Sunday, February 6, 2011

Lions and Tigers and...

Most of you just said 'bears, oh my!' in your head. I know. I'm psychic.

This is a rant. It shouldn't be too long, but I need to make it. This is about one of my biggest pet peeves.

It's against everyone and everything that has ever said that lions are the king of the jungle.

They're not.
They're lions. Where do lions live? Where did the lions live in The Lion King? Did they live in a jungle? No. They lived on African plains. Why? Because that's where lions live.

Lions do not live in the jungle. You can't be the king of the jungle, and not live in the jungle. It doesn't work like that. In the same way that Queen Elizabeth II can't be the Empress of China, a lion who lives on an African plain, cannot be the king of the jungle.

And you know what else? People determine animal supremacy by size or ferocity. In the same way that a barracuda is not the king of the sea, so too the lion is not the king of the jungle. Even if the lion lived in the jungle it wouldn't be the king. Who would be the king?

The tiger.
Why? Because it's awesome. Firstly, tigers live in the jungle. It's actually possible for a tiger to be the king of the jungle, cause that's where they live. In The Jungle Book, who was Mowgli's worst enemy? Shere Khan. What was he? He was a tiger.
Not only that, but tigers are bigger than lions. They are the largest of the big cats. They're massive.

Here is the comparison of why tigers are more likely to be the king of the jungle than lions:

- Lions weigh up to 250kg. Tigers weigh up to 300kg. That's 50kg more, just so you know. As I said earlier, kings of the animal kingdom are generally determined by weight and ferocity. Who weighs more?
- Tigers are cleverly designed to blend in with their surroundings. A lion in the jungle would just stand out, and it wouldn't be able to hunt. Not only that, but it's not just one lion hunting, it's a whole pride. It would be hard enough for just one lion to sneak up on something. For multiple lions it would just be too difficult.
- Tigers can swim. Really well. And they're more likely to need to in the jungle. Lions only swim if they have to, so they really couldn't handle it all too well living in the jungle.

- Looking at it, tigers are like 'RAWR' and all the jungle animals are like 'eep! Don't eat us! Even though there's one of you, we're all going down!' lions are like 'Unison RAWR' and it's less of a 'I'm the king and I can say off-with-your-heads!' as it is a 'we're bullies. *snatches life*'.
That last one didn't make sense, but I don't care. It made sense to me.

Now don't think I don't like lions. They're pretty radical. Tigers are my favourite animal (equal with the panda), but I still like lions. They muff stuff up. It's wicked cool. They have 3 disney movies devoted to them. They just can't be the king of the jungle.

One of the easiest ways to drive me crazy is to say lions are the king of the jungle. So don't do it.

Ahh I feel better after all that. If you want to read an article talking about tigers being better than lions, go here. They're not necessarily better, but this is a pretty good essay and it does add to the reasons for tigers being kings of the jungle. Just sayin'.


1 comment:

  1. I'm pretty sure that trees are the complete King's of the Jungle. I mean, if there were no trees, there would be no jungle for the tiger to 'feel' King of anyway.