(12-03-2014, 12:21 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(12-03-2014, 12:33 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: I assume you are going off of the single weights where the sizes of asiatic lions were equal to the sizes of west african lions. But there are more weights than that, and they show that the average of the asiatic lion is lower.

If you really compare, Lions from all over africa, the weight discrepency is nearly nothing. They are all extremely close in weight, max weights from all over can be more than others from areas with a higher average. You don't see that in Asiatic Lions, you don't see 250kg specimans, you don't see 200kg specimens usually. That is a sign that they are not as successful. In terms of prey availability, I'm not sure what they have in Gir, but Indian tigers are able to obtain massive size in similar conditions compared to a Asiatic lion.

In terms of Tiger vs. Lion interaction,
Of course a pride of lions will be too much for a tigress, but prides are very small in India, usually one or two sisters I believe. I am not saying that Lions have not adapted to live in India, they obviously have. I am saying they are'nt as successful as their African cousins. Hence why they have smaller manes, prides, and size. Those are the factors of a strong lion, are they not?



 

So what are the average weights of west/east/south african lions? Are there differencies? Do these differencies mean that some subspecies is more successful than other?

And what about other felids - there is also variation in size among their subspecieses. Are bengal tigers more successful than sumatrans? Are captive amur tigers more successful than sundarban tigers? Are persian or amur leopards more successful than leopards from tropical rainforests?

250 kg lions...there could be couple of lions like that in Africa and not in India, but number of afican lions is 50-100 times higher.

Asiatic lions and bengal tigers: yes, bengal tigers are bigger, but they are different species. You have to compare subspecieses of the same species, not different species (tigers with lions, leopards with jaguars and so on). Bengal tigers are 3-4 times bigger than indian leopards...and who is more successful, tiger or leopard? You have to compare african lions and their prey base with asiatic lions and their prey base.

Tiger vs lion: asiatic prides are smaller, but lone tigress is no match for 2-3 lionesses.

Smaller manes, size, prides: adaptation to different (more forested) environment.  Who would do better in forest like Gir? Small pride of 160 kg lions with smaller manes or huge pride of 185 kg kruger lions with majestic manes?

Sorry, but your "unsuccessful asiatic lion" reasoning is absolutely no way to go.

 

(12-03-2014, 06:48 PM)'chaos' Wrote:

(12-03-2014, 04:36 AM)'Siegfried' Wrote: The two subspecies of lion show enough genetic differences that this occurred......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4101049.stm


 

Thats interesting. I wasnt aware of the attempt and outright failure. Thanks for posting this info.
 

 

(12-02-2014, 02:40 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Can you show a single specimen from any era that matches up with the Specimens in Africa?
All Asiatic Lion weights I have seen show them to be in the 160kg range. They are smaller in body length and height as well, I believe.

All verified Siberian Tiger weights match up perfectly to what they were during earlier years.
 

 

(12-06-2014, 12:36 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(12-03-2014, 12:21 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(12-03-2014, 12:33 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: I assume you are going off of the single weights where the sizes of asiatic lions were equal to the sizes of west african lions. But there are more weights than that, and they show that the average of the asiatic lion is lower.

If you really compare, Lions from all over africa, the weight discrepency is nearly nothing. They are all extremely close in weight, max weights from all over can be more than others from areas with a higher average. You don't see that in Asiatic Lions, you don't see 250kg specimans, you don't see 200kg specimens usually. That is a sign that they are not as successful. In terms of prey availability, I'm not sure what they have in Gir, but Indian tigers are able to obtain massive size in similar conditions compared to a Asiatic lion.

In terms of Tiger vs. Lion interaction,
Of course a pride of lions will be too much for a tigress, but prides are very small in India, usually one or two sisters I believe. I am not saying that Lions have not adapted to live in India, they obviously have. I am saying they are'nt as successful as their African cousins. Hence why they have smaller manes, prides, and size. Those are the factors of a strong lion, are they not?



 

So what are the average weights of west/east/south african lions? Are there differencies? Do these differencies mean that some subspecies is more successful than other?

And what about other felids - there is also variation in size among their subspecieses. Are bengal tigers more successful than sumatrans? Are captive amur tigers more successful than sundarban tigers? Are persian or amur leopards more successful than leopards from tropical rainforests?

250 kg lions...there could be couple of lions like that in Africa and not in India, but number of afican lions is 50-100 times higher.

Asiatic lions and bengal tigers: yes, bengal tigers are bigger, but they are different species. You have to compare subspecieses of the same species, not different species (tigers with lions, leopards with jaguars and so on). Bengal tigers are 3-4 times bigger than indian leopards...and who is more successful, tiger or leopard? You have to compare african lions and their prey base with asiatic lions and their prey base.

Tiger vs lion: asiatic prides are smaller, but lone tigress is no match for 2-3 lionesses.

Smaller manes, size, prides: adaptation to different (more forested) environment.  Who would do better in forest like Gir? Small pride of 160 kg lions with smaller manes or huge pride of 185 kg kruger lions with majestic manes?

Sorry, but your "unsuccessful asiatic lion" reasoning is absolutely no way to go.

 

Like I stated,
Sumatran are a completely different sub species than a Indian tigers.
But lets go deeper,
Sumatra is completely molested of forrest, prey and habitat. Tigers have nothing to hunt, no where to live and have been forced to prey on extremely small animals and man.

In regards to w. african lions, N. african, E. African, etc.
All show similar weights, maximums can be larger than others or smaller and averages are with in 10kg or so. Not much variation at all.

In regards to Gir forrest Lions,
Maybe a large mane is a hinderence, maybe not. There is no study on this, Tsavo lions have no mane and its not really any hotter there than in other parts of africa, so why is that?
2ndly, we have no idea if a larger lion is not needed in gir, gir has relatively same prey base as many other parts of india and habitat and tigers are able to still be much larger and be successful.
Pride #'s may not be a big factor, as some lions in africa have smaller prey or larger prey. So Im not sold on that.
Its a interesting debate I think.


 
 

(12-06-2014, 09:48 PM)'chaos' Wrote:

(12-02-2014, 02:40 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Can you show a single specimen from any era that matches up with the Specimens in Africa?
All Asiatic Lion weights I have seen show them to be in the 160kg range. They are smaller in body length and height as well, I believe.

All verified Siberian Tiger weights match up perfectly to what they were during earlier years.
 

 

This quote was taken from Peters edge of extinction tiger thread post # 266

~~One can't say the lower average probably is a result of genes when it is known Amur tigers, even without the giants many referred to in the recent past, were 10-15% heavier a century ago (Slaght et al, 2005). A lower average weight (combined with the other factors mentioned above) could be an expression of a structural problem, especially when it is known that 41% of the energetic need of Amur tigers is strongly related to weight.

 
 

(12-08-2014, 03:28 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: He probably won't admit it, but I would say this on one of the questions you posed to him.

You asked if the Sumatra forest was unmolested, would the sumatran tigers be as large as bengals?

The answer is obviously no as seen in captive individuals... but I believe they would be close the gap somewhat. We have to look at BOTH genetics and environmental factors when interpreting data.

Just as I believe that amur tigers would be even larger than bengals in a large enough forest environment... free from people, and with their historic prey base.

I also think that the efficient systematic culling of the biggest most dominant individuals in a population over numerous generations MIGHT have the affect of reducing the likelihood for largeness within that population in future generations... in effect, shrinking the average size of the population.

Is this seen in lions?
 
 

(12-08-2014, 12:56 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(12-06-2014, 09:48 PM)'chaos' Wrote:

(12-02-2014, 02:40 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Can you show a single specimen from any era that matches up with the Specimens in Africa?
All Asiatic Lion weights I have seen show them to be in the 160kg range. They are smaller in body length and height as well, I believe.

All verified Siberian Tiger weights match up perfectly to what they were during earlier years.
 


 

This quote was taken from Peters edge of extinction tiger thread post # 266

~~One can't say the lower average probably is a result of genes when it is known Amur tigers, even without the giants many referred to in the recent past, were 10-15% heavier a century ago (Slaght et al, 2005). A lower average weight (combined with the other factors mentioned above) could be an expression of a structural problem, especially when it is known that 41% of the energetic need of Amur tigers is strongly related to weight.

 

 

Chaos, do you think that pckts will be able to admit that he was wrong?
 

 

(12-08-2014, 07:09 PM)'chaos' Wrote:

(12-08-2014, 12:56 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(12-06-2014, 09:48 PM)'chaos' Wrote:

(12-02-2014, 02:40 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Can you show a single specimen from any era that matches up with the Specimens in Africa?
All Asiatic Lion weights I have seen show them to be in the 160kg range. They are smaller in body length and height as well, I believe.

All verified Siberian Tiger weights match up perfectly to what they were during earlier years.
 



 

This quote was taken from Peters edge of extinction tiger thread post # 266

~~One can't say the lower average probably is a result of genes when it is known Amur tigers, even without the giants many referred to in the recent past, were 10-15% heavier a century ago (Slaght et al, 2005). A lower average weight (combined with the other factors mentioned above) could be an expression of a structural problem, especially when it is known that 41% of the energetic need of Amur tigers is strongly related to weight.

 


 

Chaos, do you think that pckts will be able to admit that he was wrong?
 


 

Not likely. lol

 

 

(12-08-2014, 12:38 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(12-06-2014, 12:36 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(12-03-2014, 12:21 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(12-03-2014, 12:33 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: I assume you are going off of the single weights where the sizes of asiatic lions were equal to the sizes of west african lions. But there are more weights than that, and they show that the average of the asiatic lion is lower.

If you really compare, Lions from all over africa, the weight discrepency is nearly nothing. They are all extremely close in weight, max weights from all over can be more than others from areas with a higher average. You don't see that in Asiatic Lions, you don't see 250kg specimans, you don't see 200kg specimens usually. That is a sign that they are not as successful. In terms of prey availability, I'm not sure what they have in Gir, but Indian tigers are able to obtain massive size in similar conditions compared to a Asiatic lion.

In terms of Tiger vs. Lion interaction,
Of course a pride of lions will be too much for a tigress, but prides are very small in India, usually one or two sisters I believe. I am not saying that Lions have not adapted to live in India, they obviously have. I am saying they are'nt as successful as their African cousins. Hence why they have smaller manes, prides, and size. Those are the factors of a strong lion, are they not?




 

So what are the average weights of west/east/south african lions? Are there differencies? Do these differencies mean that some subspecies is more successful than other?

And what about other felids - there is also variation in size among their subspecieses. Are bengal tigers more successful than sumatrans? Are captive amur tigers more successful than sundarban tigers? Are persian or amur leopards more successful than leopards from tropical rainforests?

250 kg lions...there could be couple of lions like that in Africa and not in India, but number of afican lions is 50-100 times higher.

Asiatic lions and bengal tigers: yes, bengal tigers are bigger, but they are different species. You have to compare subspecieses of the same species, not different species (tigers with lions, leopards with jaguars and so on). Bengal tigers are 3-4 times bigger than indian leopards...and who is more successful, tiger or leopard? You have to compare african lions and their prey base with asiatic lions and their prey base.

Tiger vs lion: asiatic prides are smaller, but lone tigress is no match for 2-3 lionesses.

Smaller manes, size, prides: adaptation to different (more forested) environment.  Who would do better in forest like Gir? Small pride of 160 kg lions with smaller manes or huge pride of 185 kg kruger lions with majestic manes?

Sorry, but your "unsuccessful asiatic lion" reasoning is absolutely no way to go.


 

Like I stated,
Sumatran are a completely different sub species than a Indian tigers.
But lets go deeper,
Sumatra is completely molested of forrest, prey and habitat. Tigers have nothing to hunt, no where to live and have been forced to prey on extremely small animals and man.

In regards to w. african lions, N. african, E. African, etc.
All show similar weights, maximums can be larger than others or smaller and averages are with in 10kg or so. Not much variation at all.

In regards to Gir forrest Lions,
Maybe a large mane is a hinderence, maybe not. There is no study on this, Tsavo lions have no mane and its not really any hotter there than in other parts of africa, so why is that?
2ndly, we have no idea if a larger lion is not needed in gir, gir has relatively same prey base as many other parts of india and habitat and tigers are able to still be much larger and be successful.
Pride #'s may not be a big factor, as some lions in africa have smaller prey or larger prey. So Im not sold on that.
Its a interesting debate I think.


 

 

...and asiatic lions are different subspecies than east/south african lions.

Your Sumatra reasoning: so do you think that if Sumatra forrest was unmolested the sumatran tigers would be as large as bengals?

African lions: south african lions are around 185 kg, east african around 175 kg, west african (same subspecies as asiatic lions) are even smaller (about the size of asiatic lions). Asiatic lions are around 160 kg. So what is your point?

Mane: large mane is obviously a disatvantage in forrested enironment.

Tigers: One again - tigers are different species. Btw lions are genetically closer to leopards than to tigers. Asiatic lions are much bigger than indian leopards.

Asiatic lions are very successful. They were hunted almost into extincion and now they recovered so much that they need tom expand into other territories. And there they could be a serious threat to tiger populations.  

 

(12-09-2014, 02:10 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Cheetah is actually closer to the cougar.