Talk:Liger/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is this for real?

I believe so, I have read about ligers elsewhere...

sure why not? house cats cross breed all the time.

Ligers were mentioned offhand on NPR's Day to Day today. The story was on footprints found of a large wild cat; the reporter mentions that people thought it could be a lion, a tiger, or a liger. BenFrantzDale 03:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, although many people think that the liger is an invention of Napoleon Dynamite (and the creators may or may not have been aware of the existence of the animal when they wrote the movie), they are real. Here's a National Geographic article that mentions one, and includes a picture. --LostLeviathan 11:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Duh ligers are real, ever heard of a thing called crossbreeding? lion+tigeress=liger Lioness+tiger=tigon69.115.46.242 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hercules or Sindbad?

while watching the National Geographic Channel, the man in the photo with Hercules was explaining some things about Sindbad, amazingly Sindbad was said to be at the same weight the article is currently describing as Hercules can Sindbad and Hercules be one? renamed, have multiple names, or even that the picture is for Sindbad not Hercules. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 5:27PD Friday Feb 22, 2008

No response, ok now no one would blame me for deleting it right? 12:17MD 23 February 2008 One last pharaoh (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

VFD

This page was proposed for deletion December 2004. The archived discussion is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liger.

FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS SEEN NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, LIGERS ARE BRED FOR THEIR SKILLS IN MAGIC.

A liger was featured on ABC's Good Morning America on February 18th, 2005.

Sterility?

I did some reading about lion X tiger crosses. My reading was that they were all sterile, just like mules. This is one of the reasons that the crosses are done by amateurs, and in safari parks, not in zoos, which are supposed to be run scientifically. Tigers are endangered. The sterility of the offspring means that the genetic potential of the tiger is being wasted.

I also read the crosses were dangerous, because tigers were instinctively solitary, and lions were instinctively social. The crosses were drawn both ways. -- Geo Swan 01:15, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

The article is actually rather vague about the topic of sterility in ligers. The article states, "The hormonal hypothesis is that the cause of the male liger's growth is its sterility — essentially, the male liger remains in the pre-pubertal growth phase. This is not upheld by behavioural evidence - despite being sterile, many male ligers become sexually mature and mate with females. Male ligers also have the same levels of testosterone ng/dl on average as an adult male lion. In addition, female ligers also attain great size, weighing approximately 700 lb (320 kg) and reaching 10 feet (3.05 m) long on average, but are often fertile" at the end of the section describing the large size, but in the following section, the article says, "Ligers are not sterile, and they can reproduce. If a liger were to reproduce with a tiger, it would be called a ti-liger, and if it were to reproduce with a lion, it would be call a li-liger. The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well-documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose gender is determined by sex chromosomes, if one gender is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y)". It seems to be saying that only the females are fertile while the males are sterile, yet this could be clearer. I'll change the beginning of the fertility section to specify females only, and if it is incorrect, the article can be changed back, taking into account the numerous instances which state the males are sterile.--Tiberius47 12:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not really an accurate, at all. The Male ligers are sertile, but not females which can be be bred again with a tiger & a lion. I'd like to know if you can back & forth.

Ligers

I didn't write the article on ligers here, but the liger pictured, 'Hobbs' is one of the big cats I care for at the Sierra Safari Zoo. Hobbs is a very wise, intelligent cat that is very posessive of several people who work with him, myself included. Hobbs really enjoys companionship, and gets very upset when I have to leave. Hobbs is very emotional as well, and I have even seen him cry. Hobbs loves to invent new games, but he leaves it up to me to figure out the 'rules'! In any case, I count it one of the great priveliges of my life to care for such a magnificent animal.

Hobbs was an accident. He was not born here. (Many ligers are accidents.) He lives with a orange female tiger, named 'Tasha'. Although Hobbs 'services' Tasha when she is in heat, there have been no cubs (nor do we expect cubs) in the 7 years that have been together. Ligers are rarely fertile, about 3 in 100 are fertile. Tigons, on the other hand, are fertile about 1/3 the time. And Hobb's weight is pretty accurate as listed, with the range being 800-1,000 pounds (363 - 455 kg). He gets 14 pounds (6.4 kg) of commercial feline diet (mainly raw meat) a day, 6 days a week. (We fast our big cats one day a week, which is a common practice with captive big cats.) Hobbs is enormously strong. We occasionally will get whole (dead) deer to feed to our cats. He can eat an entire deer, bones and all, (including the skull and pelvis) in about 8 hours.

Is Hobbs more dangerous than other big cats? Yes, and no. For me, he is more dangerous. Since he 'owns' me in a unique way, he thinks I am another liger. So, he would play with me very roughly if I were to go in with him. For others he does not 'own' he is handleable and is even leash trained. (We haven't had him 'out' since he was 2 years of age, and we don't intend to in the future.)

comment on liger and tigon fertility untrue. Males of both hybrids are sterile. Females are often fertile. This holds true for female ligers and female tigons. Necropsy of males of both types has shown abnormal testes. Female hybrids have been mated back to both lions and tigers to produce li-ligers, ti-ligers, li-tigons, ti-tigons

Growth

Ligers grow diffently depending on its gender. If it's female, it's weight is up to 700 pounds. If it's a male, its weight can be 1000 pounds. The average length is 4-6 feet plus a 3 foot tail.

agree. this means the article statement on "only females grown large" is false.

Crossbreeding with tigons?

If a Liger can be bred with either a tiger or lion (Assuming it's fertile), and Tigons can also be bred with tigers or lions, can a Liger be bred with a Tigon? What would you call the babies? Litigoners?

No, that wouldn't work. Female ligers and tigons are sometimes fertile, but males aren't. So only one half of the pair would be fertile. Kairos 05:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fertility

Hobbs' keeper says "Ligers are rarely fertile, about 3 in 100 are fertile. Tigons, on the other hand, are fertile about 1/3 the time." The article says "Male ligers are sterile. Female ligers are often fertile..." Can anyone provide more information?

Both the Lairweb and Messybeast sites document cases of female ligers and female tigons that have bred.

Scientific Classification

What part of the evolutionary tree are these classified in? Shouldn't they be considered part of the evolutionary tree, after all? -- Natalinasmpf 14:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since ligers are usually sterile and artificially bred, they would not be considered a part of a natural "evolutionary tree." Probably the best we could do is to put them somewhere in genus panthera, but not as a species. Similarly, the mule is not regarded as a species but as a hybrid. --InformationalAnarchist 7 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove the "species name"? I highly doubt it's recognized by taxonomists, as the liger is a hybrid, not a species, as InformationalAnarchist said.

I agree! The "species name" is certainly not recognised by taxonomists. Does anyone has or know the correct citation of the scientific article where Panthera leogris (Delano, 2006) has been named and described as a species? Or is that name here placed as a joke? Peter Maas 11:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hybrids are supposed to have a "X" between the genus and species name.

Examples:

Cupressus_x_leylandii also
Leyland Cypress

Not quite. Notice that above examples are plants, and they do not follow the same rules as animals (ICBN for the former, ICZN for the latter). The Liger is not a species and it does not have a binomial, although it, following tradition, does have a name based on the scientific name of the parents, in this case it would be: Panthera leo × Panthera tigris or vice versa (see comment to About scientific names of hybrids further down on this talk page). 212.10.67.254 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be added that the reason for above is good: Among plants, hybrid speciation is relatively widespread, but among animals it is exceptionally rare with no more than a handful of documented cases. 212.10.67.254 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

What is the reason why the section on "Ligers in popular culture" was removed? There doesn't seem to be any explanation here in the discussion, and I think that it is worth noting. --InformationalAnarchist 7 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Also, What is the reason the entry on slang in computer games (most specifically Myth) within this section was removed? "*Slang in Myth (computer game) for an awful but boastful player. Often a derogatory term used to set apart those lacking social graces. Similar to n00b." Seems to be both relative to "Pop Culture" (as its related to Bungie) and relative to "Pop Culture References"?

If you've got a reference, go ahead and add it back in. I've never heard this term used this way before, but I've never played Myth. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I dont really think that this 'Myth' computer game ref. deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Looking at the history it appears to have originated as some kind of dig at someone inparticular.

"The original PlayMyth.net Liger (who was previously a 'raider' on Bungie.net) has since been permanantly banned, but he still insists he is part of the community." - this is not relevant, some anecdote about an antisocial gamer is not worthy material

I didn't remove it, but as I said before, If you've got a reference, go ahead and add it back in. This statement has not been verified, so it should probably not remain in the article. android 79 17:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My edits

I have thrice edited this page, the first time my edit was removed. The author made a gross factual error with his assertion that there are genes which could only be inherited from the mother, this is grossly innacurate. The only way a gene could be only inherited from the mother is if it is on the X chromosome of a male.

One of the common criticism of the free internet as a source of information is it's unreliability, unless wikipedia is vigilant about these things they will never recieve the respect they want.

There ARE genes that are EXPRESSED only when inherited from the mother, so while the statement as written is untrue, the intention is an accurate one.

You are missing the point, or rather your point is only valid if both parents are the same species. In a liger, the mother and father are different species. Therefore the mother may pass on a gene present in the maternal species that is not present in the paternal species.

Where is the admin????

That is the second time my thoughtfull edits where taken down. I am not sure why wikipedia refuses to correct the glaring inaccuracies of their webpage.

Since this seems to be the only place that doesn't have posts taken down, let me explain once more why the article is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The article theorizes, "Ligers grow much larger than tigers or lions and it is believed this is because female lions transmit a growth-inhibiting gene to their descendants to balance the growth-promoting gene transmitted by male lions (this gene is due to competitive mating strategies in lions). Being the offspring of a male lion and female tiger, the liger inherits the growth-promoting gene, but does not have the growth-inhibiting gene and typically grows larger than either animal; this is called growth dysplasia......"

The article first of all does not even claim that there is a growth inhibiting gene, it claims that it is possible that there is a growth inhibiting gene that could only be passed on by a female lion. This is of course impossible, and shows a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic biological principles. There is no gene which can only be passed on by a mother. Why:

All animals have an even number of chromosomes, when sex cells are created the body randomly selects half these chromosomes. Males have an X and a Y chromosome females have two XX's, when sperm are created they can either contain an X or a Y chromosome. If a sperm without a Y chromosome fertilizes an egg then the result will be a female child, if the sperm has a Y chromosome the child will be male. You cannot inherit a Y chromosome from your mother because she does not have one. The Y chromosome is the only difference between males and females (genetically). Since you inherit an X chromosome from your father if you are female then there is no such thing as a gene which can only be passed on by mothers.

This point is valid if both parents are the same species. In a liger, the mother and father are different species. Therefore the mother may pass on a gene present in the maternal species that is not present in the paternal species.

I'm no geneologist, but this does not make much sense to me. Why could something be prohibited from being passed on from the mother just because the father may also supply an X? I would be grateful if you could provide me a link about this. As for the reversions of your edits, please keep in mind that people are a little trigger happy on this particular article. After Napoleon Dynamite this page has been subject to frequent vandalism. The time that I personally removed your text was because it read like you were talking to the writers and not the readers so I asked you to come to the talk page; which you did. →Vik Reykja 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that the hypothetical growth inhibition gene could not be passed on by the mother ever, but that it couldn't exclusively be passed on by the mother.

If only male Ligers grew this large then the explanation would be that the growth inhibition gene was found on the Lion X chromosome (since male Ligers do not have a Lion X chromosome). Your article did not specify, it just said that Ligers usually grow much larger then either Tigers or Lions, which lead me to assume that female Ligers (who have a Lion X chromosome) also grow much larger. If this is the case we cannot explain the Liger growth dysplasia through genes inherited solely from the mother.(the editor, mrdestructo756@yahoo.com)

http://science.howstuffworks.com/human-reproduction7.htm

Your edits were removed because they were written in the first/second person and said "your article is wrong." That may be the case, but this is bad style for an encyclopedia. This talk page is for discussion; the article should simply reflect the facts. If you feel the article is incorrect, go ahead and edit it, but take care to follow good style. Simply change what you feel is incorrect rather than using the article itself to argue points. android 79 02:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. The problem is that I have no real explanation for the dysplasia in Ligers, but I am 99.9 percent sure that the articles explanation isn't correct. I will try and do more research on this particular issue before I submit another edit.(mrdestructo756@yahoo.com)

In case I didn't express myself clearly, the reason Android79 gave for removing your edits are the exact same reasons I used. →Vik Reykja 09:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay before I edit the page I want to make sure that you have a source for this claim that all Ligers(both males and females) grow twice as large as either lions or tigers, while all Tigons do not grow as much. Female Tigons and Female Ligers should be genetically identical, therefore the idea that one has growth dysplasia and the other doesn't contradicts established thought. The only possibility would have to do with the mechanics of reproduction. Lion sperm is somehow damaged in the process of fertilizing tiger eggs, and this causes a growth inhibition gene to be destroyed (but it doesn't affect the growth enhancement gene).

After thinking about it for a while that seems to be the only plausible explanation. I'll post a new edit tommorow.

It's not the only thing that makes sense, or even the most likely explanation - I added a link to genetic imprinting, which explains how paternal or maternal inheritance can change gene expression, and why differential expression may be observed in hybrids but not in the parent species (absense of the co-evolved "counteracting" gene). This may not have been explicitly examined in liger but has been in many other hybrids (such as Peromyscus crosses). See Burk and Trivers' recent "Genes in Conflict : The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements" for more information, as well as a dozen other genetic texts and work by Haig (for starters). The whole section about "damaged sperm" seems to be a confused interpretation of genomic imprinting. I'm going to check some peer-reviewed articles and find the appropriate ref for the liger (I've seen some manuscripts that mention it, but nothing actually published that I've found yet). Anyway, to those that are interested, check out some of the work by Haig and some reviews - pretty interesting stuff, and the basis of some human disorders.

Picture

it would be nice to include a picture - Stoph 22:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There was one at one point. It was removed because of copyright concerns. android 79 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Some Pictures of Hobbs at the Reno Safari Zoo can be seen here: [1] [2] [3]

A.A. Milne (or Winnie the Pooh and Taylor Knew)!

I've removed the following:

A.A. Milne, in chapter 3, "Tiggers Can't Climb Trees", said Under
exceptional circumstances it has been known for a tiger to be forced
into ranges inhabited by the Asian lion, Panthera leo persica, which
is the same genus as the tiger. Rare reports have been made of
tigresses mating with lions in the wild and producing offspring known
as ligers. When a tiger and a lioness mate the cub is called a tigon.

It may be a valid quote, but A.A. Milne wrote about fictional Tigger, not mating habits of the tiger. The citation is wrong, unless I've gone completely mad.

You've gone mad. Milne also wrote factual articles. Just because he called them "tiggers" and is best known for his fiction doesn't make it an invalid quote. Lots of people call tigers "tiggers".

With regard to Liger size the one subject that has not been explored is Heterosis.

Pronounciation

Should there be a note on pronounciation? Just reading the article and not having it heard outloud I am confused whether the 'g' would be hard as in tiger, or soft. --Sajendra 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just like smushing lion and tiger together, so the g would be hard like in tiger. — Laura Scudder ☎ 07:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes regarding Lady Kali, the ti-liger

Wikipedia's Tigon and Liger articles contain info on Lady Kali, a ti-liger. However, the articles both initially merely repeated the claims made by her owners that she was part of a "research programme" and "behavioural" study. Note the British spellings to describe what is actually a roadside zoo with two felines, run by two guys in North Carolina. There is no breeding program, no genetic research program, and no behavioral study, and no scientific report (or any report at all that I could find, not even anecdotes on their website) of results of any such programs or studies.

What there IS, and I've provided a link to a copy of it, is a 2004 report from the local paper stating that the animals are "sisters" (highly unlikely in the genetic sense, since even their owners admit they are eight years apart in age), and that both have been on exhibit for "at least five years" (taking Lady Kali's birth back to at least 1999) while their owners have been evicted from one roadside location after another. From the news report, these two felines are apparently the only two animals these men display, though there is a photo of a very young chimp and of a capuchin monkey on their website (who may be private pets or visitors). Again, no evidence whatsoever of a breeding, behavioral, or genetic research program.

As to their age, their website refers to the two animals as "two" and "ten," but is undated, so no accurate birthyear can be estimated from that. The website also contains copies of USDA licenses, with the latest expiring in late 2006. The licenses confirm the names of the men involved (also referenced in the news item) and provides a Fayetteville, NC address on the most recent license, so it's safe to say that the animals are still in NC in 2006.

Though the reliable information is scanty, I think SOME reference to Lady Kali is worth leaving in the Tigon and Liger articles. I corrected the info and provided links to the Lady Kali webpage and the definition of USDA Class C Exhibitor, and patched minor typo's elsewhere in the text. I also provided a live link to the text of the 1994 News-Observer news item about the evictions. The newspaper's own link has gone dead, but can be viewed by reading Google's cached copy. It is identical to the live copy still published via the Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition on the link I provided. -- Lisasmall 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanations from a science nerd!

This article is infested with poor explanations of specialist degree level ideas. There are genes which are only inherited from the mother but without a proper explanation any intelligent person with school-level biology understanding will automatically try to correct that assertion. The result is that although you are all essentially right, collectively you've produced a contradicting article that makes no sense. You might find it helpful to read the two points below before attempting to clear up the article.

1) Maternal Effect:

Before fertilisation the mother deposits proteins and mRNA (this is the midway stage in DNA reading- so effectively half-translated genes) into the egg. This has a massive effect on how the offspring develops. It doesn't change the DNA of the offspring, so it is not "inherited" as such. But lion mothers will deposit one set or proteins and tiger mothers another- so genetically identical offspring might still grow up different.

It is the most likely reason for the majority of differences between the ligers and tigons.

2) Maternal Inheritance:

As the article says half our nuclear DNA (this is most of it- our chromosomes) comes from each parent. Inside our cells we have mitochondria which have some DNA of their own and replicate semi-independently. These mitochondria are already present in both sperm and egg, but when the egg is fertilised the father's mitochondria are destroyed. Therefore the genes in mitochondria come only from the mother.

BUT mitochondrial DNA codes only for things directly related to the mitochondria so it is highly unlikely that they would contain a growth inhibition gene. So stop trying to explain it in this article because not only is it complicated and boring it is also totally irrelevant!

nelnpg@aol.com 17th Feb2006

When I get the chance, I'll find the appropriate references (I want to get something that is actually peer reviewed, as all I've found with a quick search are manuscripts in prep for submission) for imprinting and ligers, and fix up that section of the article. It seems to me that imprinted genes are the best explanation for the growth observed, as it is very analogous to what has been observed in other hybrids and explains very clearly the patterns in these specific hybrids.

In a liger, the mother and father are different species. The mother may pass on a gene present in the maternal species that is not present in the paternal species. Most of the genetics debate on "genes inherited from the mother" is based on the parents both being the same species. In humans there are genes that have different effects depending on whether the maternal copy or paternal copy is expressed in the offspring (I think Matt Ridley's "Genome" book explains this). In hybrids there will only be either the paternal or the maternal copy in the offspring.

Page does not complete last sentance!

Why oh why is this happening?

Zoos?

I saw somewhere that some zoos have ligers at the moment. Is this true, and, if so, does anyone know which ones? JellyFish72 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sierra Safari Zoo outside reno, NV has Hobbs, a male Liger.

[4]

Ligers in the Wild?

"According to "The Tiger, Symbol of Freedom" (Nicholas Courtney, editor), rare reports have been made of tigresses mating with lions in the wild." This seems highly unlikely given where tigresses and lions are found in the wild (i.e. generally not in the same place). Zetetic Apparatchik 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting the Asiatic lion. Its range overlaps with the Bengal tiger in the Gir forest in India.

Even than it is unlikely as they have different (mating) behaviour. Reports can not always be verified and therefor not always be seen as fact. I'm not sure what is the case with this possible wild hybrid mating. Peter Maas 11:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

liger

<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>[[Media:[[Image:Example.ogg]]'''Bold text''']]

WP:OR

So, a good bit of the size discussion sounds like original research because scientific opinions are unattributed (making them read like the opinion of Wikipedia authors) and lack citations. Reading the above genetics discussions, which are noticiably lacking in any references, doesn't reassure me.

I went through and marked what I thought needed citations and attribution. Any hypothesis for which a reputable citation can't be produced should be removed. I also moved the G. Peters line to a Further reading because I didn't see much point in bringing a paper up without mentioning a single one of it's conclusions. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Laura - I'm going to do my bit for the imprinting issue when I have a chance to. I have found some promising refereces but can't access them fully at the moment (am away from the university and online access is not cooperating). I don't personally buy the "damaged sperm" argument, and have seen nothing, even across species, which supports it, given the predictability of growth in this particular cross.

Congrats on the article fix-up, folks! The science is much improved.

Liger's are so cute!

Mitochondria

In the section "Explanations from a science pie!" it said that when the chicken egg is fertilised the father's mitochondria is destroyed which is why mitochondrial DNA comes only from the mother. This is said to happen with all animals, not just the ligers. I find that correct as recent research suggests that during fertilization the mitochondria of both parents fuses. So technically speaking even in mitochondria DNA comes from both parents, so there are no genes that can only be passed on from the mother. By the way, I am useless when it comes to looking for references so please do ask me for them.

Only partially correct. Recent research has shown that, _very_rarely_, mitochondria can be inherited from the father. The rest of the time, it's only inherited from the mother. This only applies to animals, there are some plant species where the situation is reserved. Chaotic apple 02:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Liger

This section is for the information. Any comment placed here will be transferred to the "Black Liger Discussion" section.

According to Big Cat Hybrids([5][6], It is possible to breed a Black Liger, though technically, it wouldn't be a purebred as it would contain Jaguar genes. Here is a summarized version of what is on the Big Cat Hybrid pages and the description of the theoretical breeding of a Black Liger.

Quote #1:

On April 9, 2006, two Jaglions were born at Bear Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, Barrie (north of Toronto), Ontario following an accidental mating. Jahzara (female,) and Tsunami (male) were the result of a mating between a black male jaguar (Diablo) and a lioness (Lola). The sanctuary does not deliberately breed animals as keeps believed Lola would not conceive. As an added precaution, the pair were separated when Lola came into oestrus. They had been hand-raised together and were inseparable, becoming anxiuos and depressed every time separation was attempted. Lola pined during attempted separations. Jahzara is melanistic, a dominant trait in jaguars, while Tsunami is spotted. It was not previously known how the jaguar's melanism gene would interact with lion colouration genes. Because female big cat hybrids are frequently fertile, Jahzara could theoretically be bred back to purebred lions to introduce the gene for melanism into that species.

End Quote #1.

Quote #2:

EXAMPLE: BACKCROSSING LION TO TIGER

A female liger is 50% lion and 50% tiger. This is backcrossed to a purebred male tiger. At each generation, the female offspring is backcrossed to a purebred male tiger. The percentage of tiger genes goes up in each generation until they reach 99% at which point it could be considered purebred. It will never quite reach a round total of 100%.

The lion and tiger genes won't be inherited in neat 50/50 splits, so breeders talk of "pure-bloodedness" instead. How close is each generation to being a pureblooded tiger? The arithmetic here is rounded up to one or two decimal places.

F1 cross: 50%, F2 backcross: 75%, F3 backcross: 87.5%, F4 backcross 93.75%.

Once the hybrid is 90% one species or the other, the male hybrids are likely to be fertile (based on information from Bengal and Savannah cat breeders). Each successive backcross after that gives:

96.9%, 98.5%, 99.25%, 99.6%, 99.8%, 99.9%

End Quote #2.

Relevant Details: Jahzara (Jaglion) is melanistic, a dominant trait in jaguars. Because female big cat hybrids are frequently fertile, Jahzara could theoretically be bred back to purebred lions to introduce the gene for melanism into that species. The percentage of Lion genes goes up in each generation until they reach 99% at which point it could be considered purebred.

Conclusion: Take a female Jaguon (Jaguar/Lion) F1 and backcross it to the F7 generation (While retaining the melanistic gene), at which point it would be considered a purebred Lion.Take a female Jagger (Jaguar/Tiger) F1 and backcross it to the F7 generation (While retaining the melanistic gene), at which point it would be considered a purebred Tiger. Cross the male Black Lion to the female Black Tiger. Result: Black Ligers.

Black Liger Discussion

I set this section apart so that anyone wishing to discuss the Black Liger do so here. I would rather that the main section contain only the information. Any comment on the main section will be transferred here. - 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This would not work because Jaguar/Tiger hybrids are hypothetical (Leopard/Tiger matings result in stillbirths) You probably only need to introduce melanism into to lion as it is likely dominant over the tiger colouration, however the result in heterozygotes is a charcoal colour rather than jet black. You would have to breed black female ligers (since females tend to be fertile) to tigers and backcross melanistic female ti-ligers to pure tigers to get the melanism gene into the tiger species.

Quote: According to Big Cat Hybrids([7][8], It is possible to breed a Black Liger, though technically, it wouldn't be a purebred as it would contain Jaguar genes.

And a Liger is a "purebreed" is it?! ;-) -- IanUK 08:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pure Breed" is a figure of speech and I was referring to the fact that such a creature (The non-pure breed Black Liger) would not exclusively contain Lion and Tiger genes, while the "Purebreed" (Not Black) would exclusively contain Lion and Tiger Genes. - 23:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You're saying that it would need melanine leopard genes as well as the lion and the tiger? IanUK 14:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, though Jaguar genes are more likely (Jaguar melanism is dominant, Leopard melanism is recessive). - 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You're labouring under a misconception. Purebred doesn't mean it needs the melanism genes from both species both as these will be at different loci. In fact using the leoaprd as well will make it even more of a mongrel. You could use either the leopard (recessive) or the jaguar (dominant) genes. There is no need for both. However it would be harder with a recessive trait as you'd need both parents to carry it and transmit it. With a dominant trait you'd only need one parent to transmit it in order for it to show up in offspring. Purebred (in livestock breeding) means the point at which the % of alien genes is negligible and the animal can be considered phenotypically AND genotypically pure for one species (or breed) or the other.

pure bred is defined by breeders of rare farm livestock breeds (Rare Breeds Survival Trust Handbook) as being around the 99% mark - I don't have the book to hand, but it requires either 5 or 7 generations of backcrossing of the subsequent generations to a purebred. I don't know what the zoo criteria are, but it would only be used where a purebred mates for a rare animal were imposible to obtain (same goes for cat and dog breeding and happened dueing the 2nd World War to preserve some breeds in the UK). Nature has no concept of purebred and will cross species boundaries with no regard for human definitions of purebred.

I never said it needed both parents. In-fact I never said it needed both parents to be purebred. That contradicts what I've been saying (throughout the main part of this section it is NEVER implied that leopard melanism would work any better, if at all!). As I said, when I said Purebred it was a figure of speech and I was referring to the fact that such a creature would not exclusively contain Lion and Tiger genes. And was saying it in the sense that it woul NOT be purebred. Never once did I mention that it needed both parents (Jaguar and Leopard) which, as I said, would contradict my previous statement. May I ask what led you to that conclusion?. By the way, I am not yelling (just in case you thought so because of the exclamation point and the uppercase letters). - 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just in case your conclusion stemmed from my Purebreed is a figure of speech comment, I reworded it so that it would be more explicit and specific. If it did not stem from that, then from what?. - 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the creation of a "Black Liger" through selective breeding would take long enough that we may well have the capability to add melanism as a stable genetic trait to regular lions or tigers, via genetic manipulation, before the breeding method is half complete. Not to say we should rely on scientific advancement as being at all predictable, but if anyone were to breed lions, tigers, and jaguars to such an end, i'd deem it to be "constructive cryptozoology" But this is really rare, and only occurs in about one in every thousand lion cubs.

Contradiction with Tigon article

In the tigon article, it says, "It is a common misconception that Tigons are smaller than lions or tigers. They do not exceed the size of their parent species because they inherit growth-inhibitory genes from the lioness mother, but they do not exhibit any kind of dwarfism or miniaturisation; they often weigh around 150 kilograms (350 lb)."

This article, on the other hand, says, "When a male lion mates with a tigress, his genes promote large offspring. The tigress does not inhibit the growth because she is adapted to a non-competitive strategy. Therefore the liger offspring grows larger than either parent. When a male tiger mates with a lioness, his genes are not promoting large growth of the offspring, but the lioness's genes still inhibit their growth. Hence tigons are often smaller and less robust than either parent."

I don't know who is right; whether the person who wrote that section of the liger article was suffering from the misconception mentioned in the tigon article, or if the author of the tigon article was misinformed, and I don't know how to find out which is correct. But if someone does know, and has a reputable source--or if someone knows that this is still a subject of debate--then I would suggest that they correct one of the articles.

Technically the Tigon article is right. Though I guess the Tigon is slightly smaller than the parents it is such a small difference in size that it's not worth noting.

What about positive view on these hybrids

What about a negative view on these hybrids. The lion and especially the tiger are endangered species. By creating useless infertile hybrids of these animals you are not helping the conservation of either of the species. Breeding tigers (and than also not mixing the subspecies) to increase their numbers seem to me a better thing to do. Maybe worth mentioning or to think about. Peter Maas 11:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I have a neutral opinion about these hybrids. I like them, but as you said, their parents are more usefull perpetuating their own species. In the interest of NPOV I am going to add a criticism section to the article (especially since I have heard such criticism in countless places). Since I am not very good at this it may require a cleanup, and since it is likely to be short, it may need to be stub-marked. - 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The dead is done. Check the article for errors and fix them & add to the article as you see fit. - 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. Peter Maas 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this original research? Inforazer 16:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be. The blue whale words, "is often criticized," are suspicious. Who criticizes? Who are these people making these criticisms? where have they made these criticisms? Can Peter Maas or the anonymous user provide a verifiable source, and thus comply with our policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first I'm one. But that is indeed just one opinion. Personally I know many more, because I happened to study Wildlife Management. But that is not something that can be verified for Wikipedia of course. The wording in the text may be not that good (I have'n't written that by the way). So I will look for some written sources, not sure if I can find them so quick.....found one for emotional and behavioural problems: [9]. Will look further. Peter Maas 17:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Well, first I'm one. But that is indeed just one opinion. Personally I know many more, because I happened to study Wildlife Management" is not only not a verifiable source, for Wikipedia, it is practically an admission to Original research. Are you aware of our policy (WP:NOR)? The issue is not whether the wording of the text is "good" or not, the question is whether the text violates our policy. from what you wrote, it does. But if it does not, if you can comply with NOR and our other policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View), by all means do so. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I know! And I too said that my own opinion is a good source! Currently is does indeed violate our policy. I agree with you on that. Still looking for sources, can change text before I have found some. Still looking, but found already some: [10], [11] and [12]....still searching (preferably a scientific one of course). Peter Maas 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed text and added verifiable sources. For the permission for the use of content from Messybeast.com, please see User talk:Messybeast. Peter Maas 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinions Needed: Adding the Black Liger info. to the article

I added the Black Liger info. to the Liger Talk page. I think that many people would be interested in reading the info. Should I add the info. or a link to the Black Liger section of the Talk page to the article? If you are reading this, please write your opinion. - 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been three days and nobody has answered. I'm going to add a link to the info. on the page. If anyone feels that the info. is not necessary or otherwise incorrect please say so here on the talk page before removing the link. - 15:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to check back often. - 15:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

this is cool i learned so much thank you 4m ana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.192.100 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

popular culture

A spot check on the Ligers in popular culture section showed few references in the corresponding articles to this one, and no sources for ANY of the information. I removed the section once, it was restored in its original fashion, so I have cut it again, but I am making a note here so that the article's editors can discuss it further if you like. I think a popular culture/trivia section does not add anything to the understanding of this article (or tigon, where I removed a one-liner), but if the consensus is otherwise, I won't block an appropriate readdition. -- nae'blis 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a "Ligers in popular culture" section is necessary, mainly as many people will come to this article through popular culture, and that should be acknowledged and wikilinked. As an example, which I'm sure was mentioned earlier, Ligers are featured in the film Napoleon Dynamite. A section like this helps to broaden the exposure and interest in the subject matter. MightyAtom 04:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a case where a popular culture section is necessary, because (I would guess) most Americans who have heard of ligers have heard of them only via the movie Napoleon Dynamite. Ignoring that seems perverse. I added a short section. Llajwa 00:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

There is a lot of redundant and repetative information here. For example, the last section is a complete repetition of earlier sections. This should be deleted or altered in a way that provides useful information.

Vandalism

WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE NOT SUFFER FROM SO MUCH VANDALISM?!!! - 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection for this page. Dlodge 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

how do we remove the following sentence:

"what it be, hoe. it's no name. long live TM. what up."

It's already been removed. But to answer your question, you could either click on the "edit this page" tab at the bottom of the page, find the words and delete them or you could go to the history of the page, click on the last version and click on "save page". The latter method is called reverting. - 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Nick Allen" nonsense

"In recent news, a young scientist, Nick Allen, became the owner and operator of a liger preservation & research facility. In doing this action he was thrust to the forefront of liger research. People all over the globe have praised his efforts to create a new liger. In November 2006 Nick Allen was mauled by one of his ligers, and was sent to an intensive care unit. He is expected to die in a few weeks."

Riiiight. Cite plz.

Meet the ligers (with photos)

From the blog of “Julia M” on Yahoo 360:

"FANTASTIC PHOTOS OF LIGERS" from the blog of “Julia M” on Yahoo 360 - "Meet the ligers"

Atulsnischal 23:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Which terminology

is this edit correct, or is it sneaky vandalism? Which is the correct terminology: lili, or li-ligers? Or should both be added? Thanks, delldot | talk 19:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure lili/titi was vandalism. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Citation

My biggest problem with this article has been the lack of scientific backing. I spent the time to research hybrid animals, and the resulting research from showed that the way Ligers and Tigons have been listed in the reverse to what the scientific articles indicate. So where is the information coming from? Cite sources! I'm not saying my research was right, I'm saying it's scientific secondary source and I wrote down where I got the information. A work of fiction like Napolean Dynamite is not a reliable source. Also remember that you cannot change cited text without changing our removing the citation source because you are then not citing correctly, and it's misrepresentative. --Waterspyder 15:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check my comments to About scientific names of hybrids, and, although somewhat less relevant Scientific Classification here on the talk page. 212.10.67.254 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

insidious vandalism in the article?

The article in it's current version reads:

The liger, is a hybrid cross between a female panthera leo (lion), and a male panthera tigris (Tiger) and is denoted scientifically as panthera leo x panthera tigris

I think this is wrong because I read somewhere else (britannica, wordnet) that ligers come from a male lion and a female tiger. So, what gives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.153.128.11 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

It fine now, it probably vandalism. You might also have been confused with the part explaining Tigons, but it was probably the former. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro is a Complete Mess! (And the Article is Locked)

This intro text is a complete mess -- and the article is locked. It seems to need editing more than protection : )

(Maybe some vandalism was going on?)

"According to The Tiger, Symbol of Freedom rare reports have been made of tigresses mating with lions [MATING OR PRODUCING OFFSPRING?] in the wild.[2] Under exceptional circumstances it has been known for a tiger to be forced into ranges inhabited by the Asiatic Lion, Panthera leo persica, which is the same species as the tiger [FALSE - DIFFERENT SPECIES!]. Reports have been made of tigresses mating with lions in the wild and producing offspring known as ligers.[3] [COMPLETELY REPEATS PRECEDING ARTICLE IDEAS] This would have referred to [PERSONAL SUPPOSITION AS FACT, RESEARCH IT AND GET THE ANSWER!] the Gir Forest in India where the ranges of Asiatic Lions and Bengal Tigers overlap [I THOUGHT THE TIGERS WERE "FORCED INTO THE RANGES" OF THE LION, ABOVE]. This combination of species in the wild however is considered improbable [INTERBREEDING OF SPECIES IN WILD IS NOT IMPROBABLE -- IT IS SOURCE OF THE red wolf -- THIS SENTENCE SHOULD CLARIFY ONLY THAT SUCH SIGHTINGS ARE COMPLETELY UNCONFIRMED].[4]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.253.130 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Priority comments go at the bottom. That's where we look for the newest ones! I'll have a look and see what I can do to fix this up. Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:25, 9 February 2007

Okay, I've fixed up some of your concerns but others I left. It is uncommon for animals to mate with different species, so that should remain unchanged. Also I don't know if tigers were forced into the Gir Forest or not, or maybe they already both inhabited that area. It is not clear which, since the tigers may have been forced into a different habitat altogether and cross-bred there as well. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article is not fully protected, only semi-protected. This is due to constant vandalism from IP addresses. All you need to do to edit the page yourself is to register an account, and let the acocunt aga a few days. Then you will be able to make the edits, and all will be credited to you. - TexasAndroid 21:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow!! This is totally fascinating.

I did not know something like Ligers and Tigons even existed. At first I thought the article was complete hoax. Now I know better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sisodia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Photo shopping

I don't know, but that photo looks awfully fake. --Colinstu 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, even if the photo is fake, Ligers are perfectly true. I saw one live. :-O · AO ^Talk 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing Eddie Murphy reference

First I cleaned up a reference to a supposed Eddie Murphy 1998 stand-up tour mentioning ligers, then added a "citation needed":

The liger was ridiculed by American comedian/actor Eddie Murphy in his 1998 stand-up tour.^{[citation needed]}

Now I'm just taking it out. I find no evidence to support such a tour, on his Wikipedia page or Internet search. --WWB 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Liger: Original Research?

I wrote the Black Liger section a long time ago, believing it to be legitimate information; however, a quick look at Wikipedia:No original research has led me to believe that it constitutes original research. I would like to request a review by someone experienced in identifying original research, to ascertain the information's current status. - 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Animal crualty

I think this hibrid Liger/Tion stuff is unntural, crule and inviably steril to! God dose not like us playing with his creations!--Nadezda-Tatiania 14:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.9.108 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  You are assuming that lions and tigers are being forced to mate together, or being artificially
   inseminated.  Horses and donkeys mate and have mules.  Horny animals in captivity will find
   whatever outlet possible.  Often lions and tigers that are put together are believed to be
   incapable of giving birth to begin with.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.138.196 (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Longevity section issues

The metric to imperial conversion for the Bloemfontein Liger is innacurate. Assuming the imperial measure is correct, the value should be 798kg, not 1008kg. Edits I earlier made were automatically reverted, so, I'm leaving this on the discussion page. Also: any other non-wikipedia reference I can find on the net shows the Bloemfontein 1973 Guinness world record entry at 750lbs, not 1756lbs as listed in this article. Perhaps someone with access to a 1973 Guinness book of world records could validate/correct this.(Majikaltrev 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)) (I forgot to sign when I added this.)

largest cat?

Are there references for this declaration? Mazak writes: It counts as a rule, that Bastards (Tiger and lion) are large, sometimes even slightly larger than their parents. (Heterosis)... May be statements like this are over-interpretated in this article...

Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983. Westarp Wissenschaften Hohenwarsleben, 2004 ISBN 3 894327596--Altaileopard 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And if this is based just on the wheight, it´s actually not a good evidence, that they are really bigger than tigers. It might be due to such unnatural fat animal like this one. --Altaileopard 12:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed this reference for liger to be the largest cat, because you do not measure a tiger while standing ("Part lion, part tiger, he is not just a big cat but a huge one, standing 10ft tall on his back legs.") and anyway 10 ft are smaller than the largest confirmed siberian tiger with 11.5 ft. Only because of it´s fatness ("half a ton") you can not say it is the largest cat. A captive animal can easily be feeded up.--Altaileopard 09:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The tiger produces a hormone that sets the fetal liger on a pattern of growth that does not end throughout its life.

As far as I know, the males of all large cats grow during their entire life.--Altaileopard 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Lion and tiger range overlap?

Recent edits removed the following:

..., which is a different species to the tiger, Panthera tigris. Another area where the ranges
of Asiatic Lions and Bengal Tigers overlap is in the Gir Forest in India;...

with a follow on statement to the effect that lions and tigers natural ranges do not overlap. This is a significant change to the article and should likely be cited. --Majikaltrev 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no need for citation, but I can add one. It´s clear that Indian lion occurs at present only at and arround Gir National Park and there are no tigers today! (The tigers westernmost population is today in Ranthambore National Park.) --Altaileopard 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you feel you're an expert on this topic; my question is: is that enough to support statements like "It's clear that Indian lion occurs only at and around Gir National Park and there are no tigers today!"? As I am not an expert, I can't decide if your assertion is valid (which is why I was hoping for a citation :)). Any thoughts? --Majikaltrev 03:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement should be sourced, yes, Majikaltrev. KP Botany 03:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I agree! References are all that counts, but I have not enough time in these days. Probably I can add some references later.--Altaileopard 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Obesity

Jungle Island in Miami is home to a liger named Hercules, the largest non-obese liger, said to weigh over 900 lbs, [9]

The reference is offline, can be found at web.archive.org, but nowhere it states that the liger individual is not obese. I think it's very debatable.--Extremophile 17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

True or false

Is it a real thing or is it a fictional thing, If it's true, This could be our first living Impossible creature. Bingodile 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's Real(Anon.)

Ligers in Popular culture additions

What about [[Zoids]]? It has Ligers in it,right?(Anon.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.251.119 (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

About scientific names of hybrids

How does it is regarding the parent's sexes? If this article uses it correctly, the female species come first; then the tigon would be P. leo x P. tigris. But does this distinction really exists? Or both the tigon and the liger are interchangeably P. leo x P. tigris and P. tigris x P. leo? And any sort of hybrid would "automatically" have its hybrid scientific name from this simple rule, or does it have to be "official", the species has to be scientifically "baptized" in some publication? --Extremophile (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While sometimes claimed, there are no fixed rules on the scientific name of the male parent species of a hybrid being listed first - or vice versa (cf. ICZN). 212.10.67.254 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no such rule, it is most common to put the name of the male parent followed by the name of the female parent as follows: Panthera leo x Panthera tigris, or the shorthand version Panthera leo/tigris (this only works if the genus is the same, otherwise the form with the "x" has to be used —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.247.164 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)