If Shih Tzus and Malteses were the size of lions or tigers, their classification as predators would depend on a combination of factors beyond just size. Predatory behavior in animals is determined more by physiology, instincts, behavior, and ecological roles than just physical dimensions. Let’s break it down:

Natural Behavior and Hunting Instincts:
Shih Tzus and Malteses are companion breeds developed through selective breeding to be affectionate, non-aggressive, and closely bonded with humans. These breeds lack the predatory drive seen in wild carnivores like lions and tigers, so even if they were much larger, their instincts might not be aligned with hunting.
Physical Attributes:
Dogs, regardless of size, are opportunistic feeders rather than obligate predators. These breeds have relatively short snouts and jaw structures that are not particularly adapted for hunting or taking down large prey, unlike the long jaws and sharp teeth of big cats that are specifically evolved for this purpose.
Diet and Ecological Role:
Shih Tzus and Malteses are primarily domestic animals that rely on humans for sustenance. If scaled up in size, their diet might adapt to include larger amounts of food, and they might opportunistically scavenge or hunt smaller creatures if needed. However, they are not naturally adapted to predation like lions or tigers, whose survival depends on killing and eating other animals.
Environment and Human Influence:
Dogs in general are heavily influenced by domestication and human activities. Even if these breeds were massive, their upbringing, training, and feeding practices would likely prevent them from becoming apex predators in the way wild big cats are.
In conclusion, if these dogs were lion- or tiger-sized, they likely wouldn't be classified as true predators unless their behavior and instincts were drastically altered. They might be intimidating due to their size, but they would still retain their domestic temperament unless they underwent significant evolutionary or behavioral changes.


If they were much larger than humans, would they have followed humans? Conversely, if a lion or tiger was the size of a small dog, would they have followed humans?


This is an interesting thought experiment! The likelihood of these scenarios depends on a mix of evolutionary, behavioral, and ecological factors. Let’s dig into both parts of your question.

1. If Shih Tzus or Malteses were much larger than humans, would they have followed humans?
It depends on their domestication history and how they coexisted with humans. Shih Tzus and Malteses were specifically bred to be companion animals, prized for their friendly, obedient demeanor. Even if they were larger than humans, their evolutionary reliance on humans for food and care might have remained intact as long as humans could still control or interact with them effectively at that large size.

For example:

Many large animals (like horses, cows, or elephants) live alongside humans despite their size, because humans have domesticated them and provided for their survival. A giant Shih Tzu or Maltese could have similarly followed humans, remaining loyal and benefiting from the relationship.
However, one challenge would be practicality. If these dogs were so massive that humans couldn’t physically control or manage them (for example, feeding them or controlling their behavior), their proximity to humans might decrease, and they could become more independent or less domesticated over time.
Their inherently friendly, non-aggressive nature probably wouldn’t make them a danger to humans, but achieving domestication of such giant animals would have been more challenging historically.
2. If lions or tigers were the size of a small dog, would they have followed humans?
This scenario is a bit different because lions and tigers are naturally wild animals with strong independent survival instincts, and historically, they’ve never been domesticated.

Predatory instincts vs. domestication:
Lions and tigers have evolved as apex predators with behaviors suited for hunting and surviving in the wild. Even if they were smaller, it’s unlikely they’d naturally “follow” humans in the same way domestic dogs do. This is because predatory animals, regardless of size, are not predisposed to rely on humans for food or companionship the way dogs are.
Behavioral differences:
Size matters in terms of what prey an animal hunts or how it interacts with its environment, but smaller lions or tigers would still retain their predatory instincts and natural wariness of humans. They might hunt smaller prey or scavenge, but they wouldn’t have the genetic propensity to bond with humans or follow them like domesticated dogs.
Domestication potential:
If humans intentionally tamed and bred mini-lions or mini-tigers over thousands of years (as humans did with wild wolves), it’s possible they could become loyal or useful companions. However, domestication involves altering behavior, temperament, and instincts over countless generations, not just shrinking the size of an animal.
Key Differences Between Dogs and Big Cats
The fundamental factor here is that dogs are a domesticated species, evolving alongside humans for tens of thousands of years, while big cats are not. If Shih Tzus and Malteses were massive, they would likely still behave as companions because domestication has programmed them to coexist with humans. Conversely, if lions or tigers were small, their wild instincts would probably keep them independent from humans unless deliberately tamed and bred over generations.

So, size alone wouldn’t determine whether these creatures followed humans; their evolutionary adaptations and behavioral traits would play the bigger role.를 한국어로 번역