tie
There are much wrong news about the siberian tiger, actually there are almost 800 exemplars in the wild , and more of 500 adults , on more , the actuall average is raised much , the actuall average is around 240 kg , with one average in north Russia of 260 kg , the normal range of the siberian tiger is 220-260 kg for the adults males , with exemplars that can to arriver until 300-320 kg . There are exemplars weighted 260 - 275 - 285 kg ecc....so , this men of the video know NOTHING! The ussuri brown bear have one average around 350 kg , with exemplars that can to arriver until 550 kg , and the ussuri brown bear is in the normal menu of the siberian tiger for 5% , and the siberian tiger win the majority of the fights, around 70% of the fights , and 10% finish without one victory.
Where are you getting your 'facts' from? Without credible sources this is just so much fake news. I can make up any numbers I like but that doesn't make it so.
Your problem is that the video is interesting, but you exsposed only what you know, that is only a little....example , you speak of this exemplar of 206 kg , but there was another young siberian tiger name luck that weighted 215 kg , and he was only one exemplar of 18 months , after luck was weighted over 240 kg !! And there are exemplars actually weighted, 260kg , 275 kg , 285 kg , and over 285 kg ....again i speak of 800 exemplars in the wild, but lucky star, kinteropod, and others assures one actuall popolation of 1000 exemplars, i stay down and i say 800 for security . But there are the sources, i don' t invenct nothing , i take the dates that come from siberia and manchuria, and there are the documentations exposed , speak with ricky star ( not lucky sorry) he can to help you
Love your chanel, I have a small paleoart page myself and recently I've been drawing while listening to your videos in the background and learning a lot! This one (even tho not so paleorelated) was also very interesting! Keep it up 💪
This is excellent. As you say, UA-cam sometimes seems to be inundated with slop along the lines of "If X fought Y, who would wind?" When I was teaching evolutionary theory, there would almost inevitably be a first year student who would ask a real oddball, out-of-left-field question like "if an orangutan fought a leopard, who would win?" I would answer as best I could, because I was grateful that there was someone in the class paying enough attention to even think of the question, but still, it was an odd thing to be curious about. And for a while, here on UA-cam, dinosaur paleontology videos were overwhelmingly about computer-generated battles between two dinosaurs, badly animated, that would of course never have encountered one another because they were separated by tens of millions of years and thousands of miles of geography. I suppose these are the product of almost entirely young males, in their teens or young adulthood, who were and are captivated by battles and violence. It was very refreshing to see this video, backed by documented research. Really, though, if an Amur tiger fought a pachycephalosaur, who would win?
Greatest Of All Time Its a common expression in the states. i guess it didn't catch on abroad. It goes both ways, though. I had to Google 'boffin'. To be fair that's an actual word.
The thing is that the bear will probably win because it's bigger and stronger. But pound for pound it's a very different story. Cats have a leaner muscle mass, and the bears size and strength fly out the window. The only reason bears are stronger is because they're bigger, and not to mention cats are much faster, have better reflexes, are more aggressive, and have more killer instinct than a bear. If it's a big bear, I'll go with the bear, but if they're around the same size, I'll go with the cat. For example if a 500 lbs tiger fought a 1,000 lbs grizzly, the grizzly will likely win, but if it's a 500 lbs tiger vs a 500 lbs grizzly, that tiger is eating bear that day.
@ nah bigger than that poun dfor pound cats are better in every way the only thing they lack are a bears agression,and determination,cause most cats are just better also too prove ur point tiger kill sloth bears alot,and sloth bears are alot more than half the size of tiger its more like 3/5-4/5 and if its a female tiger than they are the same size,the only reason sloth bears win are due to it being a confetration instead of an actual fight,cause theres alot if footage of the tiger outskilling sloth bears in the fight but thr bear takes it only due to it being more agressive and adrenaline rushed due to it protecting its kids,but if it was a predatory interaction the tiger would maul the same bear like it did in that documentry that realised this year.
Thank you for making amazing content. Getting a video from someone who is actually in the feild is uncommon. I also really appreciate that you tell us when you have skin in the game as this can cause biased information, although you don't seem biased. You seem to give all sides of the story without too much speculation. Keep up the great work, ill definitely be watching in the future.
I'm re-reading _The Tiger_ by John Vaillant. Even taking into account "poetic license," it's a fascinating look into the psychology of the Amur tiger. Apparently, these cats may be capable of revenge. Besides the interesting-and terrifying-behavior of the tiger in John Vaillant's book, another (possible) case of targeted revenge by an Amur tiger is Tatiana, who leapt out of her enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo to maul three young men, killing one. Reports indicate they'd been taunting her and throwing objects into the enclosure. Maybe humans shouldn't mess with tigers. 🤔 How high can a tiger jump? As high as it needs to.
I will consider doing such a series. It really depends on how much information is available. I prefer to talk about topics on which we have a decent amount of data. But I see the appeal. That book sounds great I might get a copy!
@RealPaleontology Along with the book, look for the documentary. I think it was called _Conflict Tiger,_ but I could be mistaken. I hope the documentary you find has the footage Yuri Trush took while he hunted the tiger. I believe he got footage of the first casualty site, which-due to extreme gore-required blurring much of the screen for general audiences. His dog was going nuts because the tiger was still close by. If I remember correctly, the camera was going and caught the sound (not the visual) of the final showdown. But again, it's been some time since I've seen the footage. I definitely recommend looking into it. The fact some of the hunt was videotaped leads credence to the story, but as you know, even well-documented stories can grow into legend. Personally, I'm convinced this tiger enacted revenge. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
Great video! I appreciate the grounded approach to this subject matter. You might have been a little biased in the tiger proportions in the video and really could have chucked it up to be, just like all apex predators both tigers and bears are opportunistic predators and not bloodthirsty Kaju slayers.
Very interesting video and research! Looking forward to seeing more. I tried to send you a link to another fascinating publication on Lynx lynx and Canis Lupus in Central Europe (and Belarus) along with quite amazing findings by dr Sidorovich but its gone. In any case it has been proven that wolves do not pose a potential threat to lynxes, but rather the opposite. This is demonstrated by monitoring footage. Sidorovich arrives at very interesting conclusions: male lynxes regularly kill wolf pups as well as adult wolves.
Great! I'm so pleased that someone has thought to help save these awesome animals. Both the tigers and the bears. Although the tigers plight is more perilous. On the bright side the numbers have come back some.
From what I’ve read, it seems like it’s a pretty even matchup that depends on the context of their encounter. This is speculation but it seems to me that a polar bear would have less of an issue with tigers because they would basically have all the brown bear’s strengths cranked up with much less in the form of some of the weaknesses brown bears have. Really great video! I recently got a degree in human evolutionary biology and have always loved life science, especially animals, so I’m really glad I found this video and your channel!
A polar bear would probably not want anything to do with the tiger. Polar bears are big and highly predatory, but are not territorial or particularly aggressive. Barren ground grizzly bears are similar in size to a lion yet tend to win confrontations with much larger polar bears over carcasses
I really enjoy watching your videos and have mad respect for the information that comes from you and I promise that when I am done blabbing here am going to do some diligent research on the topics I am going to speak on. I admit that my information on bite force comes from UA-cam videos and quick google searches. This is the first time hearing anyone say that the pudy cat has a higher bite force than a polar, Kodiak/coastal or grizzly (never did look up the usuri bear). Although their are way too many variables to pit one big male against the other and know what the outcome would be. I have seen a nominally size grizz back a big polar bear off a kill. This may come off a bit silly sounding (I get it) but I have been studying combat arts since 1982. When you have been studying it that long you get to understand weight distribution, and other advantages and disadvantages watching these animals fight each other (same species). I know there are others that know what I speak of ( I am not saying that my studies translate to all the beasts of the world lol) . There are a couple spacific bear on bear fights that I can think of that really show the brown bears fighting attributes, and because of that I just don’t think a cat in normal circumstances would last 3 minutes with these MALE bears. I am off to do some research as I promised and I will try and dig up some of those fights to share and I have confidence that many will understand my reasoning. P.s I take no offence if you think my argument is rubbish and naive.
Hi. Thanks for your comments! I don't think they're silly at all. And certainly your experience means something. I would point out that I was a bouncer in Sydney for the best part of 10 years while I did my degree and PhD. I ran a security company for much of that time and employed quite a few guys, and girls to too. I've seen a lot of fights and I understand that there are many variables, including luck! And certainly, all else being equal you put your money on the big guy! Anyway, I think you may have misinterpreted me on this. And not wanting to sound like too much of a wanker, but I have studied and published widely on the topic of bite forces in carnivores. In fact, pretty sure I've published more widely on this than anyone else using both simple beam theory and 3D computer simulations. Happy to send you copies of the papers if you like. I've never said that the biggest bears don't bite as hard or harder than the biggest cats. What I have said, is that pound for pound, the cat bites much harder. In absolute terms, if the bear is big enough it will have a higher bite force than the cat and obviously the biggest bears are much bigger than the biggest cat. By and large, UA-cam is at best an unreliable resource for this information, you need to go to the scientific literature. Although a lot of the info out there on big carnivores actually comes from papers I've written. Now, on the question of who would win in a battle between a big cat and a big bear, ultimately it comes down to size. If they are the same size, the cat has the advantage in almost every respect. Although yes, weight distribution does play a role here. But the simple fact is that as the weight differential between the cat and the bear increases in the bears favour the cats odds obviously fall. The evidence suggests that the biggest male Tigers at around 200 kg and the biggest male brown bears in the Russian far east at around 360 kg basically avoid each other. Which suggest to me that they are pretty evenly matched. But would it 200 kg Tiger be able to take on a 600 kg Kodiak bear, I very much doubt it! Fun fact, the bear the most powerful bite for its size, is the panda bear. Pound for pound, it's right up there with the big cats.
Thank you for typing back! I am in Bear and Tiger fact mode now. I am glad that you have “combat” experience and a real understanding with my comment and think I am trying to convince people that I fight bears lol. Although I live in Christina Lake BC Canada 🇨🇦 so I live smack in the middle of black and griz country and see them monthly pass my property lol.(I accidentally his send prematurely lol that why my comment cut off lol. I misunderstood your “bite force explanation “. I shall return when I am done poking around. (Not that I disagree and I had disbelief in your video) .
Awesome. I've never seen a bear in the wild!Look forward to ur response. Might I suggest u start with a couple of my papers: just type in "Bite club: Comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa" and "Bite force and evolutionary adaptations to feeding ecology in carnivores" they should take u to sites u can download the papers 4 free. Cheers
@@RealPaleontology a question question, if you don’t mind? What is your opinion on the aggression, toughness, battle expertise of the different BROWN bear variants? Of course there will be differences due to food, terrain and size . I guess I mean fighting behaviour. The reason I asked, I have heard many say that the Eurasian browns are much more docile than the North American browns. I just want to know your opinion on this being a real big issue? I know very little on the Eurasian guys/gals. Thanks again for keeping me busy while adjusting to a new hip lol!’
Dr. Wroe, but in the Iron Age of Northern China, Ussuri Areas of Russia, and the Three Kingdoms Period of the Korean Peninsula, the Siberian Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) that could attack and take down a Siberian Aurochs (Bos primigenius sinensis) with a crushing bite. What actually happens when Striped Big Cats and Big Wild Cows collide in North-East Asia and East Asia.
I saw this video this morning and yeah, it’s interesting. That tigers have been known to hunt bears. I’m pretty sure that both males would avoid each other at all costs.
Very nice video, I appreciate that studies and research observations are used as opposed to just assumptions I have read some of your studies with Christensen on ResearchGate and as a result I wanted to make a video analyzing the studies and discussing how big cats and bears compare "pound to pound". So this video was definitely a treat One academic publication I was going to use and that I think you'd like is "Cursorial Adaptations in the Forelimb of the Giant Short-Faced Bear, Arctodus simus, Revealed b ealed by Traditional and 3D Landmark aditional and 3D Landmark Morphometrics" by Eric Randally Lynch. Highly recommend, pretty interesting
If you're planning on doing more debunking videos, I'd love it if you did a similar video regarding the maximum weights of the grey wolf. Take the extinct so-called "Kenai Peninsula wolf" (formerly C. l. alces, now synonymised with C. l. occidentalis). There are tons of amateur sources claiming it could reach 200 lbs, yet the only detailed description of it comes from E. A. Goldman's monograph on North American wolves, and there he never gave a weight estimate (limited as he was to five skulls).
Nicely done! Thank you for your direct approach on this topic. I think people get so worked up over it because both tigers and brown bears are charismatic megafauna whose "teams" desperately want their favorite to be the top dog. I also liked the sarcasm on hunter exaggeration because to say they do exaggerate is an understatement. And not even just on the size of their quarry, but also when they claim to see certain events happen in the woods or wherever they hunt.
There isn’t a tiger alive today that will kill a polar bear, just like the American lion isn’t beating the short faced bear. Tigers go after hibernating brown bears not fully grown brown bear males, kodiaks and pizzlies will destroy a tiger, tigers don’t even have the stamina that bears do, bears can fight on there hind legs for 45 minutes tigers only fight for about 10 minutes. The bengal tiger is the largest tiger and they are more muscle than the Siberian because the Siberian relies on their fat bodies for the winter and muscle weighs more than fat.
doesn't just have more fast twitch muscle, it has considerably more muscle for its size. And as I said above, it has a massive advantage with respect bite force (pound for pound). It depends on the size differential. Certainly no tiger could kill the biggest polar bear. I don't think anyone ever said it could, certainly not me. And sorry, but the data clearly shows that the majority of bears killed by tigers in the Russian Far East are killed in summer and spring, not while the bears are hibernating. And yes, bears do have more stamina. That's assuming they live long enough to take advantage of it. And clearly more often than not, when bear means tiger the bear doesn't last very long. You really need to read the scientific literature and not the partisan social media posts which are always going to be biased one way or the other. Basically the science shows us that the biggest male Siberian tigers and the biggest male Ussuri bears tend to avoid each other. This suggests that they are pretty evenly matched, despite the fact that the biggest Ussuri bears are around 70% heavier.
@ bears wake up in the spring and are thin as paper, it wouldn’t be hard to take one at all, the weight doesn’t stack on till the end of summer and fall. And they are most definitely lethargic all of spring. The reason they found bear remains in the scat is probably cause the tigers found a dead one. Asian bears aren’t as aggressive from what I can tell either. People are either riding them, wrestling them, feeding them with their faces, etc. If the biggest bear and the biggest tiger ever fought in a room the bear is walking out. Now if you were to say a liger, then yes that’s a cat I’ll take but nah I’m taking American bears everyday and twice on Sunday.
There is a hypothesis that suggests the white chest marking of many Asian bear species are warning colors used to ward off tigers. What's your thought on this matter?
To be honest I doubt it. I'm just writing up an episode on the Tiger and sloth bear at the moment. Tigers certainly do have a healthy respect for them and they certainly are not a favoured prey item overall. And there's even a well documented case of a big sloth bear killing a tiger. But sloth bears are a significant part of the diet in some of the tigers range. Asiatic bears appear to be not quite so aggressive, but they are better climbers have more options if they come across the big cat. Nonetheless they too are pretty commonly taken. Anyway, you might enjoy this next video?
@@RealPaleontology I have mixed feelings about this hypothesis. On one hand these Asian bears are mainly about bluff-and-climb when they are cornered by tigers. Yet on the other hand, maybe the point is not about being stronger than a tiger, it's being more of a trouble than a deer, especially when the tiger doesn't have the element of surprise and has to face down a very respectable carnivore. The same hypothesis has been applied to the bold facial markings of smaller carnivores too, such as badgers, racoons and civets.
@ type in google a dance of death. Tigers and bears battle it out in north east Asia. It’s an article written by a bloke called John Goodrich who studied them in north east Asia. The brown bear was prey to the Siberian tiger in his studies.
I guess we are currently seeing an instance of the "Lilliput effect", which is often noticed during extinction events. When enviromnents become more empoverished, the animals decrease in size. Hope the Siberian tigers will eventually recover to their historical ranges and sizes. Thank you again for your excellent analysis of large predators!
Yes, but hey please think about making a donation to one of those very well deserving charities to help save the tiger and the bear. A world without tigers is just unimaginable
@@RealPaleontology I'm thinking, maybe the peculiar affinity for caves in cave bears should have been drived by predation from large cats, namely Panthera leo and Panthera fossilis. But I guess this is on the list of your future episodes 🙂
Good videos. I just discovered your channel like an hour ago when I was looking up Xenosmilus and watched that video. Then, I watched your first three videos (your intro, intro to super predators, and the Thylaceo vid) and the video debunking hyenas (I unfortunately believed the myth, I am glad to learn the truth now) I'm hooked. A youtube channel from a real and experienced paleontologist! I have two recommendations for you. Two massive hooved predators, the Daeodon (Big pig-like terror) and the Andrewsarchus (the largest mammalian predator to date). I'm curious on what you know about the Andrewsarchus as its not talked about much. Love your work, keep it up!!!👍👍👍
Really enjoyed this presentation! I particularly enjoyed your speaking tone/cadenece! I feel like i could listen to this anywhere, be it in the background at the office or before bed! Very versatile!
@@thundergunknivesout4329 I’m really not interested in hypotheticals. What I am interested in are the facts as reported in the peer reviewed scientific literature. I'm also interested in the question of why do you care whether a Kodiak bear could or couldn't kill a Siberian tiger?
@RealPaleontology it was just a random video I saw recommended to watch. I'm just wondering where in your research it says tigers kill and eat full grown male brown bears?
*Pretty good video. You missed some details, but it's still way better than 99% you can find on internet. I would say that tiger wins heavier bear with ease, and this is also based on fact.*
Thank you. Kind of. Rest assured I have plenty more detail. But there's only so much you can put into a 20 minute video. I'll be posting a little more detail later today.
Excellent video professor, it's refreshing to see a real expert talking about this topic. By the way and to be clear I'm just an animal enthusiast, so everything that follows will be just pure opinion (though I'll also present some questions to which I hope you'll find the time to answer) but I want to share it nonetheless. I've always thought that the odds in this fight were on average 50/50 and that they really depended on the circumstances since both the bear and the tiger are extremely powerful animals and I'm sick to always see both tiger fans and bear fans claim that one would stomp the other with no effort whatsoever, which is clearly ridiculous. I still think that in an open confrontation the bear would win more often than not since, for what I understand, it's more tanky and robust than the tiger, it also has more stamina (at least that's the information that I could find online) and it's generally larger. But, when it comes to a tiger ambushing of course even a big bear will have an extremely really hard time getting out alive since, again, the tiger is still extremely powerful and so it will manage to kill the bear more often than not (but again these are just my opinions). All this considered, on a sidetone, I still don't think it's fair to consider the confrontations between male tigers and female bears a fair scenario since the fair scenario would be big male vs big male and big female vs big female, but again this is just an opinion and I would like to know your thoughts about this. In addition to this in the Wikipedia page of the Ussuri brown bear it is reported that: "A report from 1973 describes twelve known cases of brown bears killing tigers, including adult males; in all cases the tigers were subsequently eaten by the bears" and it cites the following sources: - "Brown Bear predation of Amur Tiger 1973 account". International Wildlife Magazine. 20 October 2009 and - Goodrich, J. M.; Kerley, L. L.; Smirnov, E. N.; Miquelle, D. G.; McDonald, L.; Quigley, H. B.; Hornocker, M. G. & McDonald, T. (2008). "Survival rates and causes of mortality of Amur tigers on and near the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik". Journal of Zoology. 276 (4) In another part of the same Wikipedia page it is also reported that "Other researchers have observed bears following tiger tracks to scavenge tiger kills and to potentially prey on tigers" and it cites the following two sources: - Heptner, V. G. & Sludskij, A. A. (1992) [1972]. "Tiger". Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2. Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats)]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 95-202 - Seryodkin, I. V.; Goodrich, J. M.; Kostyrya, A. V.; Schleyer, B. O.; Smirnov, E. N.; Kerley, L. L. & Miquelle, D. G. (2005). "Глава 19. Взаимоотношения амурского тигра с бурым и гималайским медведями [Chapter 19. Relationship of Amur tigers with brown and Himalayan black bear]". In Miquelle, D. G.; Smirnov, E. N. & Goodrich, J. M. (eds.). Tigers of Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik: Ecology and Conservation (in Russian). Vladivostok, Russia: PSP. pp. 156-163. I'm reporting this just because I'm a bit confused about the dissonance between what you said in your video about the confrontations between male bear and male tigers and the possibile predation on tiger by bears and I wanted to know if the sources reported here are reliable in the first place. Apart from all of this I think it would be cool if you did some speculative and for fun videos about possible fight outcomes between a brown bear and a lion but also between more medium sized big cats and bears (like leopards, cougars and jaguars against black bears, sloth bears etc). Of course I know about the occasional predation on black bears by jaguars but maybe it would be fun to hypothesize the dynamics of an open confrontation. Another thing that would be really enjoyable would be to hypothesize the dynamics of confrontations between extinct large mammalian predators and extant ones, for example hypothetical fights between big amphicyonids and big cats, big extinct hyenas like Dinocrocuta and bears, big canids like Epicyon and big cats and so on. p.s.: I'm sorry if there's grammatical mistakes in this comment but English is not my native language, still I hope it's clear enough.
Even if the sources are reliable, that is 12 cases confirmed by bears and hundreds confirmed by tigers. And in the hundreds of confirmed cases with tigers, both male and female tigers were hunting brown bears. While the two tended to avoid each other, you have to take into consideration that the biggest prayer we ever see a brown bear hunting are large cervid maybe twice their weight, while tigers in general have been routinely observed hunting prey 6 to 10 times their size.
@@francisweller839 I see that both you and the professor say that tigers kill more bears than the other way around, and of course you're right since there's extensive proof of that, but still I wonder if we should make a difference between hunting/ambushing (which, as it has been clearly established, is the way in which tigers kill bears the most) and properly fighting if we want to determine who's stronger on average (let me clarify, that's just for fun, I know that that is scientifically pointless). In the case of fighting I think it is reasonable to assume that the bear has the upper hand since the surprise element the tiger relies on for most of the kills vanishes, don't know if you agree and of course in case there are any papers disproving this please let me know. Just to be clear, I know that the point of the video was not to determine which animal is stronger but, since science is already clear enough about what happens in the wild, I think it's interesting and fun to speculate about the outcomes of hypothetical fights taking into consideration what science says about the interactions between these two animals to make the speculation as grounded as possible.
Thank you. I have actually got these papers/chapters. And yes some bears do routinely track tigers to their kills. Pretty sure I mentioned that. It's an interesting and variable dynamic at the kill side. I also mention that there are at least 12 confirmed cases of the brown bear killing tigers. The beer can obviously win if there's a big enough size differential. Is even an instance of a sloth bear killing a tiger. I'm going to put up a video on this topic later today I think
I find big cats winning they will literally kill anything they see buffalo warthog gaur hyenas elaphant ls giraffes rhinos bears hippos and more and are way faster and agile also better fighters.
The fact that cats are proportionally more muscular than things like buffaloes, gorillas, elephants and BEARS is something that i find very interesting.
This interesting. In fact they will muscular than pretty much anything
I think a good comparison is body builders (tiger) vs power lifters (bear)
Where the tiger has more muscle but the bear has a combination of fat and muscle that gives it more mass and overall more strength
@@SuprememeCeratosaurus not really... the build of these animals are very different, and the difference in muscle proportions serve more functions than just burst of strength.
@@SuprememeCeratosaurus Just to add, the bear has more stamina because of it's fast reserves. Plus under all that hair, bears are wrote muscular. Look at two male Kodiaks fighting. They're scary. You can see the muscle definition under 10"of hair is quite telling
@@SuprememeCeratosaurusI’d say the tiger has a strength trainer build. Very strong and muscular, not worried about bulk. You’re right abt the bear
Prof. as a wildlife biologist this video has been long awaited, thankyou sir
Awesome thanks so much!
I love both animals, I hope with all my heart their numbers recover and I can show these videos to my kids without any sadness.
Awesome animals indeed. I hope your donating to one or more of those causes
@RealPaleontology I lost my job due to sickness and haven't been very lucky finding another until now. My new job starts on Monday and I'm happy to help where I can soon.
@bensilk6431 great. And best of luck with your new job!
Tigers are undoubtedly better predators than bears; they are probably the premier example of an ambush predator on land.
I think once the element of surprise is gone though, the scenario changes and the advantage goes to the bear; I can't see a tiger taking down an alert bull brown bear ans bears are pretty solid "tanks" and good at guarding a kill.
Even sloth bears have very good matchups against Bengal tigers. The tiger is the much better hunter and it isn't even a debate but what I suspect the data doesn't show (because outaide of direct visual observation it is hard to accurately achieve) is that a large male bear is probably going to win in a direct confrontation not least because a tiger isn't likely going to put itself in a situation where it loses it's greatest advantage, stealth. Anyway that's my hunch.
I've been lucky enough to have the privelege of tracking Siberian tigers in Ussuriland during late winter back in 2015 and have had close encounters with many Alaskan brown bears back in 2022; I appreciate them both.
I agree with you, a Tiger is no match for an average male Kodiak or Polar bear but in my opinion It is actually evenly matched with the average Grizzly (probably being closer with the inland ones as those share similar weights with the biggest Tiger subespecies, while coastals are considerably bigger).
Despite of that in my opinion you are not being fair by claiming that sloth bears have a good shot against a Tiger, as Bengal tigers regularly kill adult sloth bears while the opposite case of an sloth bear killing an adult Tiger was never documented or recorded. Your argument of Tigers and sloth bears being close in a physical confrontation because sometimes sloth bears can make them back down is the same as someone claiming that a cougar is a good matchup for an american blackbear/Grizzly bear because they sometimes achieve the same thing.
Remember that animals don't have such a thing as honor and they will always act on what their survival instincts tell them in order to ensure survival. Ussuri Brown bears are a bit bigger on average than the average Grizzly and despite the fact that there's no evidence of a Siberian tiger killing a male adult brown bear absence of evidence still isn't evidence of absence, at the end of the day we can only speculate and this kind of fights heavily depends on the individuals
@@Andypo-u6j A tiger is no match in a heads up confrontation where both animals commit to fight. It doesn't matter which sub-species of brown bear we're talking about.
Now, if we talk about Grizzly Sows or other inland subspecies, a big Siberian tiger might just be too big for a sow. A boar Grizz, even an averaged sized one, is going to be too much for a Siberian tiger to handle.
In fact, I think this scenario boils down more to body language and psychology than anything. I think a big Siberian Tiger has a better chance to bully a Peninsular Brown or any other Coastal subspecies, than it does an inland subspecies like a Grizz. The inland subspecies have way more attitude, and are way more aggressive willing to fight over limited resources. The big browns, Peninsular, Kamchatcka, Ussuri, Kodiak, they are far more likely to go find something else to eat.
Which animal is more likely to kill the other in an act of predation? The cat. I think that's obvious. If they just run into each other, or a hunt is unsuccessful and turns into a confrontation? The bear is going to win, almost every time.
There is plenty of video evidence to support this, both from forced pit fights, and from wild encounters with Bengal Tigers and Sloth bears, where the Sloth bears are less than half the size of the Tiger, and still manage to run the exhausted cat off.
I dont think a cat will rven take on a sow lol @@mercb3ast
10:52 "...8.4% of the 743 bear scats analyzed." Shouldn't that be tiger scats?
Dammit yes
It's a beary beary disturbing bear story.
Thanks
*Bite force:*
*Collection of LARGEST skulls of Ussuri brown bears, reliably measured by biologist, measurements as follows:*
*1 male: length 448 mm, zygomatic width 280 mm, ratio 0,625*
*2 male: length 449 mm, zygomatic width 270 mm, ratio 0,6013.*
*3 male: length 432 mm, zygomatic width 250 mm, ratio 0,5787.*
*4 male: length 428 mm, z.width 238 mm, ratio 0,5560.*
*5 male: length 406 mm, z.width 239 mm, ratio 0,5886.*
*6 male: length 397 mm, z.width 240 mm, ratio 0,6405.*
*7 male: length 399, z.width 264 mm, ratio 0,6616.*
*8 male: length 380 mm, z.width 196 mm, ratio 0,5157.*
*Then we have measurements of just big Siberian tiger skull (not necessarily the largest):*
*Length 400 mm, zygomatic width 280 mm, ratio 0,7.*
*It is an enormous difference, as out of collection of largest skulls of Ussuri brown bears only one managed to achieve width of Siberian tiger skull that likely far from representing upper limit, and even then the ratio difference was very big. Siberian tiger has definitely much stronger bite, but it's not only the strength, it is also effectiveness.*
*Tiger fangs are much longer and also much thicker, even at equal skull width. Then we have the fact that bear jaw has herbivorous diet adaptations, their main teeth are not predatory-like, flat like that of humans, tiger teeth are like that of a true predator, very sharp curved, can cut bones like scissors, which again adds a lot of effectiveness to the bite.*
*So tigers not only have much stronger bite force, they also have much more effective tools for this force application, resulting in much more superior bite effectiveness.*
And on top of that the Tigers skull is much shorter which gives it a major leverage advantage over the bear. Is designed to kill. The bears jewels in teeth are all purpose
@@RealPaleontology *Yes exactly. Cats have shortened skull for better transferring of force from arches to the canines. The ratio of width to length is 0,7 for the tiger, while even for the proportionally widest bear skull out of the sample it was 0,64 and with actually 4 cm thinner skull.*
This is why I subscribed, thank you!
Cool thanks for that!
Great video! Thanks for your hard work and debunking a lot of the misinformation with actual facts
Thanks glad you liked it. Feel free to share it around and maybe check out some of my other vids!
I can't see any large cat standing a chance against a fully grown polar bear or a kodiak brown bear. Even the females would dominate that fight, especially if they have cubs. In 1895 there was a cage fight between a 550 pound african lion and a 700 pound american grizzly. The lion attacked, the bear caught him in a bear hug and hurt it bad enough that it didn't want to fight anymore. The lion laid down, the bear left it alone, the crowd wanted their money back. I don't know how youtube is about posting links so search for the article "When the Lion fought the Bear: Interspecies Cage Fighting on the Mexican Border" for the whole story. I'm fully confident that the polar and kodiak would dominate the ussuri too.
Possibly not. But I don't see what your point is? Of course there is a point at which size becomes overwhelming? But polar bears and Kodiak bears don't coexist with Tigers. I don't see the point of these rather childish hypotheticals?
@@RealPaleontology Who told you that tigers have higher bite force than brown bears?
If you ever want to be honest, you need to read about the Siberian Tiger Project and how scientists see their relationship. Tigers will only take on very small females (usually less then 100 kg) or cubs. They do not go close to male bears. Why do you think that is? Why do you think the statistics show that bears take 35% of the tigers kill from them?
Have you read about the pit fights between large male lions vs grizzlies and how easily the grizzlies killed them? Its not much difference between the two cats. And certainly not enough to make the tiger dominate a brown bear.
Tigers are apex predators, but really poor fighters. Brown bears are poor predators, but apex fighters.
No one told me. I worked these figures out myself and then I published them in internationally renowned peer reviewed scientific journals. I've been studying and publishing on mammalian carnivores for over 30 years. I have a particular interest in finite element analysis, a computer based method of simulating the mechanical performance of biological as well as man made structures.
Below are a few papers I've written or coauthored that are relevant. I've written dozens of others. You can find them here: scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=hUNupu4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
Incidentally, I never said that tigers have a higher bite force than brown bears. I said that they have a much higher BFQ. That stands for bite force quotient. This is a means of correcting for allometry. I'll explain it to you if you don't know what that means. But basically, a tiger of any given size can exert a bite force roughly twice that of a bear the same size. Although this will vary a little between species. There is one exception among bears, that is the giant panda. It has a remarkably high BFQ for a bear.
Maybe do some reading and get back to me when you're up to speed.
Best wishes,
Steve
Christiansen, P. and Wroe, S. (2007), BITE FORCES AND EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATIONS TO FEEDING ECOLOGY IN CARNIVORES. Ecology, 88: 347-358. doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[347:BFAEAT]2.0.CO;2
Wroe S, McHenry C, Thomason J. Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Mar 22;272(1563):619-25. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2986. PMID: 15817436; PMCID: PMC1564077.
C.R. McHenry, S. Wroe, P.D. Clausen, K. Moreno, E. Cunningham, Supermodeled sabercat, predatory behavior in Smilodon fatalis revealed by high-resolution 3D computer simulation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (41) 16010-16015,doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706086104 (2007).
Wroe S, Chamoli U, Parr WCH, Clausen P, Ridgely R, et al. (2013) Comparative Biomechanical Modeling of Metatherian and Placental Saber-Tooths: A Different Kind of Bite for an Extreme Pouched Predator. PLOS ONE 8(6): e66888. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066888
Wroe, S. (2008), Cranial mechanics compared in extinct marsupial and extant African lions using a finite-element approach. Journal of Zoology, 274: 332-339. doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00389.x
@ The whole internet argument is hypothetical. That's the fun in it. We're not all scientists. It's the same dumb stuff as what animals could you beat in a fight.
Fair enough I guess. Although it does seem a little futile to me. But either way, I certainly don't think it's worth getting too worked up over.
I really don't think either the bear or the siberian tiger reached those exaggerated sizes.Even captive tigers rarely exceed 300kg.
I am inclined to agree
I think it’s entirely possible larger individuals existed in the past but with their reduced habitat and numbers, it’s just exceedingly unlikely to have any of them reach that size today. This isn’t just true for bears and cats, it’s true for any animal that has had its range and population dramatically reduced. Even in the areas they still live, in many cases the quality of that habitat isn’t what it used to be and I know food availability is a part of that.
It's pretty certain that historically they were bigger individuals, just how much bigger is difficult to determine tho
@@lukaslambs5780 i agree that larger individuals existed in the past,but i don't see them getting to 360 or 380 kg considering the fact that even captive tigers rarely exceed 300kg.Since captive tigers get regular food the will obviously grow bigger and heavier than their wild counter parts,so i would say at their absolute peak they probably reached about 270-290 with super rare specimens reaching 300kg
@@rubric-eo5yj *Wrong, just recently captive Siberian tiger weighted 442 kg empty.*
I very recently found your channel and i already love the way you structure your videos and your no nonsense approach to the topics at hand. It's always nice to see seasoned scientists give their own thoughts on things and not just a short summary on an article that has to quickly make a headline.
Awesome thanks mate. And I've got admit it's been fun
Great video!, and good research. I just disagree with one thing, the thing about fast twitch muscle fibers is that, while they do exert more power than slow twitch muscle fibers, that does not necessarily mean the tiger is stronger than the bear. Tendon placement and bone robusticity are certainly more important, bears have an undeniable advantage over great cats in terms of bone robusticity (you might be familiar with one of the studies) and more advantageously placed tendons as well for generating strength. Not to mention, Ursids in general have much shorter and stouter spines than tigers or any pantherine as a matter of fact. Which is even more advantageous towards generating strength and increasing its stability while being on all 4s. They are also just significantly more heavily built animals. So it seems that the bear should definitely be the stronger and more durable opponent.
BEAR GOES WARAAHHWRHARH. TIGER RAWR.
Glad you like the video. A lot to digest there, I'll get back to you on it though
*Hey kid.*
Yeah I agree. The thing about Bears when compared to other Carnivorans such as Cats or Dogs is that their muscles are attached more distally to the bone joints. This would give them greater leverage for force generation at an expense of speed when compared to other Carnivorans such as Cats and Dogs. For instance, if you look at the deltoid pectoral crest on the humeral bones of these animals, you would see it's very apparent that the crest is not only longer, but also more defined and rugose in Bears when compared to Cats. This suggests that the muscles attached to the crest would be more distal to the shoulder joint in Bears, hence increasing the leverage for force generation. And since the crest is more defined and more rugose, the muscles attached there are probably larger and more forceful too.
@@RodrickRex *Key word probably, but actually bone robusticity doesn't predict muscle amount, bears have twiggy arms without extra fat and fur.*
I’ve seen videos of Sloth Bears holding their own against much larger Bengal Tigers. It seems tigers generally target bears that are smaller than themselves and rely on ambush to kill bears. In protracted fight, I assuming both the tiger and bear are the same size, the ursid would likely have a stamina advantage.
Yes, sloth bears will often stand up to Tigers, interestingly it depends on the distance between the bear and the Tiger when the bear first notices the cat. The short distance the more likely it is that the bear will stand and even charge of the Tiger. There is even a well documented case of a big male killing a Tiger. But Tigers kill way more sloth bears, and sloth bears constitute a small but significant part of the Tigers' diet in some parts of the range. But yeah, there is absolutely no doubt that these bears appear to be totally fearless. Kind of the honey badger of the bear world! Anyway, it just so happens that I'm writing up a prescription for this today and will publish pretty soon. I think you'll find it interesting...
And yes, the more protracted the engagement the better the chances for the bear. But the cat has the advantage in pretty much every other respect.
@@RealPaleontologyI once came across a study that implied that large male brown bears were better at killing adult moose in Siberia than tigers or wolves. While I can’t link the study, I found its conclusion interesting.
I'd like to see that if I may
This video is the best interaction of a bear and tiger interacting in Russia known
ua-cam.com/video/4wlKdl7y_Is/v-deo.htmlsi=Z7KzRsvBF7GTrpmg
Yeah and them being a fair bit smaller than the tiger, let's imagine what a same size bear could do
1 thing i gotta disagree with is using bear fur or parts in tiger scat for this since you cant tell how the bear was killed only that it was eaten so it could have been hibernating or already dead
You can definitely tell whether or not it was hibernating by the time of year. But you are right you can't be sure that it wasn't scavenged from the scats. But you can usually determine whether it was killed or scavenged from examination of the carcass. And in the great majority of bear carcasses examined, 12 out of 13 from memory, the beer was clearly killed. But it is a fact that bears do sometimes kill the Tiger, but this is clearly a far less common event. There is even a pretty well supported instance of a sloth bear, killing a tiger in India. But again it's far more common for the Tiger to kill the bear. I'll be putting up a video on this shortly. Sloth bears I'm incredibly aggressive animals. Kind of the honey badger of the bear world
*Tiger scavenging is very rare. It is only recorded with starved individuals usually. It is 95% kill.*
lol bear fans girl cannot accepted the fact
Like all big cats the largest specimens where killed hundreds of years ago...bears..big cats..and even antelope species..big males killed,the ones that had the best geno...the largest and strongest are all gone includes rhino, elephant,girraffe and even crocodiles....humans are beyond evil..that is why!
Yes that's what happened all right. The other factor is that all of their populations and ranges have been greatly reduced which of course playing it by the numbers means that the upper limits of size will be less
You are just a Tiger lover. They stand very little chance with a Grizzly, Brown bear or Kodiak bear. All about the same except for the slightly smaller Grizzly and even then, small chance a Tiger wins.
Just reporting the facts. I love tigers and bears. Incidentally, Grizzly bears and Kodiak bears are not separate species, they are both subspecies of brown bear (Ursus arctos).
there is video of a female sloth bear weighing no more than 200 lbs STALEMATING and actually CHASING AWAY a 400 lbs male tiger after a 10 minute fight.. a bear HALF the size BESTED a tiger.. its not logical to assume a tiger or lion can take on ANY bear of EQUAL weights. the tiger or lion MUST be bigger. unless there is video evidence.
There is video evidence of a five kilo honey badger chasing off a 200 kilo male lion. So what? There is video evidence of a 20 kilo wolverine chasing off a 150 kilo black bear. This really doesn't prove anything. Tigers pretty regularly eat sloth bears in parts of their range. In the study we looked at in that video nearly 10% of the bears were killed and eaten. Two were badly hurt. None of the Tigers were heard at all.
@@RealPaleontology be LOGICAL.. the honey badger didnt FIGHT the lion. it DETERED the lion.. the sloth bear ACTUALLY FOUGHT AND MADE THE TIGER RUN TWICE.. sorry but there is NO EVIDENCE ANY big cat can take on a ANY bear of equal size.. but the video of the sloth bear IS evidence toward MY POINT.
@@RealPaleontology on the flip side, lets take your logic of the hb vs the lion. there is video of lions killing HBs (with a lot of effort).. where are the videos of a tiger beating a bear of equal size? there are videos of them killing female and sub adult SLOTH BEARS but even MALE sloth bears only reach 300 lbs.. have yet to see a bengal take a MALE sloth bear.. please share any videos you may have.
Correct.
4:45 when I try telling people that Bengal tigers are and probably were larger than their Russian cousins I get reported for misinformation😅great video!
Correct I think. But once there was a time when the Siberian tiger was probably bigger
@ there was a meta analysis published in 2005 by Dr. Jonathan Slaght and Dr. Dale Miquelle specifically about the sizes of these cats. They concluded that all recorded weights of Siberian tigers from early 20th century reaching 300 kilo or more were unreliable. The largest one they classified reliable was 254 kg by Baikov, 1927.
They also found an average Bengal male was larger than largest recorded Siberian tiger Dima (206 kilo) and then Luke (212 kilo) in 2012 when talking about data collected by modern techniques.
@DeathAdder674 yes. And this applies to many species and subspecies. People use historical figures and assume that because a species may have reached a certain body mass a century ago, it's still must reach it now. Which is obviously very unlikely 4 species with vastly reduced rangers
@ I agree. I also wish these aspects were studied more in depth.
India is doing great with tiger and other species conservation but there’s a lack of professionalism. Methods could be improved and we could know a lot more but many scientists just don’t care.
Interesting. Doesn't surprise me. Could you send me the details on that paper please? I suspect that this applies to many big carnivores. And even where the historical records are sound, for many species the maximum sizes among present populations is likely to be much lower than the historical maximums. Yet people always refer to these.
This has to be my favourite video on the channel, apart from the hyena's bone breaking myth debunking one! I'd also be fascinated by discussions on the morphologies of panthers. For example lions and tigers are a hot topic. A comparative morphology video of these two would be amazing. I've heard that tigers though heavier are more or less gracile compared to lions and that lions are a more robust morph among the two pantherines! Tigers seem to have a longer and more flexible, springy spine with stronger forelimbs and shoulders, whereas, lions have a more robust chest, back, shorter more rigid spine and broader hips and hind quarters along with a relatively larger skull. It'd be interesting to hear an expert's opinion and a breakdown of the physiology of such similar and yet very different big cats!
Thank you very much. The lion vs tiger question is kind of interesting. The thing is though, I don't really want to do something that's speculative. The best of my knowledge there is no real data on what happens when lions and tigers coexist. Basically because it doesn't happen. But I will look into it further
@@RealPaleontology An analysis and comparison of their respective anatomies and morphology would be cool instead of what happens when they meet or who'd win.
@@RealPaleontology i think your conclusions are spot on about bear tiger interaction. i came to the same, i think correct conclusions, based on mere intuition. tigers outclass bears in relative strength, speed, agility and predatory instincts, so if they are evenly matched in size, and the tiger has the advantage of a surprise hunting attack, tigers indeed can prey on bears, and there does seem to be indisputable evidence for it. bears often do have an apparent size advantage though, or weight anyway, but it may not be as big as it seems because bears can carry so much fat, while cats are so lean. so it is not a big advantage as it may at first seem. generally speaking though, the tiger would need the advantage of surprise attack to have any chance of preying on a bear. a bear that is aware and able to defend itself is a different story. then i think it will be a stalemate, unless the bear is very small.
about the lion vs tiger debate, there is actually a vast amount of historical fight data on the subject, more than enough to draw a strong conclusion. i would call it colossal even. fights between the two species have been recorded exhausively in the circus 'lion tamer' acts of the early 20th century. ie there were literally thousands of fights. and it is not in any way open to debate which of the two great cats is the stronger and more dominant. it is of course, surprise surprise, the lion. the famous lion tamer clyde beaty is well known for stating 'a lion will whip a tiger every day, and twice on sunday. in his books he recalls fights between the cats, and the prime male lions always beat the big male tigers, often killing the tigers. one time a fight broke out in the tunnel and lion killed three tigers. in the film, the big cage, several tigers were needed as the lion killed the tiger before they had got footage. barbaric, but its history. he stated tigers were physically intimidated by lions, and generally fled or submitted to avoid a fight. his views are often disparaged by tiger fans, but all the other mixed cat trainers said exactly the same thing. seems the lion has many advantages over the tiger. contrary to popular opinion, lions are not smaller, standing several inches taller at the shoulder than male tigers. lions are faster, have greater endurance, heat tolerance, situational awareness, skill and shear aggression an will to dominate. it seems the roman saying, lion king of beasts is accurate and consistent will modern evidence. of course you will see a considerable amount of disagreement of this on yt debates, but this is all based on ignorance. superficially, tigers may seem to have an advantage if you buy into the claims of siberian tiger size (to which i say where are the remains in museums proving these sizes?). from what ive read male siberian/bengal tigers weigh no more than lions on average. and there have been some huge lions over 600lb which seem to equal the biggest verifiable tigers. and the tiger is consistently the worlds most popular animal in polls. but if you look into the subject seriously, its the lion that is probably the biggest cat, or at least equal biggest, and easily the strongest.
@@andy-the-gardenerI am not well versed in the debate about historical matchups but I am well versed in their anatomy.
I will be referring to Bengal tigers from here on since they are the largest subspecies of tigers and the largest cats out there.
Lions are not taller than tigers. They are about the same height, 3’3” to 3’5” on average at the withers.
Similarly, tigers aren’t longer than lions. They maybe longer when including the tail, but talking about body alone (nose to tail insertion) they are roughly the same, around 6’4”.
Bengal tigers are also heavier, about 60-70 pounds in mod and 40 pounds in average. Amur tigers are not the largest.
Lions and tigers are pound for pound very comparable but there are differences in their body plans. Tigers are front heavy, girthier and more robust in upper body but lions have more mass in their hindlimbs and lumbar region of spine.
At same body mass, a lion and tiger would be about equally strong. Truly the most 50-50 matchup ever, at least in terms of physicality.
Thanks for the info. And yes, pound for pound, is a pretty even match.
The biggest most powerful member of the prey will always be avoided by the predator, Bull Cape Buffalo, Bull Gaur, Bull Moose etc, a big male Brown Bear would be no different.
Usually although lions have been known to pray on bull came buffalo.
@@RealPaleontology Only if it's sick, old or isolated, if Lions are hunting a herd of Buffalo they don't go for the biggest strongest Bull, and definitely not if it's only a single Lion. All predators instinctively go for the more vulnerable.
Very informative as usual, I consider myself one of them very passionate about this particular tussle. Unlike the "Lion Vs Tiger", this is way more interesting in my opinion. Having clearly very distinct carnivores tussling it out. Not only that, but two very large carnivores in excess of 150 kg in the same environment, very rare if not only in the Russian far east. Maybe the occasional Polar and brown bear confrontations, Lions and tiger in India. Reminds of the khabib and conor fight in ways, if the Felid doesn't take the bear out quickly it's gonna be a long day and the worse it gets for the striped killer. I agree 100% with your conclusion, large males very likely avoiding each other, knowing very well it's not worth the trouble. When it comes the bite force, I think it's established out of all the bears, the Polar bear has the weakest bite pound for pound. I think Brown Bears don't just have pound for pound stronger bite forces, but overall just more powerful bites I think if i am not mistaken
Thanks. And yes the brown bear does have a slightly higher bfq. I was one of the authors on the paper. But it's a marginal difference. Funnily enough, it's the panda bear that has the most powerful bite among bears, and buy a big margin
Definitely the bear has more stamina. It really comes down to the size differential. Clearly if the bear is big enough it will have the edge. Exactly where that cut off point is we will probably never know.
@@MWK1995 Same, I find it more interesting than lion vs tiger.
In any of these cases to me it's pomp and circumstance. If they are relatively equal in size but the tiger gets the jump on the bear I'd give it to the tiger, but in a scenario where the tiger just made a kill and a bear goes to steal it I'd favor the bear @@RealPaleontology
Yup, to be honest there so little difference between these two that it's a pointless argument
As far as I know, you're misrepresenting Seryodkin et al with the assertion that the tigers killed by bears did not include adult males.
Same goes for the assertion that bears only steal kills from female tigers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that the article you're referring to specifies the tigers' genders in either case.
Not sure it's much good being an academic and citing academic journals if it can't prevent one's bias from interfering with the task of accurately relaying information.
I'd also say that it's misleading to insist that tigers are predators, while bears are just some kind of big, fat tiger parasite.
The fact is that tigers scavenge just like bears and bears run down and kill their prey, much like tigers.
The rate of incidence is different, but the general behaviours (emphasis on "general" here - tigers prefer to hunt by ambush and otherwise sneak up on their prey as best they can, while bears have absolute zero aptitude for stealth) are common.
Seryodkin et al's article seems to me to make clear that not all tigers eaten by bears are killed by said bears and not all bears killed by tigers are killed by said tigers. Both species appear to engage in both actively killing the other for food (occasionally) and in eating the others' corpses (whenever the opportunity arises). I don't think anyone's seriously argued that tigers are killing every bear that they eat, but the video seems to imply it, for the sake of increasing the persuasiveness of an argument that is unfounded.
Since a bear can digest prey in its entirety, it's rewarding for it to scavenge and contest kills, even if they're partially eaten. Tigers, on the other hand, cannot, so to get value out of a carcass, they need to be on the scene much sooner, before the parts that are edible to tigers have been eaten. Given their propensity for spending their time cowering in bushes, hoping for something unaware to walk by, their ability to get to other animals' kills in time is relativey low, but they are certainly not above putting it to use when they can.
A bear's ability to dominate kills further allows it to conserve energy by actively hunting less often.
On the other hand, a bear's complete inability to sneak does greatly increase the energy that it needs to spend to make kills, which discourages that activity.
Thus, these are both predators at the very top of the same food chain, but in very different ways.
Tigers are more capable and far more prolific as active hunters, but bears dominate the preferred method of both for acquiring meat - getting it for free.
The majority of this comment has very little to do with the actual discussion. The fact of the matter is that we have hundreds of confirmed cases of tigers predating on bears and very few to none confirmed cases of bears predating on tigers. There is a very obvious disparity here in peer reviewed work. That’s what the bulk of this video is focusing on. And he did not say that bears were just big tiger parasites. He stated that the tiger is built solely and almost perfectly for the act of killing while the bear is a generalist that predominantly eats plants and supplements it’s diet with meat. At several points during the video he highlighted the risk involved in a tiger attacking a bear and how this is not an entirely one-sided confrontation. But the facts of the world are clear: overwhelmingly, bears are prey to tigers and not the other way around. Obviously, almost nothing in nature is an absolute, but we need to acknowledge the facts of the world.
It's really not that deep. I find the "animal versus" community (or whatever the hell you call them) to be particularly juvenile and rather embarrassing. It's like watching a bunch of fourth-graders arguing over which superhero is stronger.
@@francisweller839If you're relying on Seryodkin et al for the "hundreds of confirmed cases" figure, congratulations on jumping on the misrepresentation bandwagon. The paper clearly explains that there is a big difference between finding that traces of hundreds of bears have been consumed by tigers and finding that they've actively been killed by tigers and indeed, goes into detail on some of the alternatives that compose that number.
If we're going to "acknowledge the facts of the world", let's also not spread misinformation. That way, others won't have such a hard time determining said facts.
If you think I'm also guilty of this, feel free to correct me. I think it would be more valuable than attempting to divert attention to different topics.
The video is titled "Big Cat vs Big Bear" and attempts to compare the two, but knowingly uses false comparisons and selective omissions to undermine the bear's relative strengths.
He did in fact contrast labels of "predator" and "kleptoparasite", strongly implying that bears are not predators, which is plainly misleading.
The video is not an "actual discussion", it's a monologue. I can _discuss_ any aspect of said monologue and have chosen to discuss the parts that I find objectionable, because I see little point in discussing elements with which I agree.
Tigers should be expected to kill more bears than vice versa, because they are ambush predators. They choose their battles and turn tail when they don't think they can win. They will leap for a bear's neck from hiding, at very close range, then immediately run away if they miss, preferring to try again later than risk tangling with a bear.
When a bear kills a tiger, it's because the tiger has miscalculated. When a tiger kills a bear, it's because the tiger had a good hiding spot.
Tigers themselves aren't fool enough to think they can kill a larger bear without the element of surprise.
Nevertheless, when comparing like with like (confirmed cases in which the animal killed another and ate it), Seryodkin et al's paper does not suggest that tigers kill many more bears than the other way around, though it's certainly possible.
However, this is just one aspect of the dynamic. Usually when tigers and bears meet, it's not as predator and prey, but as two predators, in competition over a kill. In this scenario, the bear is strongly advantaged.
A brown bear has numerous beneficial adaptations which allow it to sustain itself without much active predation, but these adaptations do not undermine its competence as a formidable apex predator.
I do not write this as a bear fanatic. I'm decidedly fonder of tigers, but part of this evaluation arises from a rational understanding of bears' bonechilling predatory abilities.
I think you're misinterpreting what Prof. wroe said about bears being kleptoparasitic. As in it not being a parasite, he merely stated that some bears follow tigers and then steal their kills after they do the hunting for them. That's what kleptoparasitism is. It's a behaviour; and is done by a few individual bears. And the fact is there are more instances of tigers predating on bears than the other way around, which he showed with the sources. That is not to say that bears don't hunt tigers or can't but rather that it's very uncommon compared to the other way around.
Of course bears are occasional predators. And some do systematically track down tigers and pushed them off their kills. Some do kill tigers 2. I'm not making a normal judgment here. Nor am i relying on a single source.
Loved the video!
Thank you
Dr. Wroe, the Amur Tiger or the Siberian Tiger, is not a Species, neither a Subspecies, but It was the population of Panthera tigris tigris, AKA the "Continental Tiger." Ussuri Brown Bears were Historically Found in the Korean Peninsula, Northern China, and even Russia, but now these Brown Bears were restricted to Russia and even Hokkaido in Northern Japan.
Are you malayali christian by any chance?
it is a subspecies: Panthera tigris altaica
@@jancyvargheese5351 Yes, I Am.
@@RealPaleontology Yeah, in 2017, It's now Panthera tigris tigris.
No sorry you're wrong mate. Just because someone proposed subsuming a subspecies within another doesn't make it so. Get onto Google Scholar and type in Panthera tigris altaica. You will find dozens of references to it post 2017 right up to now. This suggestion has clearly not been taken up by the majority of the scientific community.
Interestingly, accounts of pit fights seem to have the bear usually coming out on top against the big cats. Often times the bears breaking the lions and tiger’s necks with paw swipes.
what's a pit fight?
@@RealPaleontology Roman coliseums, vs. other animals like bulls, etc.. human arranged death matches.
interesting - what are the numbers? although regardless, unless we have the weights of the combatants it really doesn't mean much. If the bear is big enough it will have the advantage
Do we have any evidence of extinct big cats hunting bears? I only know of a cave lion that was likely killed by a cave bear.
Not aware of anything off the top of my head. But I will look into it
I swear i seen somewhere that cave lions actually regularly hunted cave bears
@@sirfrescobar4830Citation needed, because I smell bullshit.
I love bears 🧸, they're my favorite animal, even after I learned that they don't have soft fur, still after I learned that tigers outright eat bears, I just think to myself "you can't win them all, I guess" and bears are still my favorite animals, but about the time I found out I stumbled upon a tiger plushie out on the road.
If it's any constellation there are confirmed instances of beers eating tigers in Siberia
Well Steve Wroe, The Siberian or the Amur Tiger possibly Preyed on Brown and Asian Black Bears, but also Prey on Sika Deer, Siberian Roe Deer, Wild Boar, Badgers, Manchurian Wapiti, and even Amur Moose, but also Preyed on the Extinct Wild Cattle such as Great Aurochs, which is belong to the New Subspecies described in Earlier Last Year in 2024, which is the Siberian Aurochs (Bos primigenius sinensis) mainly went Extinct in Central Asia, North-East Asia, Eastern Mongolia, and the Korean Peninsula in the 7th Century, when the last European Aurochs (Bos primigenius primigenius) died in the Forest in Poland in 1627 on the 17th Century. Tigers also restricted to Russia, and even North-Eastern China.
I want to see either of them vs big bird
From sesame Street?
If you’re ever in the woods and stumble upon me fighting a Siberian Tiger and an Ussuri Brown bear, help the Tiger and Bear…
Wouldn't fancy your chances hand to hand
I wonder if there are any records of Bear vs Tiger from the Roman Coliseum? I know there are Tiger vs Lion records. Tiger generally won.
Very interesting! But unless they also key records of the sizes of these combatants then I don't think it's really going to tell us much. If the bear is big enough it will likely defeat the Tiger
You touched a lot on the tiger’s morphology but glanced over the bear. You also went into detail on several bear kills, but didn’t say much in the recorded cases of brown bears killing tigers.
It makes you come off a bit bias. Size is not the only advantage a bear has. And pound for pound means next to nothing, when in the wild it’s never gonna be an even playing field.
I appreciate the research but there are still a number of areas where some of the conclusions are certainly inconclusive. Although I agree Tigers are pound for pound, stronger than Bears but not twice as strong…… Tigers can be less than half the weight of a large Bear and when considering a large Bear in its prime against a large Tiger in its prime, the Bear will simply overpower the Tiger. Although I don’t dispute your reports on Tiger predation on Bears and Bear remains in Tiger skat, this is not conclusive evidence that large Tigers are taking down large Bears in one on one fights. More over, given the Bears overwhelming strength and of course the natural over the top stamina of the Bear as compared to the very lacking stamina of the Tiger….. there’s only one conclusion to reach….. the Bear will simply overpower the Tiger and at that point, the natural stamina of the Bear along with its bad attitude…… the last thing the Tiger will hear is “here kitty, kitty, kitty !
Hey thanks. And I think you've misunderstood what I've said. Certainly bear remains in Tiger's scats doesn't prove that tigers are regularly killing big bears. But the evidence from scats does tell us something. They are eating quite a lot of bear, depending on the season and the region. Most of the bears they're eating are not eaten in winter, that is, they are not eaten while hibernating.
The study of actual bear carcasses found in the field does strongly suggest that the great majority of the bears they are eating are bears that they've killed, not scavenged. Of these bears clearly killed by tigers, only one was a male, and that was a subadult 3-4 years old. There was no clear evidence of a tiger killing a bear larger than itself. Although at least one was pretty close in size to the tiger.
I also pointed out that there are at least 12 confirmed historical instances of bears killing tigers. And there is also clear evidence that some bears track tigers and try to bully them off their carcasses. Sometimes this works out right, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes the two end up in a very uneasy truce, sharing the carcass. Sometimes the bear takes the carcass and steals it out right. Putting all this together my conclusion is that tigers kill more bears than bears kill tigers. Certainly tiger does not end up in 4 to 13% of bear scats. I also conclude that big male tigers and big male Ussuri bears seem to avoid each other. Probably because they both know that there is a very good chance that they could be badly hurt or killed. I definitely don't say that the biggest Siberian tiger can kill the biggest Ussuri bear, or vice versa. To me the data says that they have a very healthy respect for each other.
And please stop it with the hypotheticals. Let's just stick to the known facts and lay off this schoolyard my bears better than your tiger, or my tiger can beat your bear any day stuff.
Really is very childish. That said, I reckon my dad could beat your dad in an arm wrestle any day!
@ Thank you for getting back to me, I found your post to be refreshing since it was obvious you had put a lot of research, thought and of course your professional insights and experiences into the article. Although I lean towards the power and stamina of the large Bear in a fight with a Tiger, by no means do I underestimate the strength and ferocity of a Tiger….. they are magnificent in every respect. I agree that in most cases, whether it’s a Bear stumbling onto a Tiger or vice versa, discretion would become the better part of valor as either one would most likely back away rather than risk serious injury. Thanks for the great post and I’ve subscribed to your channel.
No worries and of course there is a threshold point at which size will overwhelm any other advantage. Just where that point is entirely open to debate, but impossible to answer with any confidence with the available data. And I very much doubt that there will ever be sufficient to make a truly informed prediction. We’d need to have will documented data and results from dozens of violent interactions between big bears and big cats. I don't see that happening unless some rich psychopath finds a way to collect animals and force them into staged conflict. I hope we can both agree that this should never be allowed to happen.
@ I agree absolutely….. I really appreciate the in-depth commentary.
Great video. I wonder if this mirrors the interactions between prehistoric cats and bears. I would also love to see you analyze tiger predation on elephants and rhinos.
thanks. it really depends on size. really big bears are pretty much immune
@@RealPaleontologyDo you believe that they would be immune even from potentially social species such as smilodon?
No they would not be, depending on the numbers. Even lions can be pushed off their kills by hyenas if there are enough of them, and even killed. It's a numbers game.
Fascinating. I knew tigers sometimes hunted sloth bears, but I didn't know they could survive learning how to specialize in brown bears. I'm so in awe of the size of bears, it's hard to picture that a tiger could equal them. I spend all day watching the speed and agility of my cats, but it gives no insight into the strength of big cats. I suppose this might suggest that sabertooth interactions might have been more in favor of bears. If sabertooth species couldn't do a bite into the spine they might have avoided anything larger than a black bear.
Don't get me wrong, if the bear is big enough it will best the Tiger. Big male bears are pretty much immune from tiger attack and they will certainly push tigers of their kills. Although they may think twice about taking on a big male tiger.
Alright Prof Wroe you cannot put it off any longer.
Give us your take on the ultimate predator fanboi showdown. Panthera Leo vs Panthera Tigris.
We are waiting.
I will look into it
Its not really a competition both cats are generally the same sizes in the wild. Except lions fight way more often, normally take down far larger prey and have overall a more dense compact and muscular build
@@mdpriest8550 Male siberian tigers can reach a significantly greater size and weight than male lions. The tiger also likely has a higher bite force, and larger and stronger claws to boot.
@@bagelbanana1089 Not necessarily as similar as you might expect. I've heard that tigers though very slightly heavier are more or less gracile compared to lions and that lions are a more robust morph among the two pantherines! Tigers seem to have a longer and more flexible, springy spine with stronger forelimbs and shoulders, whereas, lions have a more robust chest, back, shorter more rigid spine and broader hips and hind quarters along with a relatively larger skull. So it could well be the case that lions are pound for pound a bit stronger. Anyways, t'd be interesting to hear an expert's opinion and a breakdown of the physiology of such similar and yet very different big cats!
@@surgeonsergio6839 that isnt entirely true. Tigers are the bulkier (more girthy) and more robust animal of the two when it comes to upper body but lions might have more robust hindlimbs and lumbar region.
Next time: Goku vs Superman.
Write me a script I'll take a look at it
According to my research, Baloo was never a match for Shere Khan. I personally don't need much more evidence for the dominance of big cats than Rudyard Kipling's tales 👍
I've still got a copy of that excellent reference that my mum used to read to me
Good video! When it comes to big predators of any kind, be they tiger or Tyrannosaurus, there is a lot of sensationalism and tribalism in online spheres. It's good to have an expert weighing in with impartiality.
Thanks. People do seem to get quite worked up over it!
@@RealPaleontology no doubt.
Yup, Carcharodontosaur and Spinosaur fanboys are as delusional as it gets
Amazing how worked up people get on this stuff.
Pls tiger vs lion vid
I'm afraid there's very little information available on lion/tiger interactions. And nothing in the scientific literature of note.
@ ok but it needs to be seetle once in for all just lion big cat vs bear the tiger vs lion suffers the most from misinfo,like bias ytubere on either side
@@RealPaleontologywould you be interested in comparing some of their physicality and anatomy? I have shared a little bit of data on their size and limb anatomy in my channel’s community tab. I am sure you have more, and can better present it.
@DeathAdder674 sure I'll take a look at it. Thanks
@@TimBoy-iz2xk for sure, to be honest I can't understand why people get so worked up over this
Are making this into a series? If so, will you be talking about cave lions and cave bears?
It already is a series. I've done a bunch of super predators already. And yes I will be doing the cave lion and the American liion
@ great 👍🏾, although I was referring specifically to the big cat vs big bear videos, since I figured you were alluding to your next video being a discussion about the interactions between a certain Indian bear and the tiger. I just was wondering if you were going to do another video after that discussing the potential predator-prey relationship between extinct cave lions and Eurasian cave bears.
I might do this occasionally, but I don't think I'll make it an independent series. But yes, I will upload another bear versus tiger episode hopefully tomorrow.
I agree tigers will have very similar muscle mass comparison to lion.
Bcz a sample of 17 lions showed an avg of 13% fat and the data of two tigers show 13.3% but I found two more wild tigers fat data in the 17 lion study wich also had 10 malayan tigers as well. Unfortunately the malayan tigers were captive but they had two wild tigers of unknown species which had 13.8% fat.
Great. Thanks for the heads up!
@@RealPaleontologyTigers organs make 7.4% of their body weight n= 5, skin and fur 9.8 % ,fat 13.5% (taken from avg of 13.3 and 13.8),skeleton 12.4%.This implies the tiger has ~56.9% or 57% muscle
@@smith-md8celions also around 57%. Check the data I shared.
Aren't polar bears better for a comparison instead of the brown bears 1:43?
Edit. My bad, i now understand why the decision, it's because they share the same territory
Correct!
I agree with your assesment that the Tiger is an absolut killing machine, most kills of Bears by Tigers are ambush kills and are prodominatley against females, cubs and bears in hibernation, also Bears kill Bears in conflicts where Tigers come in and finish up by eating the remains, you mentioned that pound for pound the Tiger is stronger than the Bear but that does not matter when your opponent can be double your size, and you said that the only advantage the Bear had over the Tiger was endurance, a tiger has a window of roughly 2 minutes in which it has to gain controll and get in the deadly bite on the Bear, the Bear on the other hand can go full out Bear mode for 5 times longer than the Tiger.
But it is really important to realize that there is another factor that is important to recognize, and that is the Bear is much tougher an opponent than the Tiger is, it can tank a lot of hits from the Tiger as the Tiger can be seriously injured by a single paw swipe.
So in the wild Tigers will just like most carnivores choose the easiest and safest way of eating, this simply because they risk getting hurt thenselves in the endevour, and if this happens the Tiger cannot survive as it is a lone hunter, Bears are used to fighting eachother and getting beat up quite often, and if they for some reason become injured, in the short run they can sustain themselves on other things than meat as they are omnivores.
Please I am well aware of all these variables and the relative performance specs. I'm just not interested in these hypotheticals. What we do know is that in at least some parts of their range bears are pretty common prey for Tigers. On the other hand there's no doubt that some bears can kill Tigers too. And as far as we can tell big Tigers and big bears seem to pretty much leave each other alone. That suggest that in their own minds they're pretty evenly matched.
Well. Kinda disapointing. It always goes few other ways. They either make largest cat vs medium bear and either say hollow answer that only says data but no conclusion or gives it to tiger even though the bear that they are comparing ends up being medium sized bear.
@@timexyemerald6290 sorry mate I'm not playing that game. To me it's kind of pointless. But I have given you some facts. You can draw your own conclusions
Well as Prof. Wroe states it's not a matter of what would happen, but what does actually happen naturally. Larger tigers and larger bears simply don't interact because it poses to great a risk to both animals, hence, tigers killing smaller/medium sized bears, more often juveniles or females as they don't pose as great a risk. The same is true of larger bears killing female tigers and knocking them off kills. Being a predator is a matter of risk analysis: wolves and lions alike typically pick out the weakest or oldest of herd as it is just the easiest meal and poses the smallest risk. Being a 200kg tiger and fighting a 350kg bear is just too great a risk for one meal so neither would partake despite them likely being an even match, you wouldn't go to a restaurant with a 50% chance of being eaten by the chef.
@@Toadboat12 Precisely. Couldn't have put it better myself!
In case everyone should know, asiatic cheetahs are a separate species from african cheetahs just like japanese raccoon dogs are a separate species from chinese raccoon dogs
Cats (family Felidae) and dogs (family Canidae) are equally the largest and most diverse families of extant carnivorans with both families containing over forty-five extant species under twenty genera
The forty-five extant cat species under their twenty genera are the Asiatic Cheetah (Acinonyx venaticus), the African Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), the Puma (Puma concolor), the Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi), the Leopard (Panthera pardus), the Lion (Panthera leo), the Tiger (Uncia tigris), the Ounce (Uncia uncia), the Northern Bohebao (Neofelis nebulosa), the Southern Bohebao (Neofelis diardi), the Jaguar (Jaguarius onca), the Afghan Manul (Otocolobus ferrugineus), the Himalayan Manul (Otocolobus nigripectus), the Mongolian Manul (Otocolobus manul), the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), the Common Lynx (Lynx lynx), the Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis), the Red Lynx/Bobcat (Lynx rufus), the Asiatic Golden Cat (Catopuma temminckii), the Marbled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata), the Bay Cat (Badiofelis badia), the African Golden Cat (Profelis aurata), the Serval (Leptailurus serval), the Caracal (Caracal caracal), the Jungle Cat (Felis (Sylviailurus) chaus), the Black-Footed Cat (Felis (Microfelis) nigripes), the Sand Cat (Felis (Ammofelis) margarita), the Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis (Petrofelis) bieti), the Asiatic Wildcat (Felis (Felis) ornata), the European Wildcat (Felis (Felis) silvestris), the African Wildcat (Felis (Felis) catus), the Rusty-Spotted Cat (Prionailurus (Poecilailurus) rubiginosus), the Flat-Headed Cat (Prionailurus (Ictailurus) planiceps), the Fishing Cat (Prionailurus (Zibethailurus) viverrinus), the Indian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus (Prionailurus) bengalensis), the Southeast Asian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus (Prionailurus) javanensis), the North Asian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus (Prionailurus) nipalensis), the Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), the Margay (Leopardus wiedii), the Oncilla (Oncifelis tigrina), the Kodkod (Oncifelis guigna), the Guepard (Oncifelis guttula), the Geoffroy's Cat (Oncifelis geoffroyi), the Andean Mountain Cat (Oreailurus jacobitus), and the Pampas Cat (Oreailurus colocola)
The forty-five extant dog species under their twenty genera are the Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), the Channel Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis), the Short-Eared Jackal (Atelocynus microtis), the Bushdog (Speothos venaticus), the Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), the Pampas Fox (Bassarilupus gymnocercus), the Sechuran Fox (Bassarilupus sechurae), the Culpeo (Pseudalopex culpaeus), the Hoary Fox (Pseudalopex vetulus), the Chilla (Lycalopex griseus), the Darwin's Fox (Lycalopex fulvipes), the Crab-Eating Fox (Cerdocyon thous), the Eurasian Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), the American Red Fox (Vulpes fulva), the African Red Fox (Vulpes barbara), the Tibetan Fox (Neocyon ferrilatus), the Corsac Fox (Alopex corsac), the Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus), the Swift Fox (Alopex velox), the Kit Fox (Alopex macrotis), the Bengal Fox (Fennecus bengalensis), the Blanford's Fox (Fennecus canus), the Ruppell's Fox (Fennecus rueppellii), the Fennec Fox (Fennecus zerda), the Pale Fox (Fennecus pallidus), the Cape Fox (Fennecus chama), the Bat-Eared Fox (Otocyon megalotis), the Chinese Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides), the Japanese Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes viverrinus), the Side-Striped Jackal (Lupulella adusta), the Black-Backed Jackal (Lupulella mesomelas), the African Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus), the Ethiopian Golden Wolf (Flavocyon simensis), the Common Golden Wolf (Flavocyon lupaster), the Dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Golden Jackal (Prolupus aureus), the Coyote (Prolupus latrans), the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus (cladistically including the Domestic Dog (Canis lupus familiaris))), the White Wolf (Canis albus), the Sea Wolf (Canis crassodon), the Eastern Wolf (Canis lycaon), the Red Wolf (Canis rufus), the Pale-Footed Wolf (Canis pallipes), the New Guinea Singing Dog (Canis hallstromi), and the Dingo (Canis dingo)
Since there are currently twenty-five extant families of carnivorans, here's all twenty-five extant carnivoran families from largest and most diverse to smallest and least diverse:
1) 45 species - Canidae and Felidae
2) 42 species - Herpestidae
3) 30 species - Mustelidae
4) 25 species - Viverridae
5) 20 species - Lutridae
6) 18 species - Ictonychidae and Phocidae
7) 17 species - Genettidae
8) 16 species - Otariidae
9) 15 species - Melidae and Ursidae
10) 12 species - Mephitidae
11) 10 species - Nasuidae and Eupleridae
12) 5 species - Procyonidae
13) 3 species - Hyaenidae and Cystophoridae
14) 2 species - Poianidae and Prionodontidae
15) 1 species - Nandiniidae, Odobenidae, Protelidae, Ailuropodidae, and Ailuridae
A lot to go through there. I'll check and get back to you on this tomorrow
For what it's worth, otters are Mustelids. Lutri- *nae* is a subfamily, not a family.
Same for Ictonychinae and Melinae; subfamilies of Mustelidae.
Genets are Viverids, as is the African linsang.
Coatis are Procyonids.
The hooded seal is a Phocid.
The aardwolf is a Hyaenid.
The giant panda is an Ursid.
Adding its constituent subfamilies, Mustelidae has the most recognised species of the Carnivoran families.
Not terribly meaningful, of course. Beyond the biological species, taxonomic ranks are defined arbitrarily, but the present concensus is to arbitrarily define them as above.
@@RealPaleontology Don't bother. Indyreno is a frequent troll who makes up mammalian taxonomy wholesale and never provides sources when asked to
@@Meevious, actually, Mustelidae and Viverridae are both polyphyletic, the former is now restricted only to the weasels, ferrets, and minks and the latter is now restricted only to the civets, whereas all other taxa have been removed from both families
For taxa formerly part of Mustelidae, skunks and stink badgers now belong to the family Mephitidae, all fifteen extant badger species under seven genera and four subfamilies are lumped together into the family Melidae, the otters are now evaluated into the family Lutridae, and the zorillas, muishund, shulang, huro, grisons, wolverine, tayra, and martens are all lumped together into the family Ictonychidae
For taxa formerly part of Viverridae, the feripaka (Nandinia binotata), linsangs (genus Prionodon), oyans (genus Poiana), and genets (genus Genetta) all now belong to the monotypic families Nandiniidae, Prionodontidae, Poianidae, and Genettidae respectively, mongooses are now evaluated into the family Herpestidae, and the falanoucs (genus Eupleres), fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox), fanaloka (Fossa fossana), and vontsiras (subfamily Galidiinae) that are all native to Madagascar are now lumped together into the family Eupleridae
Also, Procyonidae is now restricted to only the raccoons (genus Procyon) and bassarisks (genus Bassariscus) and fossil genera exclusively found in North America, thus redefining Procyonidae as a primarily North American family whereas all primarily Neotropical taxa are relocated to a separate family, which is the family Nasuidae, Nasuidae consists of living species like the coatis, kinkajou, and olingos and even the recently discovered olinguito as well as many extinct South American taxa like the bear-like Chapalmalania
Pinnipeds (parvorder Pinnipedia) are now currently divided into four extant families with hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) and elephant seals (genus Mirounga) being in a separate family from true seals (family Phocidae), which thus divides pinnipeds into four extant families based on morphological grounds, which are Otariidae (Sea Lions and Fur Seals), Odobenidae (Walrus), Phocidae (Seals), and Cystophoridae (Hooded Seal and Elephant Seals), the former two families constitute the superfamily Otarioidea and the latter two families constitute the superfamily Phocoidea
The giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) is the sole living member of the family Ailuropodidae just like the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) is the sole living member of the family Ailuridae, therefore the giant panda is not a bear just like the red panda is not a procyonid, even though both still belong to the superfamilies Ursoidea and Procyonoidea respectively
The aardwolf is not a hyena but still a member of the superfamily Hyaenoidea, within it, the aardwolf is in the monotypic family Protelidae
Carnivorans are now currently divided into twenty-five extant families: Canidae (Dogs), Ursidae (Bears), Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda), Otariidae (Sea Lions and Fur Seals), Odobenidae (Walrus), Phocidae (Seals), Cystophoridae (Hooded Seal and Elephant Seals), Mephitidae (Skunks and Stink Badgers), Procyonidae (Raccoons and Bassarisks), Ailuridae (Red Panda), Nasuidae (Coatis, Kinkajou, Olingos, and Olinguito), Melidae (Badgers), Mustelidae (Weasels, Ferrets, and Minks), Lutridae (Otters), Ictonychidae (Zorillas, Muishund, Shulang, Huro, Grisons, Wolverine, Tayra, and Martens), Felidae (Cats), Protelidae (Aardwolf), Hyaenidae (Hyenas), Nandiniidae (Feripaka), Prionodontidae (Linsangs), Poianidae (Oyans), Genettidae (Genets), Viverridae (Civets), Herpestidae (Mongooses), and Eupleridae (Malagasy Carnivorans)
Cats (family Felidae) and dogs (family Canidae) are equally the largest and most diverse extant carnivoran families as both families have now forty-five extant species while Mustelidae and Viverridae are both polyphyletic and are therefore heavily reduced into fewer extant species than traditionally known
Carnivorans are also split into nine extant superfamilies: Canoidea (contains Canidae), Ursoidea (contains Ursidae and Ailuropodidae), Otarioidea (contains Otariidae and Odobenidae), Phocoidea (contains Phocidae and Cystophoridae), Procyonoidea (contains Mephitidae, Procyonidae, Ailuridae, and Nasuidae), Musteloidea (contains Melidae, Mustelidae, Lutridae, and Ictonychidae), Feloidea (contains Felidae), Hyaenoidea (contains Protelidae and Hyaenidae), and Viverroidea (contains Nandiniidae, Prionodontidae, Poianidae, Genettidae, Viverridae, Herpestidae, and Eupleridae)
@@Meevious, actually, carnivorans are now currently divided into twenty-five extant families: Canidae (Dogs), Ursidae (Bears), Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda), Otariidae (Sea Lions and Fur Seals), Odobenidae (Walrus), Phocidae (Seals), Cystophoridae (Hooded Seal and Elephant Seals), Mephitidae (Skunks and Stink Badgers), Procyonidae (Raccoons and Bassarisks), Ailuridae (Red Panda), Nasuidae (Coatis, Kinkajou, Olingos, and Olinguito), Melidae (Badgers), Mustelidae (Weasels, Ferrets, and Minks), Lutridae (Otters), Ictonychidae (Zorillas, Muishund, Shulang, Huro, Grisons, Wolverine, Tayra, and Martens), Felidae (Cats), Protelidae (Aardwolf), Hyaenidae (Hyenas), Nandiniidae (Feripaka), Prionodontidae (Linsangs), Poianidae (Oyans), Genettidae (Genets), Viverridae (Civets), Herpestidae (Mongooses), and Eupleridae (Malagasy Carnivorans)
Cats (family Felidae) and dogs (family Canidae) are equally the largest and most diverse extant carnivoran families as both families have now forty-five extant species while Mustelidae and Viverridae are both polyphyletic and are therefore heavily reduced into fewer extant species than traditionally known
Carnivorans are also split into nine extant superfamilies: Canoidea (contains Canidae), Ursoidea (contains Ursidae and Ailuropodidae), Otarioidea (contains Otariidae and Odobenidae), Phocoidea (contains Phocidae and Cystophoridae), Procyonoidea (contains Mephitidae, Procyonidae, Ailuridae, and Nasuidae), Musteloidea (contains Melidae, Mustelidae, Lutridae, and Ictonychidae), Feloidea (contains Felidae), Hyaenoidea (contains Protelidae and Hyaenidae), and Viverroidea (contains Nandiniidae, Prionodontidae, Poianidae, Genettidae, Viverridae, Herpestidae, and Eupleridae)
Interesting video. I wonder about the what the statistics are like on recorded encounters for other regions where tigers and bears overlap like India.
Thanks, posting on the situation in India tomorrow
@@RealPaleontology Neat. 😁
It's really nice when people do actual in-depth research on these subjects. Have you seen videos by @wildworld6264 ?
Thanks - and I'll take a look
I have often thought about and mused over these questions...
Some other youtube videos have long suggested, as your video did, that in MOST cases, 'larger' tigers do best 'larger' bears. There does seem to be, also as evidenced by your video, much obvious and collaborated data to support these assertions. Case in point: Much evidence of Siberian tigers preying on various bear species, instead of the other way around....
However, it seems logical as your youtube video suggested as well, that if we pit the largest male Siberian tiger against the largest male Siberian brown bear, we don't have and likely will never have enough data to conclusively answer who the victor would be most the time. It could very well be an extraordinarily-even match up, a coin toss, in terms of which species might win the majority of the time...
Exactly. I think big male Tigers and big male brown bears tend to leave each other alone. I found no clear evidence of a real showdown between them. Obviously if the bears bigger enough it will not do the Tiger. Just how big that needs to be we don't know. And I find it amazing that that folks gets her worked up over these hypotheticals. I mean really what does it matter!
If only we had the ancient Romans data. They used the scientific method. For example, they 'd tie a bear from northern Europe to an African lion and would goad the animals into fighting. It 's likely that thousands of these battles occurred over the Roman Empire 's 500-year history. With such a long, bloody record, it would seem that Rome could answer innumerable 'who would win ' animal fighting debates. Unfortunately, only a few written accounts of interspecies combat have survived into modern times, and these are severely lacking in specifics. Thanks to Romans we do know Tigers almost always beat lions.
True there would have been thousands of these hideous scenes. But even if we had these data what would it prove? My interest is not in who might win in a hypothetical species a versus species b contest. I want to know what actually does happen in natural ecosystems
Interesting, I really enjoyed this video.
Great thanks
YEEEESSS!!! I have read several (although not all, I will rectify that) of these articles myself, including the one with Dima. Neither coworkers not peers at school thought tigers predated on bears, so I went and did the research and made two separate presentations. It wasn’t as thorough or elegant as this (and I have been taking notes), but it was enough to convince my coworkers to agree that the situation was more complicated than they first thought. My classmates were not moved from their previously established camps, however
Excellent. And at least your friends I hope found the information novel and useful
Who do you think would win in a fight of big Bengal tiger and big saltwater crocodile? Or bettwen large jaguar and black caiman? Heck, maybe video about felids vs crocodilians in general would be a good topic? I know about some accounts of such conflicts, but I would appreciate an opinion of someone with good knowledge of big cats.
I will check this out. It really depends if there's a history of the scientific record
I would suggest you start doing paleontological versus series like Jurassic fight club did, except you actually do it in a scientific and nuanced way. What I mean by this is take two prehistoric creatures, review their stats and see which one was likely to fight
I think you'd be perfect at this because you're not just a paleontologist, you're a paleo biomechanist, meaning you've actually studied how these things function and how they used their weapons.
If you ever did something like that, do megistotherium vs amphicyon giganteus (these two actually coexisted)
And I don't mean let them kill each other like monsters I just mean honestly review their stats how they stack up against each other and who the winner might be or even if there's a tie
Thank you I am looking into that
There are much wrong news about the siberian tiger, actually there are almost 800 exemplars in the wild , and more of 500 adults , on more , the actuall average is raised much , the actuall average is around 240 kg , with one average in north Russia of 260 kg , the normal range of the siberian tiger is 220-260 kg for the adults males , with exemplars that can to arriver until 300-320 kg . There are exemplars weighted 260 - 275 - 285 kg ecc....so , this men of the video know NOTHING! The ussuri brown bear have one average around 350 kg , with exemplars that can to arriver until 550 kg , and the ussuri brown bear is in the normal menu of the siberian tiger for 5% , and the siberian tiger win the majority of the fights, around 70% of the fights , and 10% finish without one victory.
Where are you getting your 'facts' from? Without credible sources this is just so much fake news. I can make up any numbers I like but that doesn't make it so.
Your problem is that the video is interesting, but you exsposed only what you know, that is only a little....example , you speak of this exemplar of 206 kg , but there was another young siberian tiger name luck that weighted 215 kg , and he was only one exemplar of 18 months , after luck was weighted over 240 kg !! And there are exemplars actually weighted, 260kg , 275 kg , 285 kg , and over 285 kg ....again i speak of 800 exemplars in the wild, but lucky star, kinteropod, and others assures one actuall popolation of 1000 exemplars, i stay down and i say 800 for security . But there are the sources, i don' t invenct nothing , i take the dates that come from siberia and manchuria, and there are the documentations exposed , speak with ricky star ( not lucky sorry) he can to help you
Once again science trumps BS!
There's a health a lot of it out there
Love your chanel, I have a small paleoart page myself and recently I've been drawing while listening to your videos in the background and learning a lot! This one (even tho not so paleorelated) was also very interesting! Keep it up 💪
Thank you very much what's your channel?
DIma killed 'em efore they could grow large enough to kill him.
That's certainly quite likely part of the plan. At the very least he's getting rid of the competition
This is excellent. As you say, UA-cam sometimes seems to be inundated with slop along the lines of "If X fought Y, who would wind?" When I was teaching evolutionary theory, there would almost inevitably be a first year student who would ask a real oddball, out-of-left-field question like "if an orangutan fought a leopard, who would win?" I would answer as best I could, because I was grateful that there was someone in the class paying enough attention to even think of the question, but still, it was an odd thing to be curious about. And for a while, here on UA-cam, dinosaur paleontology videos were overwhelmingly about computer-generated battles between two dinosaurs, badly animated, that would of course never have encountered one another because they were separated by tens of millions of years and thousands of miles of geography.
I suppose these are the product of almost entirely young males, in their teens or young adulthood, who were and are captivated by battles and violence.
It was very refreshing to see this video, backed by documented research.
Really, though, if an Amur tiger fought a pachycephalosaur, who would win?
Thank you. I'd rather not speculate on that. Even though it might be fun?
Alright, excellent video, bthe wroe, please make a video on panthera Leo vs panthera tigris on your next video
Thank you. Might do that although it will be later
Show up out of nowhere, make everyone else seem like a poser. Im no animal expert but that seems like typical GOAT behavior to me.
Not quite sure what you mean by goat behavior?
Greatest
Of
All
Time
Its a common expression in the states. i guess it didn't catch on abroad. It goes both ways, though. I had to Google 'boffin'. To be fair that's an actual word.
The thing is that the bear will probably win because it's bigger and stronger.
But pound for pound it's a very different story. Cats have a leaner muscle mass, and the bears size and strength fly out the window. The only reason bears are stronger is because they're bigger, and not to mention cats are much faster, have better reflexes, are more aggressive, and have more killer instinct than a bear.
If it's a big bear, I'll go with the bear, but if they're around the same size, I'll go with the cat.
For example if a 500 lbs tiger fought a 1,000 lbs grizzly, the grizzly will likely win, but if it's a 500 lbs tiger vs a 500 lbs grizzly, that tiger is eating bear that day.
Ah huh
W knowledge and respectful opinion but more like a fact
a Cat can only kill a bear half its size
@ nah bigger than that poun dfor pound cats are better in every way the only thing they lack are a bears agression,and determination,cause most cats are just better also too prove ur point tiger kill sloth bears alot,and sloth bears are alot more than half the size of tiger its more like 3/5-4/5 and if its a female tiger than they are the same size,the only reason sloth bears win are due to it being a confetration instead of an actual fight,cause theres alot if footage of the tiger outskilling sloth bears in the fight but thr bear takes it only due to it being more agressive and adrenaline rushed due to it protecting its kids,but if it was a predatory interaction the tiger would maul the same bear like it did in that documentry that realised this year.
@ also a side ur a terrorist so ur opinion dont matter
Thank you for making amazing content. Getting a video from someone who is actually in the feild is uncommon. I also really appreciate that you tell us when you have skin in the game as this can cause biased information, although you don't seem biased. You seem to give all sides of the story without too much speculation. Keep up the great work, ill definitely be watching in the future.
Thank you very much! I try! I think you might like the next episode, I'll be putting it up later today.
A bit of a rebuff to the ‘who would win?’ Genre of animal videos
I like to think so! Although I'm apparently a cat boy! And unfair to bears!
I'm re-reading _The Tiger_ by John Vaillant. Even taking into account "poetic license," it's a fascinating look into the psychology of the Amur tiger. Apparently, these cats may be capable of revenge. Besides the interesting-and terrifying-behavior of the tiger in John Vaillant's book, another (possible) case of targeted revenge by an Amur tiger is Tatiana, who leapt out of her enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo to maul three young men, killing one. Reports indicate they'd been taunting her and throwing objects into the enclosure. Maybe humans shouldn't mess with tigers. 🤔
How high can a tiger jump? As high as it needs to.
I will consider doing such a series. It really depends on how much information is available. I prefer to talk about topics on which we have a decent amount of data. But I see the appeal. That book sounds great I might get a copy!
@@RealPaleontology As an aside, get the hardcover. The print of the paperback is way too small, unless you're a fruit fly.
@RealPaleontology Along with the book, look for the documentary. I think it was called _Conflict Tiger,_ but I could be mistaken. I hope the documentary you find has the footage Yuri Trush took while he hunted the tiger. I believe he got footage of the first casualty site, which-due to extreme gore-required blurring much of the screen for general audiences. His dog was going nuts because the tiger was still close by. If I remember correctly, the camera was going and caught the sound (not the visual) of the final showdown. But again, it's been some time since I've seen the footage.
I definitely recommend looking into it. The fact some of the hunt was videotaped leads credence to the story, but as you know, even well-documented stories can grow into legend. Personally, I'm convinced this tiger enacted revenge. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
Hopefully I can get it online!
Great video! I appreciate the grounded approach to this subject matter. You might have been a little biased in the tiger proportions in the video and really could have chucked it up to be, just like all apex predators both tigers and bears are opportunistic predators and not bloodthirsty Kaju slayers.
Very interesting video and research! Looking forward to seeing more.
I tried to send you a link to another fascinating publication on Lynx lynx and Canis Lupus in Central Europe (and Belarus) along with quite amazing findings by dr Sidorovich but its gone. In any case it has been proven that wolves do not pose a potential threat to lynxes, but rather the opposite. This is demonstrated by monitoring footage. Sidorovich arrives at very interesting conclusions: male lynxes regularly kill wolf pups as well as adult wolves.
Thanks. If you send me the title of the paper I can find it
@@RealPaleontology Findings on the interference between wolves and lynxes, Vadim Sidorovich
Thanks
Nice video, 6:45 Can you give the link pls?
Thank you very much.
The links were at the end of the video
@@RealPaleontology Nevermind, I have already found it😅
Great! I'm so pleased that someone has thought to help save these awesome animals. Both the tigers and the bears. Although the tigers plight is more perilous. On the bright side the numbers have come back some.
From what I’ve read, it seems like it’s a pretty even matchup that depends on the context of their encounter.
This is speculation but it seems to me that a polar bear would have less of an issue with tigers because they would basically have all the brown bear’s strengths cranked up with much less in the form of some of the weaknesses brown bears have.
Really great video! I recently got a degree in human evolutionary biology and have always loved life science, especially animals, so I’m really glad I found this video and your channel!
I think the polar bears greatest advantage is that it's bigger
A polar bear would probably not want anything to do with the tiger. Polar bears are big and highly predatory, but are not territorial or particularly aggressive. Barren ground grizzly bears are similar in size to a lion yet tend to win confrontations with much larger polar bears over carcasses
I really enjoy watching your videos and have mad respect for the information that comes from you and I promise that when I am done blabbing here am going to do some diligent research on the topics I am going to speak on. I admit that my information on bite force comes from UA-cam videos and quick google searches. This is the first time hearing anyone say that the pudy cat has a higher bite force than a polar, Kodiak/coastal or grizzly (never did look up the usuri bear). Although their are way too many variables to pit one big male against the other and know what the outcome would be. I have seen a nominally size grizz back a big polar bear off a kill. This may come off a bit silly sounding (I get it) but I have been studying combat arts since 1982. When you have been studying it that long you get to understand weight distribution, and other advantages and disadvantages watching these animals fight each other (same species). I know there are others that know what I speak of ( I am not saying that my studies translate to all the beasts of the world lol) . There are a couple spacific bear on bear fights that I can think of that really show the brown bears fighting attributes, and because of that I just don’t think a cat in normal circumstances would last 3 minutes with these MALE bears. I am off to do some research as I promised and I will try and dig up some of those fights to share and I have confidence that many will understand my reasoning. P.s I take no offence if you think my argument is rubbish and naive.
Hi. Thanks for your comments! I don't think they're silly at all. And certainly your experience means something. I would point out that I was a bouncer in Sydney for the best part of 10 years while I did my degree and PhD. I ran a security company for much of that time and employed quite a few guys, and girls to too. I've seen a lot of fights and I understand that there are many variables, including luck! And certainly, all else being equal you put your money on the big guy!
Anyway, I think you may have misinterpreted me on this. And not wanting to sound like too much of a wanker, but I have studied and published widely on the topic of bite forces in carnivores. In fact, pretty sure I've published more widely on this than anyone else using both simple beam theory and 3D computer simulations. Happy to send you copies of the papers if you like.
I've never said that the biggest bears don't bite as hard or harder than the biggest cats. What I have said, is that pound for pound, the cat bites much harder. In absolute terms, if the bear is big enough it will have a higher bite force than the cat and obviously the biggest bears are much bigger than the biggest cat.
By and large, UA-cam is at best an unreliable resource for this information, you need to go to the scientific literature. Although a lot of the info out there on big carnivores actually comes from papers I've written.
Now, on the question of who would win in a battle between a big cat and a big bear, ultimately it comes down to size. If they are the same size, the cat has the advantage in almost every respect. Although yes, weight distribution does play a role here. But the simple fact is that as the weight differential between the cat and the bear increases in the bears favour the cats odds obviously fall. The evidence suggests that the biggest male Tigers at around 200 kg and the biggest male brown bears in the Russian far east at around 360 kg basically avoid each other. Which suggest to me that they are pretty evenly matched. But would it 200 kg Tiger be able to take on a 600 kg Kodiak bear, I very much doubt it!
Fun fact, the bear the most powerful bite for its size, is the panda bear. Pound for pound, it's right up there with the big cats.
Thank you for typing back! I am in Bear and Tiger fact mode now. I am glad that you have “combat” experience and a real understanding with my comment and think I am trying to convince people that I fight bears lol. Although I live in Christina Lake BC Canada 🇨🇦 so I live smack in the middle of black and griz country and see them monthly pass my property lol.(I accidentally his send prematurely lol that why my comment cut off lol. I misunderstood your “bite force explanation “. I shall return when I am done poking around. (Not that I disagree and I had disbelief in your video) .
Awesome. I've never seen a bear in the wild!Look forward to ur response. Might I suggest u start with a couple of my papers: just type in "Bite club: Comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa" and "Bite force and evolutionary adaptations to feeding ecology in carnivores" they should take u to sites u can download the papers 4 free. Cheers
@@RealPaleontology Heading there now! Thank you 🙏
@@RealPaleontology a question question, if you don’t mind? What is your opinion on the aggression, toughness, battle expertise of the different BROWN bear variants? Of course there will be differences due to food, terrain and size . I guess I mean fighting behaviour. The reason I asked, I have heard many say that the Eurasian browns are much more docile than the North American browns. I just want to know your opinion on this being a real big issue? I know very little on the Eurasian guys/gals. Thanks again for keeping me busy while adjusting to a new hip lol!’
Dr. Wroe, but in the Iron Age of Northern China, Ussuri Areas of Russia, and the Three Kingdoms Period of the Korean Peninsula, the Siberian Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) that could attack and take down a Siberian Aurochs (Bos primigenius sinensis) with a crushing bite. What actually happens when Striped Big Cats and Big Wild Cows collide in North-East Asia and East Asia.
Very interesting thanks. Do you have a reference for that I really like to read it
I saw this video this morning and yeah, it’s interesting. That tigers have been known to hunt bears. I’m pretty sure that both males would avoid each other at all costs.
yup
If both animals are abuot the same weight, the bear always will end as catfood 🐻🐯
not always there's an element of luck in every encounter
Tigers are also seen in the De-Militarize Zone in the Korean Peninsula.
Interesting
Very nice video, I appreciate that studies and research observations are used as opposed to just assumptions
I have read some of your studies with Christensen on ResearchGate and as a result I wanted to make a video analyzing the studies and discussing how big cats and bears compare "pound to pound". So this video was definitely a treat
One academic publication I was going to use and that I think you'd like is "Cursorial Adaptations in the Forelimb of the Giant Short-Faced
Bear, Arctodus simus, Revealed b ealed by Traditional and 3D Landmark aditional and 3D Landmark
Morphometrics" by Eric Randally Lynch. Highly recommend, pretty interesting
Hey thanks. And I'll take a look at that publication
If you're planning on doing more debunking videos, I'd love it if you did a similar video regarding the maximum weights of the grey wolf. Take the extinct so-called "Kenai Peninsula wolf" (formerly C. l. alces, now synonymised with C. l. occidentalis). There are tons of amateur sources claiming it could reach 200 lbs, yet the only detailed description of it comes from E. A. Goldman's monograph on North American wolves, and there he never gave a weight estimate (limited as he was to five skulls).
Interesting, I certainly do intend to do the grey wolf at some point
Nicely done! Thank you for your direct approach on this topic. I think people get so worked up over it because both tigers and brown bears are charismatic megafauna whose "teams" desperately want their favorite to be the top dog. I also liked the sarcasm on hunter exaggeration because to say they do exaggerate is an understatement. And not even just on the size of their quarry, but also when they claim to see certain events happen in the woods or wherever they hunt.
Yeah it's incredible just how worked up people get by the plain facts
There isn’t a tiger alive today that will kill a polar bear, just like the American lion isn’t beating the short faced bear. Tigers go after hibernating brown bears not fully grown brown bear males, kodiaks and pizzlies will destroy a tiger, tigers don’t even have the stamina that bears do, bears can fight on there hind legs for 45 minutes tigers only fight for about 10 minutes. The bengal tiger is the largest tiger and they are more muscle than the Siberian because the Siberian relies on their fat bodies for the winter and muscle weighs more than fat.
doesn't just have more fast twitch muscle, it has considerably more muscle for its size. And as I said above, it has a massive advantage with respect bite force (pound for pound).
It depends on the size differential. Certainly no tiger could kill the biggest polar bear. I don't think anyone ever said it could, certainly not me. And sorry, but the data clearly shows that the majority of bears killed by tigers in the Russian Far East are killed in summer and spring, not while the bears are hibernating. And yes, bears do have more stamina. That's assuming they live long enough to take advantage of it. And clearly more often than not, when bear means tiger the bear doesn't last very long. You really need to read the scientific literature and not the partisan social media posts which are always going to be biased one way or the other.
Basically the science shows us that the biggest male Siberian tigers and the biggest male Ussuri bears tend to avoid each other. This suggests that they are pretty evenly matched, despite the fact that the biggest Ussuri bears are around 70% heavier.
@ bears wake up in the spring and are thin as paper, it wouldn’t be hard to take one at all, the weight doesn’t stack on till the end of summer and fall. And they are most definitely lethargic all of spring. The reason they found bear remains in the scat is probably cause the tigers found a dead one. Asian bears aren’t as aggressive from what I can tell either. People are either riding them, wrestling them, feeding them with their faces, etc. If the biggest bear and the biggest tiger ever fought in a room the bear is walking out. Now if you were to say a liger, then yes that’s a cat I’ll take but nah I’m taking American bears everyday and twice on Sunday.
There is a hypothesis that suggests the white chest marking of many Asian bear species are warning colors used to ward off tigers. What's your thought on this matter?
To be honest I doubt it. I'm just writing up an episode on the Tiger and sloth bear at the moment. Tigers certainly do have a healthy respect for them and they certainly are not a favoured prey item overall. And there's even a well documented case of a big sloth bear killing a tiger. But sloth bears are a significant part of the diet in some of the tigers range. Asiatic bears appear to be not quite so aggressive, but they are better climbers have more options if they come across the big cat. Nonetheless they too are pretty commonly taken. Anyway, you might enjoy this next video?
@@RealPaleontology I have mixed feelings about this hypothesis. On one hand these Asian bears are mainly about bluff-and-climb when they are cornered by tigers. Yet on the other hand, maybe the point is not about being stronger than a tiger, it's being more of a trouble than a deer, especially when the tiger doesn't have the element of surprise and has to face down a very respectable carnivore. The same hypothesis has been applied to the bold facial markings of smaller carnivores too, such as badgers, racoons and civets.
Brown bears in north east Asia are actually prey or were prey to Siberian Tigers.
Sure have you watched the video?
@ type in google a dance of death. Tigers and bears battle it out in north east Asia. It’s an article written by a bloke called John Goodrich who studied them in north east Asia. The brown bear was prey to the Siberian tiger in his studies.
In fact the video was part of the study 😂
I like to think before/ during the bronze age animals couldve been larger by a medium margin.
Quite likely in most instances
Apparently solid facts. Well done presentation. Unfortunately not flamboyant and speculative enough for many viewers, their loss. Great job.
Thank you!
I guess we are currently seeing an instance of the "Lilliput effect", which is often noticed during extinction events. When enviromnents become more empoverished, the animals decrease in size. Hope the Siberian tigers will eventually recover to their historical ranges and sizes. Thank you again for your excellent analysis of large predators!
Yes, but hey please think about making a donation to one of those very well deserving charities to help save the tiger and the bear. A world without tigers is just unimaginable
@@RealPaleontology I'm thinking, maybe the peculiar affinity for caves in cave bears should have been drived by predation from large cats, namely Panthera leo and Panthera fossilis. But I guess this is on the list of your future episodes 🙂
Interesting question!
Amazing video, a lot of surprising and eye opening information!
great! Thanks!
Good videos. I just discovered your channel like an hour ago when I was looking up Xenosmilus and watched that video. Then, I watched your first three videos (your intro, intro to super predators, and the Thylaceo vid) and the video debunking hyenas (I unfortunately believed the myth, I am glad to learn the truth now) I'm hooked.
A youtube channel from a real and experienced paleontologist!
I have two recommendations for you. Two massive hooved predators, the Daeodon (Big pig-like terror) and the Andrewsarchus (the largest mammalian predator to date).
I'm curious on what you know about the Andrewsarchus as its not talked about much.
Love your work, keep it up!!!👍👍👍
Great video man.new sub❤
Awesome hopefully you like the other ones as well!
Ive watched this 5 times. That's why i say you're the
Greatest
Of
All
Time.
Or GOAT for short.
Geez thanks Nebula. Really good to know that some people really appreciate it because quite a lot of work goes into these.
I want to see a video about tiger vs lion! Oohhhh shiiittt
maybe one day
@ you won’t be able to moderate the comment section 🤣
Yeah I just put it out
Thanks
Really enjoyed this presentation! I particularly enjoyed your speaking tone/cadenece!
I feel like i could listen to this anywhere, be it in the background at the office or before bed! Very versatile!
Thank you - it's appreciated.
Bear rag dolls the cat
Thank you for that well constructed and very convincing argument
@RealPaleontology thank you!
Adult male grizzly would beat any big cat in 1v1. They have the size, strength, and stamina plus the body type to wrestle and fight.
@@thundergunknivesout4329 I’m really not interested in hypotheticals. What I am interested in are the facts as reported in the peer reviewed scientific literature. I'm also interested in the question of why do you care whether a Kodiak bear could or couldn't kill a Siberian tiger?
@RealPaleontology it was just a random video I saw recommended to watch. I'm just wondering where in your research it says tigers kill and eat full grown male brown bears?
Tigers would be breakfast for grizzly, Kodiak, black and Polar bears. Tigers don't stand a chance.
Thanks for your opinion.
los romanos han echo pelear a todas las bestias, y a todas el urso les gano
Not always and we have no data on their relative sizes
*Pretty good video. You missed some details, but it's still way better than 99% you can find on internet. I would say that tiger wins heavier bear with ease, and this is also based on fact.*
Thank you. Kind of. Rest assured I have plenty more detail. But there's only so much you can put into a 20 minute video. I'll be posting a little more detail later today.
@@RealPaleontology *Yes I know, hard to put everything in short video, well I subscribed.*
Great. Thanks. I'll be posting another short bear v tiger story later today.
Did not watch the video, just saw in the comments this video is biased like many others against bears. No gonna hear a word from a kitty fanboy too
Those are just the facts I'm afraid.
Gorillas, which are a LOT heavier than leopards routinely get bodied by them.
that's true
"If I just close my eyes it can't hurt me" This gave me a bit of a laugh, thank you.
Yup. Life's good in the echo chamber.
Dudes clearly a cat dude. So this video is biased.
Did you not pay attention to the pile of peer-reviewed papers he used for this?
@@francisweller839 Dude that does not matter. The scientists are all cat dudes.
But not you Caramello Koala. 😂
Leopards are away smaller than gorillas, and still keep hunting them
The facts are the facts
Не понятно зачем нужны исследования, ведь есть история... Или её так сильно переврали...
Not sure what you mean by that
Excellent video professor, it's refreshing to see a real expert talking about this topic. By the way and to be clear I'm just an animal enthusiast, so everything that follows will be just pure opinion (though I'll also present some questions to which I hope you'll find the time to answer) but I want to share it nonetheless.
I've always thought that the odds in this fight were on average 50/50 and that they really depended on the circumstances since both the bear and the tiger are extremely powerful animals and I'm sick to always see both tiger fans and bear fans claim that one would stomp the other with no effort whatsoever, which is clearly ridiculous. I still think that in an open confrontation the bear would win more often than not since, for what I understand, it's more tanky and robust than the tiger, it also has more stamina (at least that's the information that I could find online) and it's generally larger. But, when it comes to a tiger ambushing of course even a big bear will have an extremely really hard time getting out alive since, again, the tiger is still extremely powerful and so it will manage to kill the bear more often than not (but again these are just my opinions).
All this considered, on a sidetone, I still don't think it's fair to consider the confrontations between male tigers and female bears a fair scenario since the fair scenario would be big male vs big male and big female vs big female, but again this is just an opinion and I would like to know your thoughts about this. In addition to this in the Wikipedia page of the Ussuri brown bear it is reported that: "A report from 1973 describes twelve known cases of brown bears killing tigers, including adult males; in all cases the tigers were subsequently eaten by the bears" and it cites the following sources:
- "Brown Bear predation of Amur Tiger 1973 account". International Wildlife Magazine. 20 October 2009 and
- Goodrich, J. M.; Kerley, L. L.; Smirnov, E. N.; Miquelle, D. G.; McDonald, L.; Quigley, H. B.; Hornocker, M. G. & McDonald, T. (2008). "Survival rates and causes of mortality of Amur tigers on and near the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik". Journal of Zoology. 276 (4)
In another part of the same Wikipedia page it is also reported that "Other researchers have observed bears following tiger tracks to scavenge tiger kills and to potentially prey on tigers" and it cites the following two sources:
- Heptner, V. G. & Sludskij, A. A. (1992) [1972]. "Tiger". Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2. Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats)]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 95-202
- Seryodkin, I. V.; Goodrich, J. M.; Kostyrya, A. V.; Schleyer, B. O.; Smirnov, E. N.; Kerley, L. L. & Miquelle, D. G. (2005). "Глава 19. Взаимоотношения амурского тигра с бурым и гималайским медведями [Chapter 19. Relationship of Amur tigers with brown and Himalayan black bear]". In Miquelle, D. G.; Smirnov, E. N. & Goodrich, J. M. (eds.). Tigers of Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik: Ecology and Conservation (in Russian). Vladivostok, Russia: PSP. pp. 156-163.
I'm reporting this just because I'm a bit confused about the dissonance between what you said in your video about the confrontations between male bear and male tigers and the possibile predation on tiger by bears and I wanted to know if the sources reported here are reliable in the first place.
Apart from all of this I think it would be cool if you did some speculative and for fun videos about possible fight outcomes between a brown bear and a lion but also between more medium sized big cats and bears (like leopards, cougars and jaguars against black bears, sloth bears etc). Of course I know about the occasional predation on black bears by jaguars but maybe it would be fun to hypothesize the dynamics of an open confrontation. Another thing that would be really enjoyable would be to hypothesize the dynamics of confrontations between extinct large mammalian predators and extant ones, for example hypothetical fights between big amphicyonids and big cats, big extinct hyenas like Dinocrocuta and bears, big canids like Epicyon and big cats and so on.
p.s.: I'm sorry if there's grammatical mistakes in this comment but English is not my native language, still I hope it's clear enough.
Even if the sources are reliable, that is 12 cases confirmed by bears and hundreds confirmed by tigers. And in the hundreds of confirmed cases with tigers, both male and female tigers were hunting brown bears. While the two tended to avoid each other, you have to take into consideration that the biggest prayer we ever see a brown bear hunting are large cervid maybe twice their weight, while tigers in general have been routinely observed hunting prey 6 to 10 times their size.
Felines are undoubtedly most dangerous land mammals on 🌎 and they don't hibernate.😂
@@francisweller839 I see that both you and the professor say that tigers kill more bears than the other way around, and of course you're right since there's extensive proof of that, but still I wonder if we should make a difference between hunting/ambushing (which, as it has been clearly established, is the way in which tigers kill bears the most) and properly fighting if we want to determine who's stronger on average (let me clarify, that's just for fun, I know that that is scientifically pointless). In the case of fighting I think it is reasonable to assume that the bear has the upper hand since the surprise element the tiger relies on for most of the kills vanishes, don't know if you agree and of course in case there are any papers disproving this please let me know. Just to be clear, I know that the point of the video was not to determine which animal is stronger but, since science is already clear enough about what happens in the wild, I think it's interesting and fun to speculate about the outcomes of hypothetical fights taking into consideration what science says about the interactions between these two animals to make the speculation as grounded as possible.
Thank you. I have actually got these papers/chapters. And yes some bears do routinely track tigers to their kills. Pretty sure I mentioned that. It's an interesting and variable dynamic at the kill side. I also mention that there are at least 12 confirmed cases of the brown bear killing tigers. The beer can obviously win if there's a big enough size differential. Is even an instance of a sloth bear killing a tiger. I'm going to put up a video on this topic later today I think
Good video!
Thank you for the info!
My pleasure
I find big cats winning they will literally kill anything they see buffalo warthog gaur hyenas elaphant ls giraffes rhinos bears hippos and more and are way faster and agile also better fighters.
Not necessarily. They were 12 clear instances of bears killing Tigers in the Russian Far East