There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(03-05-2022, 03:05 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Convert the numbers in feet and you get the same measurements as in the right table
About the lions mentioned by Pitman the lions were measured in a different way in measuring (shoulder height). But anyways i will leave that to you... . Also pitman quotes each measurements and weights in a exact form by mentioning the date and location.
EDIT-
The 251 kg male was stated in Woods book to be 9ft 10 inches and therefore the longest lion over curves. Roberts mentions the longest lion between pegs at 9ft 7 and 9ft 10 over curves. The male from Pitman was 9ft 5 between pegs and has a straight height of 114cm
Both samples were measured along the curves and between pegs, and like I said, is certainly not a coincidence that the biggest male (553 lb) is the same in both samples. Lions of that weight are exceptional in all forms.
Pitman do not provide all the information that you say, in the form that you say, here is Pitman (from Boldchamp):
*This image is copyright of its original author
Here is Roberts (from me):
*This image is copyright of its original author
Gerald Wood in all his publications, sadly, made some errors with the lions. First he quoted the lion "Castor" as it was actually weighed (1973), whan it was not (Berry, 2007); he remouved that figure in the next edition. Second, he presented the Indian lion of 308 kg (1978) that at the end it was only of 255 kg (Divyabhanusinh, 2005); again he remouved this in his next edition. Third, he mention that the heaviest lion from Meinertzhagen was of 229 kg (506 lb) when actually it was of 191 kg (421 lb), he never weighed a lion above that and never published such a figure; check that Wood quote the document of Meinrtzhagen from 1938, and here is the list of lions in that document:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
If you see, Wood only asociated that the longest lion in the list of Roberts was automatically the heaviest, but as you should know that is not always the case. So Wood is not avidence that those animals were different. It is not coincidence that "Eastern Transvaal" and the "Sabi district" is the same place, by the way.
03-06-2022, 12:00 AM( This post was last modified: 03-06-2022, 12:00 AM by SpinoRex )
(03-05-2022, 10:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(03-05-2022, 03:05 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Convert the numbers in feet and you get the same measurements as in the right table
About the lions mentioned by Pitman the lions were measured in a different way in measuring (shoulder height). But anyways i will leave that to you... . Also pitman quotes each measurements and weights in a exact form by mentioning the date and location.
EDIT-
The 251 kg male was stated in Woods book to be 9ft 10 inches and therefore the longest lion over curves. Roberts mentions the longest lion between pegs at 9ft 7 and 9ft 10 over curves. The male from Pitman was 9ft 5 between pegs and has a straight height of 114cm
Both samples were measured along the curves and between pegs, and like I said, is certainly not a coincidence that the biggest male (553 lb) is the same in both samples. Lions of that weight are exceptional in all forms.
Pitman do not provide all the information that you say, in the form that you say, here is Pitman (from Boldchamp):
*This image is copyright of its original author
Here is Roberts (from me):
*This image is copyright of its original author
Gerald Wood in all his publications, sadly, made some errors with the lions. First he quoted the lion "Castor" as it was actually weighed (1973), whan it was not (Berry, 2007); he remouved that figure in the next edition. Second, he presented the Indian lion of 308 kg (1978) that at the end it was only of 255 kg (Divyabhanusinh, 2005); again he remouved this in his next edition. Third, he mention that the heaviest lion from Meinertzhagen was of 229 kg (506 lb) when actually it was of 191 kg (421 lb), he never weighed a lion above that and never published such a figure; check that Wood quote the document of Meinrtzhagen from 1938, and here is the list of lions in that document:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
If you see, Wood only asociated that the longest lion in the list of Roberts was automatically the heaviest, but as you should know that is not always the case. So Wood is not avidence that those animals were different. It is not coincidence that "Eastern Transvaal" and the "Sabi district" is the same place, by the way.
I accept your view. I was just a bit caucious because the the straight length was shorter than the one that was given. Also i remember one weighed 245 kg but cant find the source anymore
(03-04-2022, 02:33 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: @"Khan85" Your reply is probably outdated ever since i shared you a another study but neverthless i never ignored the other details. The samples for those datas were small and in a other study the distal extremety width was just 6.28 cm for 5 adult indian tigers (most males). Neverthless i said that the difference is insignificant. The lion as i said has the thicker shaft both in total and proportionally. Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed that but as i said we have the studies in terms of robusticity and once you are widening the spectrum the overall conclusion is the opposite. But i dont want to debate it as the difference is insignififcant. For lions i got 32.63% (n=24) and for tigers 30.88% (n=29) at Humerus Circumference. In a sample one tiger had a shaft of 158mm at 315mm humerus length, which is impossible (i looked at all datas and the graphs). I think it had been a respectful discussion. At the points were disagreements happens one have to stay calm and not in a fight. Also your conclusion as i said before is partly wrong (the combination of email and the one datas from your side).
Im still widening the collection i have now. And will upload it soon.... they will be really similar so no suprise.
Reply isn´t outdated. You are cherry picking data to your liking. For example, you ignored the research study ¨Anatomical Study on Humerus of Tiger (2014)¨. Just for the records, distal width here was 9.65 cm.
If lions have thicker shaft both proportionally as well, then why is the shaft circumference relative to shaft-only length much higher in tigers than in lions?
Small sample size shouldn´t even be used as an argument by you after you force everyone to take the cortical thickness of bone in sample size of 2 lions and 2 tigers to be conclusive.
Quote:Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed that
Wow.
This discussion shouldn´t even happen after Dr. Per Christiansen´s reply on the topic of robusticity of felids.
I didnt cherry pick but just showed one data that was completely different than the other you mentioned already. I didnt even make averages on that subject. Mind you showing the humerus length / circumference datas per individual here? So we can look how you got your average? Please read what i said before about the cortical thickness datas! You are accusing me without any valid reason in this case. Though you still have to include it (The user will know how conclusive the data base is)
This is what i said before: "The studies where PC worked as the author or Co-Worker are showing the advanatage to the lion(Ml, AP, girth) combined with the other studies. Overall the ML Diameter for lion and tigers is of 8.59%(leo) and 8.64%(tigris) and the AP Diameter 11.9%(Leo), 10.7%(Tigris) with good sample sizes showing there is basically not a difference. Those in AP CC, ML CC were significant but the sample wasnt large"
I said the discussion remained respectfully i hope it will do so. Otherwise i wont discuss on this thread as we are just comparing our views on the data with pckts and guate. For now i have nothing to add in weights. Check what i wrote before. Also overall no one was really wrong. Though i disagree on some views it isnt tragic.
First of all im amazed that you made up various indices(5 actually). Mind showing me the studies for it? As you know some correltions may not make sense or do not correlate together really well. Do you think the number of 157 mm is reliable? Just asking... answer should be clear of you look at the datas carefully. About your reply "Wow" i would like to see the reasons for it. You definetely understand my point.
Looking at various robusticty indexes (AP, ML, AP and ML CC) and other points that measure the stress for example. Even up to weight (based on skull, overall skeleton, scapula and humerus) its all nearly identical. On weights... combining the various bones makes the data a bit more conclusive.
I guess the discussion will be deleted anyways (completely different thread)
Quote:Looking at various robusticty indexes (AP, ML, AP and ML CC) and other points that measure the stress for example.
Non of them are strength indices. I say that because researchers simply didn´t use them under the same category. Cortical bone is important but the sample sizes we have is ridiculous (2 lions and 2 tigers).
If you want to go strictly as per the MOST important indices according to the researchers, they are as follows -
1. Humeral Robusticity Index (Mediolateral diameter of humerus divided by greatest length of humerus) 2. Humeral Epicondylar Index (Mediolateral breadth of humeral epicondyl divided by greatest length of humerus) 3. Radial Robusticity Index (Mediolateral diameter of radius divided by greatest length of radius) 4. Brachial Index (Length of radius divided by length of humerus) 5. Olecranon Index (Length of olecranon process of ulna divided by [Greatest length of ulna minus length of olecranon process]) 6. Proximal Paw Width (Sum of mediolateral breadths of metacarpal 2-5 divided by mediolateral breadth of metacarpal 3)
pointing torwards a unsignificant difference also HRI is there in 2-3 forms
03-06-2022, 06:34 AM( This post was last modified: 03-06-2022, 06:35 AM by SpinoRex )
(03-05-2022, 10:30 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(03-05-2022, 02:51 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: 1) They dont need to be officially published if they were confirmed by the scientist in a personal communication already and the reserve. Though if a scientist will be aware of those datas of course he will include it if they get the same respond in a personal communication. (As i know yamaguchi was already informed about this male and he was interested). The other reason is because they wont publish a study just because they weighed a lion. They were weighed during a collaring of the younger male and thats it. Unless they are part of a study i dont think they will publsihed.
2) The lion was 5-6 years old and as already mentioned lions reach their best weight at around 8-10 most of the time. The other fact is that the lion was dimensionally not impressive but his chest girth was due to his weight. Volkel for instant was longer and had a thicker chest then this male as well as the fact that one male lion of th ehomob coalition reached nearly the same weight.
Also Guate read what i wrote! Who would be so delusional to claim that this isnt a max weight (or close to it)? I was saying as Huberry said the male had UP TO 20 kg in his stomach i said the estimate of 240 kg empty is rather a minimum but the real height wont be any higher than that unless a triffle kgs. Yes i know they include stoamch content but a male of 4.5 at 244 kg is really HUGE. Beside the detailed mail from Ingela Jansson i found weights of 230 kg and 235 kg. Though the exact weight was 250 kg with - the scale indicating 237 kg. This info suggests a bed will weigh c.13 kg, which i think will be useful in the future.
About the male from Ingela one may look at the pictures. He had stomach content but was by no means full. His stomach content must range either from 15-20 kg, which means the weight of c.220 kg empty at c.4 years is accurate.
3) Its basic. The males were just translocated to a other National Park to increase the population size. Had nothing to do with research. Here the answer:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
1) If they don't need to officially publish them, then why your people, from other forums, critizice the weigths from modern tigers that were shared in the same form and that are not published too? There is a double standard out there amoung "fans", if the weight came from lions is automatically acepted no matter what, but if the weight came from tigers is discussed, attacked and discarded. They can publish an article in they webpage, in fact they done it and that how we knew about it in the first place, but latter they DELETED that article from they webpage and we have only emails, the question is why? I used the weight of 250 kg from that particular lion from Timbabati since many years because is the only that is partially "verified" by a third party person, but certainly is not in the top section of valid or reliable figures. I will like to see what Yamaguchi thinks about that weight, specially by the fact that he critizice the weights that include stomach content.
2) The lion of 260 kg is impresive and had a body size that is a record in scientific sources, remember that the head-body length was taken until the base of the tail in straight line, which suggest that the head-body measured untill the tip of the hip (like old hunters took the size) was no less than 200 cm. Now Volkel was not measured in the same form, it was taken along the curves and heavily exagerated as it was taken from the tip of the frontal teeth not to the tip of the nose, and this artificially increase even more all the head-body lengths taken from the Hobatere lions (check the ALPRU protocol used the measure them). So the lion of 260 kg from Dr Hu Berry is overal bigger (or equal in the best case) than Vokel from Hobatere and the difference is in the method that they used to measure them. You need to pay attention to the details.
You should be careful with the information on the lion Puyol, you are taking all the values litteraly. The scale real weight is 200 kg, she said that it make another turn so they ESTIMATED that was 250 kg and excluding the bed of c.13 kg they estimated, again, that the weight was of c.237 kg and they published the figure of 235 kg. So if you actually read the email, the scale was of 200 kg and all over that is an estimation. I made a little investigation years ago with butchers that work with spring scales and they told me that the amount that they can estimate over the scale is between 5 - 10 kg above the limit. This was corroborated by some hunters and Dr Chundawat. So that the scale was bottomed by 50 kg seems a little far fetched, specially by the fact that Ingela and the original article where the figure of 235 kg was quoted clearly says that the scale was imperfect and had some errors. Also remember that the resulting weight also include stomach content, so the real empty belly weight could be between 205 - 215 kg, after all they estimated that 25% of the weight was probably from stomach content (those are they words, not mine).
3) Taking a second look to those weights, just the weights of lion C and V are reliable, the other is just a mental quote and definitelly needs verification from the source. Around 230 kg could be "more than" or "less than". So I will certainly use male C and V, but the third male looks like an estimation. You should confirm with him if he is 100% sure that that weight is correct.
Guate read the mail again. He weighed 3 males and he stated the smallest was 222 kg and the heaviest 237 kg. Though the other lion was definetely havier than the 222 kg and looking at his memeroy he said it was around 230 kg so there is no problem (A wonder itself he remembered those numbers after 30 years). Percentages are completely inaccurate according to Bertram. His stomach shows a lion with c.20 kg looking at Bertrams protocol.
Some scales generally make a 2nd turn so even the bottomed weight can be seen. Generally if a scale is bottomed normally you cant adjust the bed equipment or whatever. So these scales are better than those scales that go to a certain weight and just stop. The same goes for Puyol who weighed with bed equipment 250 kg and minus it 237 kg. ingela in a other email rounds the number to 240 kg. The exact weight by the scale is 237 kg.
One interesting note is that Punchkatta the (c.285 kg male) didnt bottom but broke the scale. That means around 60 kg is needed to break a scale i think.
I couldnt find any pic of the HOMOB coalition sadly
The 3 males sat in an enclosed are for 6 months (of whatever it was, I forget the exact time frame) and were fed bait the entire time. Them being empty or not day of means little when they were living a captive life for some time.
Whether or not a cat is quoted by a “scientist” doesn’t mean that all things are equal. Living a truly wild life vs semi is a large factor.
03-07-2022, 01:40 AM( This post was last modified: 03-07-2022, 01:45 AM by SpinoRex )
(03-06-2022, 10:10 PM)Pckts Wrote: The 3 males sat in an enclosed are for 6 months (of whatever it was, I forget the exact time frame) and were fed bait the entire time. Them being empty or not day of means little when they were living a captive life for some time.
Whether or not a cat is quoted by a “scientist” doesn’t mean that all things are equal. Living a truly wild life vs semi is a large factor.
The 3 males originated from the wild. They were not for 6 months but just for around 6 weeks. They didnt eat for 4 days, which means they had entirely empty stomachs. They were big males and i cant imagine how heavy lions from other famous coalitions are/were (Notch for example). A bit sad that i have found no pictures of them
(03-06-2022, 10:10 PM)Pckts Wrote: The 3 males sat in an enclosed are for 6 months (of whatever it was, I forget the exact time frame) and were fed bait the entire time. Them being empty or not day of means little when they were living a captive life for some time.
Whether or not a cat is quoted by a “scientist” doesn’t mean that all things are equal. Living a truly wild life vs semi is a large factor.
The 3 males originated from the wild. They were not for 6 months but just for around 6 weeks. They didnt eat for 4 days, which means they had entirely empty stomachs. They were big males and i cant imagine how heavy lions from other famous coalitions are/were (Notch for example). A bit sad that i have found no pictures of them
“Were wild”
Not wild while they sat in an enclosure for 2 months being fed bait, not hunting on their own or living a wild life.
They had empty stomachs in the literal sense but they lived a captive life for multiple months. There is nothing empty about being baited cattle.
(03-06-2022, 10:10 PM)Pckts Wrote: The 3 males sat in an enclosed are for 6 months (of whatever it was, I forget the exact time frame) and were fed bait the entire time. Them being empty or not day of means little when they were living a captive life for some time.
Whether or not a cat is quoted by a “scientist” doesn’t mean that all things are equal. Living a truly wild life vs semi is a large factor.
The 3 males originated from the wild. They were not for 6 months but just for around 6 weeks. They didnt eat for 4 days, which means they had entirely empty stomachs. They were big males and i cant imagine how heavy lions from other famous coalitions are/were (Notch for example). A bit sad that i have found no pictures of them
“Were wild”
Not wild while they sat in an enclosure for 2 months being fed bait, not hunting on their own or living a wild life.
They had empty stomachs in the literal sense but they lived a captive life for multiple months. There is nothing empty about being baited cattle.
So that your opinion but they were quoted to me as wild ones. Also around 6 weeks is around 1.5 months... nothing dramatical (6 months is completely different) And one may note they only ate what they got. Also not eating for 4 days they certainly loost some kgs/pounds. Anyways speculating isnt he best option here
03-07-2022, 04:24 AM( This post was last modified: 03-07-2022, 04:38 AM by Pckts )
(03-07-2022, 04:06 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-07-2022, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:
(03-07-2022, 01:40 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-06-2022, 10:10 PM)Pckts Wrote: The 3 males sat in an enclosed are for 6 months (of whatever it was, I forget the exact time frame) and were fed bait the entire time. Them being empty or not day of means little when they were living a captive life for some time.
Whether or not a cat is quoted by a “scientist” doesn’t mean that all things are equal. Living a truly wild life vs semi is a large factor.
The 3 males originated from the wild. They were not for 6 months but just for around 6 weeks. They didnt eat for 4 days, which means they had entirely empty stomachs. They were big males and i cant imagine how heavy lions from other famous coalitions are/were (Notch for example). A bit sad that i have found no pictures of them
“Were wild”
Not wild while they sat in an enclosure for 2 months being fed bait, not hunting on their own or living a wild life.
They had empty stomachs in the literal sense but they lived a captive life for multiple months. There is nothing empty about being baited cattle.
So that your opinion but they were quoted to me as wild ones. Also around 6 weeks is around 1.5 months... nothing dramatical (6 months is completely different) And one may note they only ate what they got. Also not eating for 4 days they certainly loost some kgs/pounds. Anyways speculating isnt he best option here
Quoted or not, they lived in an enclosure for 2 months being baited cattle. Which of course is plenty of time to put on weight/fat. No hunting or territorial treks, meaning no real exercise while being fed as much as they can eat, it’s also probably why they’re so close in weight as well.
(03-07-2022, 04:39 AM)Pckts Wrote: Details on Smuts heaviest lion
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Pckts Thanks alot! This is great info! I've heard of the 225kg from Smuts. Did any other researchers use his same method of verifying lion weights? I was hoping we could multiple lions with verified and proven weights above 500lbs (with empty stomachs of course). 225kg always seemed a bit low for me, particularly for Lions in Southern Africa.
(03-07-2022, 04:39 AM)Pckts Wrote: Details on Smuts heaviest lion
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Pckts Thanks alot! This is great info! I've heard of the 225kg from Smuts. Did any other researchers use his same method of verifying lion weights? I was hoping we could multiple lions with verified and proven weights above 500lbs (with empty stomachs of course). 225kg always seemed a bit low for me, particularly for Lions in Southern Africa.
Smuts used a mix of estimating the amount of bait eaten or examining stomach content. When he culled Lions he was able to examine the stomach content but other times he would just bait them then minus an estimated weight from their total weight based off of what he thought they ate from the bait up to 30kgs.
There are others that have been able to examine stomach content but it’s rare, only amongst hunters were they really able to do so. Generally speaking it’s an estimation for stomach content. There really is no way to know for sure unless you cut them open and view it.
03-09-2022, 01:01 AM( This post was last modified: 03-09-2022, 02:38 AM by GuateGojira )
(03-06-2022, 06:34 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Guate read the mail again. He weighed 3 males and he stated the smallest was 222 kg and the heaviest 237 kg. Though the other lion was definetely havier than the 222 kg and looking at his memeroy he said it was around 230 kg so there is no problem (A wonder itself he remembered those numbers after 30 years). Percentages are completely inaccurate according to Bertram. His stomach shows a lion with c.20 kg looking at Bertrams protocol.
Some scales generally make a 2nd turn so even the bottomed weight can be seen. Generally if a scale is bottomed normally you cant adjust the bed equipment or whatever. So these scales are better than those scales that go to a certain weight and just stop. The same goes for Puyol who weighed with bed equipment 250 kg and minus it 237 kg. ingela in a other email rounds the number to 240 kg. The exact weight by the scale is 237 kg.
One interesting note is that Punchkatta the (c.285 kg male) didnt bottom but broke the scale. That means around 60 kg is needed to break a scale i think.
I couldnt find any pic of the HOMOB coalition sadly
1) Sorry, but your explanation do not provide a valid statement to accept the estimated weight of lion "U". The email clearly says that he is not sure and that was "around", which is an estimation. Around 230 kg could be 233 kg or 227 kg, so we need an exact weight like the other males to use it, if not is useless.
2) I can bet that you have never worked with spring scales, don't you? Do you know how spring scales work? Those scales had a spring that is modulated to a certain capacity. Based in people that actually work with these scales, they say that between 5 to 10 is the maximum, and this depends of how strong or weak is the spring, after all they can be tigth or loose depending of the time and the use. So, a difference of 50 kg suggest that the spring is very loose as is over 25% of the original capacity of the device (200 kg) and that is why they said that the scale was already imperfect. The more turns the scale made over its capacity, the less reliable is.
So, there is no such thing as an "exact" weight in this case except for the fact that the scale was originally up to 200 kg, and judging by how loose the spring was (25% over its capacity), the real weight of the lion probably was certainly not near to 220 kg adjusted for stomach content.
About the male "Punchkatta", we will need more details about when it was weighed, because while I am aware that this tiger broke the scale used in one of its captures, I will like to know if that was the event when it was calculated to weight 285 kg or if was another capture. Those Kanha tigers were captured several times, as far I know.
Interestingly, if your assumption about scales working over 25% they real capacity is correct (which is ilogic, as scales are principaly made for economic purposes, not to weight tigers/lions, and should be as exact as possible for accuracy and businness reasons), then the two Nepalese tigers of over 272 kg (scale bottomed) could weight up to 322 kg! And adjusting the 10 kg of the net (they do not used metal gear, so this value may be lower) and 19 kg of the bait (assuming they were full of beef), the empty belly weight will be of 293 kg! Of course these values are not realistic, but this is what your assumption suggest.
03-09-2022, 02:08 AM( This post was last modified: 03-09-2022, 02:09 AM by Pckts )
(05-21-2021, 05:18 PM)LandSeaLion Wrote: ^ Nice information (although reading about big cats being shot is depressing). That little bit of information about tiger weights in Burma in that source is interesting too, namely that they are roughly the same size as African lions:
“As regards measurements there seems little to choose, and provided the tape is properly used a 10-ft. tiger in Burma seems to be as great a rarity as a 10-ft. lion in Africa. Mr. Peacock believes that a large male tiger might weigh about 400 lbs, and a large female about 100 lbs less. This agrees very well with my own experiences of lions’ weights in South Africa, allowing a little in favour of the tiger.”
Anyway, this information might have already been included here (this is a very long thread and I haven’t read it all), but there are some very detailed body measurements of a small sample of lions from the Central Kalahari in Botswana from a PhD thesis at Australian National University, published by Kevin MacFarlane in 2014. (I typed up the information from it out in a separate page btw - please let me know if I get any of it wrong!)
The methodology used to standardise the lions’ measurements was the same as de Waal et al (2004). The 40-month old subadult lion of the de Waal paper, incidentally, weighed 190kg and had a total body length of 295cm (measured over the contours of the lion). The average weight of the males in MacFarlane’s thesis was listed as 209kg (n=7) and the females was 148kg (n=5):
SM009 (2009): 222kg JM011: 200kg PM014: 206kg BM052: 229kg BM060: 188kg (a subadult lion, probably not yet full-sized - see appendix 4 and also table 3.1) MM106: 172kg (potentially another lion just shy of reaching his prime, estimated to be 4-5 years old) SM009 (2010): 246kg
SF010: 172kg HF012: 152kg MF013: 107kg (a fairly young lioness, around 3.5 years old) PF015: 148kg BF053: 159kg
Three additional lioness weights were mentioned but not included in the average - two of them are repeated measurements of two lionesses (MF013 & PF015) in the sample:
The average head-body length (excluding the tail), chest girth and shoulder height of the males were 200cm, 122cm and 112cm respectively, and the averages of the females were 171cm, 108cm and 92cm respectively (rounded to the nearest cm).The author notes that these measurements are larger than the average Kruger lions reported by Skinner and Chimimba in 2005 (190kg and 126kg for males and females respectively), and speculates that his sample (which is quite small, after all) may simply consist of some slightly larger than average lions.
It should be noted though that two of the weights from the n=7 male sample are actually the same male listed twice - the heaviest lion SM009, nicknamed “Scar” for the large scar on his mid-back from a past injury. There is a photo of him on page 80 of the thesis. Sadly he perished two years into the study, possibly killed by two intruding males from the north of his range (he was not part of a cohort himself). This lion had a body length of 205cm, a tail length of 85cm, a chest girth of 129cm and a peak weight of 246kg in 2010 (a sizeable gain of 24kg from a measurement taken the year before). The reason for this big fluctuation in size isn’t clear - was he in worse health in 2009, or did he just have a belly full of meat when measured in 2010? The next heaviest lion in the sample, BM052 “Marco” at 229kg, had smaller chest and body dimensions than Scar, but not by much. The paper mentions that Marco was darted after a 20-hour mating session with lioness BF053 “Cally”, so he likely hadn’t eaten recently.
Unfortunately, I could not find any mention of adjusting for stomach content in the thesis. de Waal et al (2004), which MacFarlane followed, notes that adjusting for stomach contents based on a cat’s appearance can sometimes lead to underestimating their empty weight:
“Lions gorge themselves with large quantities of prey carcass in a single meal (Schaller, 1972; Bertram, 1975). The actual mass (Smuts, 1979) or estimated mass (Bertram, 1975) of stomach contents are usually sub- tracted from the body mass of lions to give more realistic values of body mass (Bertram, 1975; Smuts et al., 1980), but often body mass of lions is not corrected for stomach content (Smuts, 1976). However, this practice to correct body mass for the remains of the last meal that might still be contained in the stomach or digestive tract may be misleading and can introduce substantial error. For example, Smuts et al. (1980) reported on a 5-year-old male lion that was in excellent physical condition and weighed 225 kg. Externally the lion would have been classed as having an above average stomach fill. However, a postmortem showed that it had an empty stomach but contained large amounts of subcutaneous and intestinal fat. In the current study both the heart girth and the abdominal girth were measured. The range of repeated heart girth measurements was only 46 mm (Table 1). In comparison the range of 164 mm for repeated measurements of abdominal girth was the largest of all 43 variables analysed. The sub-adult lion had eaten more than 84 hours prior to being measured, therefore, stomach fill could not have contributed much to the variation. However, the relatively large variation in abdominal girth between successive measurements could more likely have been ascribed to physical activities, creating movement of the intestines during the process of measuring the immobilized lion. As discussed previously, during this procedure its head, neck, body, limbs and tail were moved about and extended to facilitate measuring the different parts, which may have caused physical movement and even temporary lumping of the intestine in the lower abdomen, causing changes in abdominal girth.”
Anyway, because Scar is also the heaviest lion in the sample, counting him twice skews the average upward slightly. On the other hand, there were also subadult lions included in the small sample that likely hadn’t reached their full size - I could see BM060 “Chico” weighing over 200kg in his prime if he was already 188kg as a 2-4 year old (his head-body length was 206cm, 1cm longer than Scar).
It’s all an approximation anyway though really, because the weights of these cats in the wild are never static. That’s why I like distributions, ie. 170kg-250kg for most males and 100-180kg for most females, with a positive skew resulting in averages closer to the lower end (and a few lions reaching exceptional sizes above 250kg/180kg). It’s also why the various chest and body length measurements are potentially more informative, because they don’t vary so much.
Quote:The methodology used to standardise the lions’ measurements was the same as de Waal et al (2004). The 40-month old subadult lion of the de Waal paper, incidentally, weighed 190kg and had a total body length of 295cm (measured over the contours of the lion). The average weight of the males in MacFarlane’s thesis was listed as 209kg (n=7) and the females was 148kg (n=5):
The protocols used were the ALPRU method that showed an 80mm (3'') margin for error when measuring the same lion (190kg male) 4 times. And although the tail is about 1/3rd the TL it contributed to about half of the 80mm worth of errors. The reason they estimate the amount of errors is because when measuring body part by body part, the animals spine, neck and limbs are distorted.
This should also be noted estimating the difference between curves and straight line that you don't deduct all from the body but instead should distribute deductions almost evenly from body to tail.
This again shows the advantage to using the between the pegs method where no such possible errors can occur since you're just measuring from nose to tail using markers.
In regards to shoulder height, it mentions the amount of errors caused using this method as compared to the cats actual standing height which would be much less which is why they omitted them from Waal's study.
In regards to SM009
He was an old lion, said to be 13 during one of his captures which seems to old for a wild lion but regardless the difference in weight could only be gorged v empty or error in scale. No big cat is putting on 10% body weight at that age without it being from an outside factor like a meal.
03-10-2022, 01:44 AM( This post was last modified: 03-10-2022, 01:45 AM by SpinoRex )
(03-09-2022, 01:01 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(03-06-2022, 06:34 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Guate read the mail again. He weighed 3 males and he stated the smallest was 222 kg and the heaviest 237 kg. Though the other lion was definetely havier than the 222 kg and looking at his memeroy he said it was around 230 kg so there is no problem (A wonder itself he remembered those numbers after 30 years). Percentages are completely inaccurate according to Bertram. His stomach shows a lion with c.20 kg looking at Bertrams protocol.
Some scales generally make a 2nd turn so even the bottomed weight can be seen. Generally if a scale is bottomed normally you cant adjust the bed equipment or whatever. So these scales are better than those scales that go to a certain weight and just stop. The same goes for Puyol who weighed with bed equipment 250 kg and minus it 237 kg. ingela in a other email rounds the number to 240 kg. The exact weight by the scale is 237 kg.
One interesting note is that Punchkatta the (c.285 kg male) didnt bottom but broke the scale. That means around 60 kg is needed to break a scale i think.
I couldnt find any pic of the HOMOB coalition sadly
1) Sorry, but your explanation do not provide a valid statement to accept the estimated weight of lion "U". The email clearly says that he is not sure and that was "around", which is an estimation. Around 230 kg could be 233 kg or 227 kg, so we need an exact weight like the other males to use it, if not is useless.
2) I can bet that you have never worked with spring scales, don't you? Do you know how spring scales work? Those scales had a spring that is modulated to a certain capacity. Based in people that actually work with these scales, they say that between 5 to 10 is the maximum, and this depends of how strong or weak is the spring, after all they can be tigth or loose depending of the time and the use. So, a difference of 50 kg suggest that the spring is very loose as is over 25% of the original capacity of the device (200 kg) and that is why they said that the scale was already imperfect. The more turns the scale made over its capacity, the less reliable is.
So, there is no such thing as an "exact" weight in this case except for the fact that the scale was originally up to 200 kg, and judging by how loose the spring was (25% over its capacity), the real weight of the lion probably was certainly not near to 220 kg adjusted for stomach content.
About the male "Punchkatta", we will need more details about when it was weighed, because while I am aware that this tiger broke the scale used in one of its captures, I will like to know if that was the event when it was calculated to weight 285 kg or if was another capture. Those Kanha tigers were captured several times, as far I know.
Interestingly, if your assumption about scales working over 25% they real capacity is correct (which is ilogic, as scales are principaly made for economic purposes, not to weight tigers/lions, and should be as exact as possible for accuracy and businness reasons), then the two Nepalese tigers of over 272 kg (scale bottomed) could weight up to 322 kg! And adjusting the 10 kg of the net (they do not used metal gear, so this value may be lower) and 19 kg of the bait (assuming they were full of beef), the empty belly weight will be of 293 kg! Of course these values are not realistic, but this is what your assumption suggest.
Guate,
That isnt an good attempt to discard a heavy lion. The scientist was rather exact and i dont need to quote him again. The smallest male was 222 kg and the biggest 237 kg and the other one... he didnt knew the exact number but it was around 230 kg. Wait.... as i know didnt Punchkatta brake the scale instead of bottoming it?
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
