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.
(03-23-2023, 12:41 AM)AndresVida Wrote: What is happening here? Why was LandSeaLion banned out of nowhere without giving any proper logical explanations for it?
VIDA
It's quite likely you was aware of the last two posts of 'Charger' in this thread. The two posts that were deleted, I mean. Both posts were all but unreadable for members and readers visiting this thread. Members interested in new contributions about the weight and length of free ranging lions, that is.
I was one of them. After reading the last two posts, I decided to respond. In post 626 of this thread, I told 'Charger' why his contributions were considered below par. You know 'Charger' reacted in a way that left no doubt as to his opinion. In his response, he used colours to underline the remarks in my post (post 626) and stripes to let me know the criticism had been dismissed.
Your pal 'Land and Sea' immediately supported him. He told me they were just having a friendly conversation. As I apparently wasn't aware of that discussion, I had jumped to conclusions.
So what do we have? We have one (former) member telling me to take a leak somewhere else and another telling me to follow a course in reading. It resulted in two permanent bans.
As to your remark (" ... without giving any proper logical explanations for it ... "). There are so many reasons, I wouldn't know where to start, but I'll give it a try anyhow.
Wildfact is a quality forum that offers reliable information about those making their home in the natural world. In order to get there, we decided for a few rules. Forumrulewise, the contributions of 'Charger' didn't qualify. Contentwise, they were below par as well. Interactionwise, it wasn't any different. Same for your pal. What both were saying is they were just having a friendly private discussion on a public forum. They used it, because it suited them. And the thousands visiting the thread because they're interested in 'Modern weights and measurements of wild lions'? Too bad. Maybe they could follow a course in reading?
After we were done deciding, you popped up telling me your pal was " ... banned out of nowhere without ... proper ... reasons ... " (from your post). Well Mr. Vida, looking at the forum rules, the conclusion is he was banned for the proper reasons.
All in all, I'd say we're quite done with members deliberately ignoring the forum rules, doing as they please, crying murder when addressed and insulting those applying the rules. This is not the first time you question a decision, is it? The first ban was lifted when you said you would never do it again. Unfortunately, you just couldn't resist the urge to do it one more time. Meaning the time has arrived to join another forum. In order to encourage you, we decided for another ban. This time, it's a permanent ban.
Sorry I know this is of topic but may you tell me the average timbavati,ocavongo,nogorongo and SA lions because from what I’ve gathered study’s I have only cover SA and East African lions. East African lions size at (189 kg) and South African (200-206kg) and crater and nogorongo I have yet to have a valid size chart but my estimates put them at (210-230kg). I know this isn’t in this topic but. My estimates put cape lion at (220-260kg) and Barbary (180-230kg). Sorry if I don’t know much first time getting on this app and I also apologise if my English is not the best. If you have the time may you correct my statemtms if they are wrong. Sorry for bothering you or wasting your time.
Mohaned,
Good information (referring to information published by biologists and books of experienced and reliable hunters) strongly suggest a mature wild male big cat exceeding 400 pounds (181,44 kg) on an empty stomach is big. Remember there's a big difference between a wild and a captive big cat. Same for a wild cat and one living in semi-wild conditions (referring to private reserves in the southern part of Africa in particular).
If you want to know a bit more, read this thread or visit 'On the edge of extinction - The lion (Panthera leo)'. Another option is to contact our member 'Guategojira'. He's been collecting reliable information about the length and weight of wild lions and tigers for quite some time. Last but not least is to read a number of threads about wild lions. You could also contact a few members. There are quite a few that have access to good information. The lion section is a good one.
As to lions, tigers and size.
Experience says visitors of zoos and facilities tend to exaggerate the size (weight) of captive lions and underestimate that of tigers. The reason is they often use the size of the head to get to an estimate (lions, apart from Amur tigers, usually have larger heads than tigers). As a general rule, adult male lions are relatively tall, large-skulled, quite robust and stocky. If we add the mane and attitude of many captive male lions, chances are an average visitor will quickly get to 500 pounds (226,8 kg) for an average mature male lion. Also remember captive lions are a bit larger than their wild relatives. The reasons are more food, no competition, no sharing and less work.
In tigers, sizewise, it's the other way round: most wild tigers are a bit bigger than their captive relatives (referring to tigers of the same subspecies). Tigers are solitary hunters. As it takes a lot of energy to hunt, they often select large prey animals. It takes time to develop in this department and it's risky. Not a few youngsters perish while learning. For a young adult male, it also takes a lot of time to conquer, and keep, a territory. In order to challenge a tiger with a territory, size is needed. Meaning young adults need to learn how to hunt large animals. They also need to learn to avoid dangerous competitors and scavengers. Wild tigers continue to put on weight until they're 7-9 years of age. Compared to a mature male, a young adult often is at a disadvantage. In the long run, this lifestyle can only result in a relatively high number of casualties and that's what we see. As the most able usually get most opportunities to reproduce, chances are this development will produce more able, and larger, individuals over time.
Wild male lions also fight. A lot, in fact. The difference between both big cats is young male lions trying to conquer a pride live, and operate, in bachelor groups. Clashes between bachelor groups and established coalitions can be severe, but chances are most of those involved will survive. In serious fights, the winner takes all. If a bachelor group loses a battle, the winners will project their aggression. More often than not, only the one captured suffers. This means the others will survive to fight another day. Meaning the chance to get severely injured or killed in a clash, in most cases, is well below, say, 50%. When wild male tigers fight until a decision is reached, chances are the loser will be seriously injured or killed.
I'm not saying tiger fights are more intense. I'm also not saying tigers are better fighters. What I'm saying is a serious fight between male tigers often has more consequences for the simple reason only two animals are involved. Cahnces, therefore, are the survival percentage is lower. Pride males (referring to lions) could be great fighters, but it's as likely they could have been in the right coalition at the right time more than once. Maybe the best fighters perished during these clashes and maybe the survivors, because of their efforts (referring to the most able fighters), got a chance to take over as pride. We don't know. We do know this mechanism, to a degree, is present in captive lions as well. Not so in tigers. Their selection mechanism is deleted in captivity. The result is less able, and often smaller, individuals. Captive tigers often quickly deteriorate.
There could be a difference between lions and tigers in a fight. When you see (a photograph of) a human killed by a tiger (referring to captive animals), chances are you'll only see four holes in the most vulnarable body part (the neck). A human killed by a male lion, on the other hand, often has many injuries. Is a tiger a more serious killer, or does a lion have a different intention?
A male lion winning a one-on-one not always kills his opponent. More often than not, the loser will be (severely) damaged. Coincidence or a result of a deliberate decision? I talked to a few people involved in fights. They thought the difference between both species is in the method used to convey a message. More often than not, tigers get straight 'to the point'. They don't want to lose too much energy. Male lions are different. A human attacked by a male tiger will be quickly killed. A human attacked by a male lion will be tormented first. This is why those working with big cats are more afraid of male lions than of male tigers.
Does this mean the male lion (referring to captive lions) is more sure of himself in a fight? I don't know. I do know lions are social mammals that live, hunt and fight in a group. They care about the territory and the pride and don't do details. Their aim is to show themselves and to convey messages to other lions and scavengers. Adult tigers are specialized hunters and loners. They want to limit the risk in order to hunt another day. But. Those 'in the know' agree wild male tigers at times enter serious fights with dangerous opponents for unknown reasons.
Male lions and tigers both confront competitors and scavengers, but for slightly different reasons. In lions, a confrontation seems to be more related to territory and food. In tigers, a confrontation seems to be related to legal ownership, not territory. Lions often confront other lions and hyenas. As they also are social mammals, it's impossible to injure or kill all. This could be the reason male lions are involved in messages. Tigers are solitary animals. Same for (most of) their opponents. Meaning it isn't about messages, but about the outcome of a fight.
Returning to lions and estimates. Lions have a slightly different 'Bauplan' than tigers. Captive males in particular tend to have relatively large heads, necks and chests. There is a quite strong correlation between chest girth and weight in wild big cats, but there are differences between species. The information I have (referring to wild big cats only) suggest a male tiger with a 120 cm chest often is a bit heavier than a male lion with a 120 cm chest. In captive male lions and tigers, it's no different. The three male lions I measured had bigger chests than the three male Amur tigers. In spite of that, the difference in weight seemed (we were only able to weigh one) limited. The Amurs (we transported all 6 big cats on the same stretcher) seemed to have the edge. Seemed. The most likely reason, we thought, was length (most adult male Amur tigers are a bit longer than adult male lions).
Good information (at the level of averages) suggests southwestern Africa could have the largest wild lions today, closely followed by southern Africa. Lions in eastern Africa could be a bit bigger than many assume. There's not a lot of information about lions living in the Crater, but what we know suggests they're as big as those in Namibia, if not a bit bigger (referring to weight in particular). Lions living in the bend (western Africa) are a bit smaller. Same for those inhabiting the mountaineous and forested regions of Ethiopia. In general, the differences between regions is limited. The longest skull I measured was from a male lion captured in what used to be Abessynia. Not a region known for large lions. I also saw a few big skulls from lions shot in central parts of Africa (referring to what used to be Belgian Congo in particular).
At the level of species, not too long ago, adult male lions averaged about 175 kg (387 pounds). Adult male tigers averaged about 160 kg (354 pounds), but that average is from the period tigers still inhabited central parts of China (P.t. amoyensis), the Caspian region (P.t. virgata), Bali (P.t. balica) and Java (P.t. sondaica). Today, only Sumatra (P.t. sumatrae), southern Asia (P.t. corbetti), India (P.t. tigris), Nepal (P.t. tigris), Bhutan (P.t. tigris), northeastern China (P.t. altaica) and southeastern Russia (P.t. altaica) have wild tigers.
At the level of species today, wild adult males of both species could average 170-180 kg (375-397 pounds) on an empty stomach. Large males are 50-100 pounds heavier. Exceptional males can reach 550-590 pounds (249,48-267,62 kg), perhaps a bit more. At the level of subspecies (and averages), adult male tigers in northern and northeastern India (and Nepal) seem to top the list, but that's without the Crater lions (no data). Remember most samples used to get to this conclusion are quite small.
Last year, I tried to find 'reliable' information about the size (length and weight) of captive big cats. The results were posted in the tiger extinction thread. What I found, suggests Amur tigers top the list. Adult males average 224,2 kg or 494 pounds (n=61) and 303,1 cm in total length measured 'between pegs' (n=14), but I've also seen quite different averages.
Biologists are not that interested in the size of wild big cats. Their aim is conservation. A very sensible decision, as the natural world is severely threatened. Apex predators are the first to be affected. Tigers in particular face a lot of problems (referring to habitat destruction and poaching). The focus on conservation, however, resulted in a lack of data (referring to size). You could say there's not enough good information to get to sound conclusions and be close. We just don't know, meaning there's a lot of room for speculation.
Hope you enjoy Wildfact. Before you start posting, read the rules section. Remember we take them seriously over here. Check the information you have and do it again. Remember our aim is good information, not hearsay and estimates. One thing we want to avoid at all costs is misinformation. Remember this is a public forum. Contact a lion mod if you have questions.
Thx for the reply. Most of my study’s/evidence are chart one study says 193 on an empty stomach for sa lions 189 for East African but doesn’t says empty or not other also don’t say this but include subadults 4 are n=80+ 2 came to 200-203 and to others 206-208 another n=10 209 and like 4-5 more around n=10 and around 210. 3 evidence I have are from rangers one says around 210 and other 190-210 they have weighed multiple lions. I use regular stomach weights because there’s rarely even empty if they are they’re probably unhealthy. I agree on the rest lions have a mortality rates in fights around 80-90% while female lions 60% and male tiger 60% also lions confront there competition much faster lion in like 10 minute or 1 hour I don’t remember and tigers almost a day. Also lions are more suited for battle
(12-09-2022, 06:15 PM)ZigZak Wrote: As indicated they do not weigh their lions in the field.
Gap Africa Projects is usually "responsible" for the animals in the reserve (darting them) who work with vets from local clinics that treat them in the field and in their own clinics from what i have seen. So it is independent -> not the reserve. As implicated it was an examination and around the time when he was translocated, which is a complicated process. Maybe he was weighed in Kololo but that doesnt matter because of the reason i will mention now.
If the lion was not weighed recently/didnt go viral it is almost guarenteed workers are not even aware of that particular examination, let alone weight. As reported reserves are generally not well organized especially when it comes to such information (most have no idea especially when it is years ago) as they work with independent organisations that also usually work with vets from clinics and do not store data like those scientists in National Park with the prime example being Kruger National Park. This was the case with Kololo, Karongwe, Erindi, Madikwe, Entabeni and other Game Reserves. They do not even know the names of people that worked some years before them.
The workers that were contacted also didnt work at that time. So it is better to contact the vet that worked with Gap Africa Projects at that time as it says examination.
----
The Video was the original source (comments) and the guy doesnt seem to be a liar or dangerous guy in any way. He just posts animal videos and also shared the official documents too. He said to me "In total, two measurements were taken (2017 and 2020) .Since you can contact the staff, why don't you ask them to ask the vet who measured Dinokeng at that time?".
Maybe you didn't read the email, old friend, but I asked both of them for the contacts of the vet. They never replied to that.
Also, Carmen actually works with Gap Africa, while also being the lead of bio-monitoring team.
GAP doesnt have vets. They call local vets (there arent actual vets working for Welgevonden or Gap) so they cant tell. Also she was barely working in Welgevonden when Dinokeng was examined, so they wont be helpful. I am not concerned in this case, just want to make sure i would like to write with the vet even though the document is there. There is not a good organization, storage in Game Reserves and there are not employees for each field like in national parks, which makes it so hard to get any data from reserves when it took place a long time ago.
He doesn't look overweight. If he was overweight, his base and anterior of the tail would be much thicker, Sides of back legs would be more convex, His face would be more puffier. But, he is definitely on bulkier side.
12-19-2023, 07:44 PM( This post was last modified: 12-19-2023, 07:45 PM by Pckts )
You can see a literal layer of fat down his entire abdomen with stomach expansion. The old Delta male has obvious definition that this male doesn’t. You can look just beneath his rib cage area to see the difference.
12-19-2023, 08:47 PM( This post was last modified: 12-19-2023, 09:22 PM by Hello )
(12-19-2023, 07:44 PM)Pckts Wrote: You can see a literal layer of fat down his entire abdomen with stomach expansion. The old Delta male has obvious definition that this male doesn’t. You can look just beneath his rib cage area to see the difference.
Most bulky cats have some layer of fat extending from the chest to abdomen, still the okavango male has some layer of fat. Having a layer of fat doesn't make an animal overweight. Definition wise, they looked the same and both equally have visible obliques.
(12-19-2023, 09:05 PM)Hello Wrote: Same Okavango male. Despite being full bellied. You can see irregular lumpy mass which is clearly a layer of fat which Most bulky cats have.
You can see he's completely full, the male he's compared to has an entire strip of fat down his whole midsection especially towards his hindquarters where they generally taper. There's a difference between a belly fold which all males get, especially as they age from years of stomach distension compared to layers of fat which exist from overweight males. You're using the term "bulky" instead of overweight, but it's all the same. That male holds more fat due to the benefits of a private reserve. You see the same tendency in cattle killers as well.
Easy prey and living conditions = fatter cats.
I already said he was full bellied. Both have strip of fat. If it had belly fold, then it won't appear lumpy and discontinuous unless there is fat. Skin which appears lumpy and discontinous is a clear sign that there is fat as muscle and skin is continuous unless there is fat under skin which cause lumpiness and irregularities. If he was fatter, then his obliques won't be visible. Only way an animal can be fat than other is when one is less defined than other. In this case, both have equally visible obliques which is an indication both have similar fat percentages. Larger, bulkier cats have less visisibility of obliques and other muscle groups. If you look at ximpoko (wild) aslan and Jahari. All had no definition and all were 250 kgs.
(12-19-2023, 11:11 PM)Hello Wrote: I already said he was full bellied. Both have strip of fat. If it had belly fold, then it won't appear lumpy and discontinuous unless there is fat. Skin which appears lumpy and discontinous is a clear sign that there is fat as muscle and skin is continuous unless there is fat under skin which cause lumpiness and irregularities. If he was fatter, then his obliques won't be visible. Only way an animal can be fat than other is when one is less defined than other. In this case, both have equally visible obliques which is an indication both have similar fat percentages. Larger, bulkier cats have less visibility of obliques and other muscle groups. If you look at ximpoko (wild) aslan and Jahari. All had no definition and all were 250 kgs. There are private reserves where lions look wild in building and only a very few where lions appear fat.
(12-19-2023, 11:11 PM)Hello Wrote: I already said he was full bellied. Both have strip of fat. If it had belly fold, then it won't appear lumpy and discontinuous unless there is fat. Skin which appears lumpy and discontinous is a clear sign that there is fat as muscle and skin is continuous unless there is fat under skin which cause lumpiness and irregularities. If he was fatter, then his obliques won't be visible. Only way an animal can be fat than other is when one is less defined than other. In this case, both have equally visible obliques which is an indication both have similar fat percentages. Larger, bulkier cats have less visisibility of obliques and other muscle groups. If you look at ximpoko (wild) aslan and Jahari. All had no definition and all were 250 kgs.
What do you mean they had no definition?
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
"lumpy" doesn't mean fat in the context we're discussing nor am I saying one cat has no fat, they all do. But it's obvious the difference between the two mentioned.
A stout or robust cat with strong muscle composition also isn't what's being discussed, what is being shown is the obvious layer of excess fat that runs across it's entire midsection, not a stomach flap but actually fat. This is signs of an overweight cat, especially in a younger one where atrophy hasn't started yet.
12-20-2023, 07:51 AM( This post was last modified: 12-20-2023, 09:26 AM by Hello )
No definition as no visible muscle groups and visible roundness
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Lumpy means fat as skin can appear discontinuity due to fat accumulation.
Both lions have layer of fat. The mabula lion has moderate fat and doesn't have excess fat and what makes you think this lion is overweight when it's actually not. Even if he had excess fat, his tail would be more thicker which this lion doesn't have.
(12-20-2023, 07:51 AM)Hello Wrote: No definition as no visible muscle groups and visible roundness
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Lumpy means fat as skin can appear discontinuity due to fat accumulation.
Both lions have layer of fat. The mabula lion has moderate fat and doesn't have excess fat and what makes you think this lion is overweight when it's actually not. Even if he had excess fat, his tail would be more thicker which this lion doesn't have.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Obviously he does have visible muscle definition from what I just posted and a lack of definition has nothing to do with the layer of fat that runs across the Lions midsection.
"Lumpy,'' how you're trying to use it doesn't mean fat as numerous things contribute to lumps, while they themselves may be made from fat that's not a sign of an overweight cat. Hence as you see in older cats they have many growths throughout their body, same happens to humans.
Your claim about tail also has nothing to do with fat, it is going to show the least amount of difference since it carries such a minimal amount of body fat compared to the stomach.
It's the obvious that Lion has a layer of fat that spans across it's midsection, when he gets up it sways about.
01-01-2024, 03:34 PM( This post was last modified: 01-01-2024, 03:37 PM by Hello )
#470. @Pantherinae I agree with you that wild animals can also be fat. Even Smuts' biggest lion and Brander's biggest tiger had lots of fat despite being wild animals.
(01-01-2024, 03:34 PM)Hello Wrote: #470. @Pantherinae I agree with you that wild animals can also be fat. Even Smuts' biggest lion and Brander's biggest tiger had lots of fat despite being wild animals.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Brander literally said the exact opposite of what you claimed.
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
