The size of the Barbary lion

[GuateGojira]

(04-15-2014, 11:48 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I aggree that there is no certainty on whether barbary or cape are larger or if cape where even a sub species at all.
Aren't the bengals measured equal to the length of amurs? Do bengals also have a slightly taller shoulder height as well?

I find the mane differences to be the most interesting. I wonder what dictates why these manes are different from each other and the purpose of them.
Thanks for the info Gaute.

 

On the DNA issue, it is 100% certain that Cape lions are not a different subspecies, those editors of Wikipedia insist in ignoring the scientific papers (those that don't follow they agendas, at least), as they still use the Cape lion as a distinct subspecies and still separate the Caspian from the Amur tiger. So, Cape lions are only the southern population of the still living South African lion that live very well in Kruger NP, South Africa.

About the length of Bengal and Amur tigers, in fact, if we take only scientific records, the longest Bengal (311 cm; Nagarahole) is longer than the longer Amur (309 cm; Sikhote-Alin), however how much of that is body and how much is tail? In fact, the longest head-body length recorded fro Bengal (204 cm; Nagarahole) is shorter than that of the Amur (208 cm; Sikhote-Alin), so in actual body length, Amur tigers seems longer.

Now, about records in general, the samples of Brander and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar produced an average total length of c.282 cm and a head-body of c.190 cm, while those from Chitwan and Nagarahole produce about the same figures. Modern and old Amur tiger records produce average figures of c.295 cm in total length and c.195 cm in head-body. Again, records suggest that Amur tigers are longer than Bengal tigers.

About the shoulder height, the only reliable heights recorded for wild Amur are those from the Siberian Tiger Project, and produced an average of 95 cm. However, take in count that these measurements were taken, sometimes, over they un-stretched arm, so its actual standing height most be larger. About the Bengal tigers, there are no values in the scientific records, but those from Brander and Cooch Behar produce figures of exactly 1 m in height, taken between pegs on stretched arms, from shoulder to wrist. I believe that if measured in the same way, Amur tigers would have the same shoulder height, and in this case, both Amur and Bengal tigers would have an average shoulder height of 1 m, which is the same that Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) stated in the book "Wild cats of the world".

In conclusion, Mazák statements than Amur tigers were the largest of the subspecies of tigers is incorrect, as both old and modern records show that the Bengal tiger was about the same size. In round numbers, Amur and Bengal tigers are about the same body size and shoulder height, but in modern days Bengals have higher weights and larger chest girths (some old Amur records shows reliable weights of up to 254 kg (Slaght et al., 2005) and chest girths of up to 150 cm (Sowerby, 1936)). In popular language, Amur tigers are longer, Bengal tigers are heavier and both have the same shoulder height.

 

  Reply