The size of the Barbary lion

[Spalea]

Perhaps I shouldn't say anything, I am not specialist, but I really think that an apex predator's size must be correlated with the preys that are available. And as concerns the Atlas lion, what were they ? Wild goats, boars, perhaps some small antelopes and that's all ! Why were these lions bigger than the extant lions which hunt regurlarly some big preys like zebras, buffalos, giraffes and so on ?

Thus IMO, the Atlas lions having never regularly preyed big (wild) animals for an eternity haven't any reason to be particularly big. Generous-maned lion, yes, big-sized lion, no. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-14-2022, 02:10 AM)Spalea Wrote: Perhaps I shouldn't say anything, I am not specialist, but I really think that an apex predator's size must be correlated with the preys that are available. And as concerns the Atlas lion, what were they ? Wild goats, boars, perhaps some small antelopes and that's all ! Why were these lions bigger than the extant lions which hunt regurlarly some big preys like zebras, buffalos, giraffes and so on ?

Thus IMO, the Atlas lions having never regularly preyed big (wild) animals for an eternity haven't any reason to be particularly big. Generous-maned lion, yes, big-sized lion, no.

That is very good and unbiased point of view.

If we check the modern great cats, we found that the biggest ones came from areas with the highest density of prey. If we check the prey availability in the Atlas region, is not even near the one from Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa, to give a few examples. The density of prey is lower and if we check the example of the Amur tigers from the Sikhote-Alin region, they are as big as the Indochina tigers (biggest specimens and skulls came from Manchuria (north China), a region that had bigger prey density than the forest of the Amur region). Jaguars in the Pantanal and Los Llanos are bigger than in Central America because they prey in cattle while those from Guatemala/Belize/Mexico prey on very small prey like armadillos.

So I agree with you, Barbary lions were regarded as the biggest lions with no particular reason, they had one of the biggest manes but it was because of the climate and the modern Indian lions develope the same manes in colder countries. From my point of view, South African lions are the biggest, based in real measurements and weights and is supported by they prey density and availability. Reply

[Spalea]

@GuateGojira :

About #92: Thank you for answering me. The examples you give are very interesting because is there somebody, at first sight, who could have believed that the indochinese tigers are able to be as big as some Amur tiger ? Bengal tigers yes, because we know that they can always prey on big animals within small areas (Indian parks aren't particularly vast) while as concerns the Siberian tigers it's more difficult to kill a big prey, and this often after having covered several kilometers or tens kilometers only to locate it !

As for the Atlas lions, because of their very generous mane, they have been mythologized by the french settlers of the XIXth century during the Romantism Period. The french painter Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863) glorified them through his famous oil paintings and watercolors after a long trip through Morocco. Jules Gérard* (1817-1864) was renowned as a famous lions hunter especially in the Atlas mountains. He spoke in his stories about 17 feets-longed Atlas lions (C.A.W Guggisberg "Simba, the life of the lion", publication date: 1961) !

Thus, I believe, because of all this, a myth survived till our days as concerns these famous, unlucky extinct in wild, lions... It just needs to see some youtubers videos.

*: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_G%C3%A9rard Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-14-2022, 01:40 PM)Spalea Wrote: @GuateGojira :

About #92: Thank you for answering me. The examples you give are very interesting because is there somebody, at first sight, who could have believed that the indochinese tigers are able to be as big as some Amur tiger ? Bengal tigers yes, because we know that they can always prey on big animals within small areas (Indian parks aren't particularly vast) while as concerns the Siberian tigers it's more difficult to kill a big prey, and this often after having covered several kilometers or tens kilometers only to locate it !

As for the Atlas lions, because of their very generous mane, they have been mythologized by the french settlers of the XIXth century during the Romantism Period. The french painter Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863) glorified them through his famous oil paintings and watercolors after a long trip through Morocco. Jules Gérard* (1817-1864) was renowned as a famous lions hunter especially in the Atlas mountains. He spoke in his stories about 17 feets-longed Atlas lions (C.A.W Guggisberg "Simba, the life of the lion", publication date: 1961) !

Thus, I believe, because of all this, a myth survived till our days as concerns these famous, unlucky extinct in wild, lions... It just needs to see some youtubers videos.

*: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_G%C3%A9rard

The idea that the Indochinese tiger is small came from Mazak and Gugguisberg, which used Malayan tigers (measurements from Locke and other sources) as surrogates for the entire population. However Baze already mentioned that Indochinese tigers were bigger, up to 220 kg and he reported that his biggest tiger (570 lb) was as big as a big Bengal tiger. Interestingly, new measurements from scientists in the field, from Thailand, shows that the head-body length taken in straigh line, is about the same as the Bengal and Amur tigers and the weights are just slightly smaller than those of the modern Amur tigers. This image is interesting:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So it seems that the late Dr Rabinowits was aware of this, but as must of the sources quote the table of Mazak, we still believe that Indochinese tigers were smaller overall, when actually they are only a little lighter in weights.

The idea of the giant "Siberian tiger" and the "Barbary lion" is embedded in the mind of people in such a hard way that you can see dozens of videos in Youtube repiting the same thing again and again, even popular books and webpages like NatGeo and Discovery repeat the same mantra. Check since when I am showing this information and there is still people out there that deny these facts with all they heart! 

It seems that these myths are going to stay around for a couple of more years, I hope so. Reply

[acutidens150]

(01-13-2022, 11:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(01-12-2022, 01:13 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: Guate, I estimated the average weight of the Barbary lion, using the 372.3mm skull, and got the weight between 193.8 - 211.5 kgs.
Thus, I politely disagree the statement that were "no larger than their West African cousins".
In my opinion, the Barbary lion was on average larger than their cousins from Southern African (Panthera leo melanochaita), but I expect that on maximum, a lion from Okavango delta or Ngorongoro Crater would surpass the maximum weight for a Barbary lion. 
Thank you.

There is a couple of points that we need to take in count. First, the skulls used in the study of J. H. Mazak are all from captive specimens (in fact, all the Barbary skulls are from captive specimens), and we know that captive lions develope bigger and more massive skulls than those from the wild. For example Dr Per Christiansen measured a dead lion that had a Condylobasal length of 359.7 mm (less than 4 mm than the biggest Barbary lion skull in the study) but its head-body length was only 185 (tail of 95 cm) and a weight of 203kg (already big for a lion). So using captive specimens to calculate weights, specially in lions, is not reliable.

There is no evidence to support that the Barbary lions were larger than any lion population. In fact, the available information suggest that South African lions are bigger in body, weight and skull measurements. In fact, Vratislav Mazák said that the biggest skull that he measured, appart from the captive lion of 402 mm GSL from Etiopia, was a wild male lion from South Africa classified as "Cape lion" had an estimated condylobasal length of c.355 mm (broken end), and that is the biggest condylobasal length ever recorded for a wild African lion. Barbary lions, been of the same population of lions from India and West Africa, was probably similar in size, but as we only have captive specimens to compare, it is only speculation. In fact, the lions from the Rabbat Zoo look large but are small compared to other captive lions. The measurements in litterature (which all came from the same French author) and those from stuffed specimens, are not reliable.

Finally, there are no available measurements from lions in Okavango, there are only visual estimations which are not reliable until we have real measurements (the same happen with Assam tigers). About Ngorongoro lions, there are no measurements published yet, and no weight has been taken, but from my personal communications with Dr Packer, the largest chest girth was of 143 cm, which is not exceptional compared to other lions from South Africa. 

Hope this helps.

Can I have data on lion weights from all former subspecies? Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-17-2022, 06:22 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: Can I have data on lion weights from all former subspecies?

*This image is copyright of its original author

This image is from 2020 and the weights are "single averages", are not "weighted", but the values are more or less the same. This can give you an idea of the weights of lion populations. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-17-2022, 08:42 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This image is from 2020 and the weights are "single averages", are not "weighted", but the values are more or less the same. This can give you an idea of the weights of lion populations.

Ok people, this is the new comparative image of the size of of the lion, finished in 2021. This one do have average figures "weighted", for some people out there this method is more reliable, so I decided to use it when we have several samples. There are other changes on the image, so save this one and delete the old one from 2020. Clue: the new one has the logo of Wildfact.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[acutidens150]

https://archive.org/details/bookoflion19...ew=theater

Sir Alfred Edwards Pease, who had worked in different parts of Africa studying lions, mentions that big Barbary lions from Algeria exceeded 600 lbs (272 kg). Reply

[acutidens150]

Barbary lion captive sizes.

Shoulder height: 
Male: 80-100 cm
Head-body:
Male: 160-190 cm 
Total length: 
Male: 235-280 cm
Female: 250 cm 

The fact that the smaller male is smaller than the female (or shorter) at 235 against 250, it's shorter iin length, tells me that the male isn't adult, or is a dwarf male (Barbaries in captivity were said to be smaller, usually, although sometimes they weigh a lot) Usually male lions are 30 cm (1 feet) longer than females in total length. 
So I think the male of 100 cm tall, 190 cm long, is quite average-sized. Reply

[acutidens150]

I just learned how to put the picture in here
Here it is 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[acutidens150]

@GuateGojira Why have the number of animals weighed Namibia decreased? Reply

[acutidens150]

@GuateGojira
Since cape lions were Panthera leo melanochaita, what special reason suggests they grew such long manes? Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-18-2022, 11:03 AM)acutidens150 Wrote: @GuateGojira Why have the number of animals weighed Namibia decreased?

Is the same sample number, 29 males and 37 females.

Now, if you ask about the body mass, the average decreased because of the method used. Previously I used the regular method, which is just to get the simple average of all the samples. However, there is criticism about this method so now I used the "weighted" method, which take in count the relative size of each average and how this impact the overall average, this is something call "weighed average". I used the same method with all the lion and tiger populations. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-18-2022, 10:21 AM)acutidens150 Wrote: https://archive.org/details/bookoflion19...ew=theater

Sir Alfred Edwards Pease, who had worked in different parts of Africa studying lions, mentions that big Barbary lions from Algeria exceeded 600 lbs (272 kg).

Pease did not "worked" with lions or "studied" lions, he just hunted them. He is not a scientist, is a hunter and one that exagerated his figures. He reported lions of sizes that are unreliable, and about the weights, he just provided estimations, he did not weighed any lion. In fact, his reports are less reliable than those from Russian Far East hunters like Baikov, as they at least presented pictures and real weights (in some cases at least).

Pease is not a very reliable source on size matters. We need to be carefull and distinguish between "real" weights that can be corroborated and the "estimations" with no actual evidence. In this case, his statement that lions in Algeria can exceed 600 lb is unreliable as he did not presented any evidence, measurement, weight, picture or anything for backup. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-18-2022, 11:17 AM)acutidens150 Wrote: @GuateGojira
Since cape lions were Panthera leo melanochaita, what special reason suggests they grew such long manes?

No special reason, just climate. Lions in colder climates grow larger manes. Cape region is colder than the Vaal region (were Kruger lions currently live). Genetically they are indistinguishable from from regular males in South Africa. Indian lions in European zoos look like the popular idea that we have about Barbary lions.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Check this male Asiatic lion in Helsinki, Finland. Reply