WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
Asiatic Lion - Data, Pictures & Videos
Asiatic Lion - Data, Pictures & Videos
|
Asiatic Lion - Data, Pictures & Videos
|
For the first post, for your quote from the website, I ask for the same thing you asked me, the results.
Though, this study that you brought up which I didn't know the exats of (SJ O'Brien et al. study): http://dobzhanskycenter.bio.spbu.ru/pdf/...ooBiol.pdf , affects my view. So now we have 2 studies that says no inbreeding depression, while two say there is. I like the O'brien study the most, like as you say, has wild speicmens. I can't access the citations that criticize Shivaji's study, so I won't discount or support that one any further yet. Do you have the link? Edit: One point I overlooked on the discrepancy between the Shivaji study and the O'Brien study is interpretation of the results. Shivaji takes O'brien's and his own data and says low genetic variability is a species trait rather than a new effect. O'Brien interprets low genetic variability as solely a new effect of inbreeding. I believe he chose this interpretation because of the RAPD from Shankarnarayanan et al. (Wikipedia falsely credits Shivaji with RAPD study), which concluded, " lions of India based on randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), microsatellite analysis of five repeat loci and multilocus fingerprinting indicated a higher degree of genetic heterozygosity than reported and they concluded that the low genetic variability may be a characteristic feature of these species and not the result of intensive inbreeding." So that explains why about a decade later this researcher proposed a deviant view from the O'brien and Wildt studies. Which do you side with and why? 
I am not a expert here, I interpret all the info I have from multiple studies and the opinions expressed from the experts. And over the years, after many debates, I have seen far more convincing opinions that Gir lions or barbary lions or Atlas, etc... are all so closely related and genetically identical that it is obvious that they are the same species, or very nearly the same IMO.
I take Packer and his word the most accountable, and he shares the same views as Singh and a few others in regards to Indian lions being inbred and showing more genetic deformities than other lions. I look at their appearance, facial structure etc... and I notice a higher amount of unnatural facial formations and variances that seem to be much to different than compared to other lions where they may have slightly different mane colors or size, but their facial structure and features are very similiar. Like a white tiger with a cleft lip or something like that, it just doesn't seem right, even when looking. I know this is not "scientific proof" but sometimes if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, its probably a duck.... That being said, if you care to look around on avsa and tiger and lion forum, there is a ton of info about this. Here is another link I was involved with that has some great info on it as well... http://animalvsanimal.yuku.com/topic/200...6HRIbGfY08 Take a look through there when you get a chance and let me know what you think about it.
Thanks for the redirect, I remember lurking that topic for a while then losing track of it as I got busy again.
To quickly summarize our previous discussion for other readers, professionals have given two views on whether or not Asiatic lions are inbred. One side interprets the data independently to assert Asiatic lions are inbred, while the opposnig viewpoint uses such data and interprets in the light of a PCR process finding. I skimmed the topic at the moment. The Atlas lion being similar to the Asiatic lion genetically makes evolutionary sense as one follows the path's of the lion's regional expansion. Question is how long ago was that, and how similar are the genotypes?
Here is what gaute had to say on Lion subspecies and Indian lions
"The new studies of Mazák and Christiansen shows that lions and leopards are very close in they morphology and overlap in some characteristics. Besides, size is not a good form of classification as those fossils from Sri Lanka could be just huge Pleistocene leopards. On the DNA issue, check this data on the Asian lion and lions overall: I think this is the perfect place to present my analysis on the evolution of the lion, based in the last document (2013) of Dr. J. M. Dubach and his team. This is the link for the original document: http://apcro.org/wp-content/uploads/2013...ConGen.pdf Officially, there are only two main groups of lions, the sub-Saharan African lions (P. leo leo) and the Asian-Barbary lions (P. leo persica). However, Dubach et al. (2013), which summarize all previous genetic studies plus the one of they own, offer us a more complicated scenario with different taxonomy: There are two main groups in Africa, those from the East and those from the Southern part of the continent. However, there are some populations that are more genetically closer with different areas, like that of Tsavo which is closer to the South African lions. This suggests that there existed re-colonizations through the lion evolutionary history. At the end, this Sub-Saharan African genetic group (East and Southern Africa) is classified as Panthera leo melanochaita, this is because the name “melanochaita” is the oldest for this group (based in a specimen from the Cape, South Africa) and according with the laws of taxonomy this should be the correct one. By the way, Dubach shows that the genetic of the Ethiopian lions is closer to the East African lions, so they must be classified with them and not with the Asian lions, which apparently, never reached that area. About the Asian group, the genetic evidence proves that Barbary lions and Asian lions are UNDISTINGUISABLE, and belong to the same group, so the names “leo” and “persica” are related with the same dichotomy of animals. Beyond this, the lions in West and Central Africa are believe to descent of Asian animals, that enter in a second invasion wave that gives origin to Barbary lions and all the populations that are neighbors of the Atlantic ocean. According with the laws of Taxonomy, the oldest name for this group is “leo”, which is based in a specimen from Barbary, so all the this lions are named as Panthera leo leo. Finally, the highly inbreed population of India, which count with only c.400 specimens is classified as Panthera leo persica, this is because they status of Highly endangered, not because there is some genetic differences. However, the document of Dubach was published only in February of 2013, before the publication of the excellent book of Dr Valmik Thapar (April, 2013). So, at the light of the new evidence, the Indian lion Per Se, should not be classified as a distinct subspecies, however, it is interesting that the genetic evidence shows a clear link between them and the Barbary lions and not with those from Botswana. This suggest that the surviving lions from Gir are those descendent from the Persian lions transported by Alexander the great and the Mughal (which are the original group of lions that re-invaded the north and west of Africa), while those lions exported from Botswana and other parts of Africa simple disappeared and are no longer existing in the Gir pride. In this clear case of “were they came” issue, the Gir lions are no other than Panthera leo leo, but for conservation issues, they are classified as P. l. persica. In this case, the taxonomic classification of the modern lion is this: * Sub-Saharan African lion: Panthera leo melanochaita (two clades: East Africa and Southern Africa) * North-West-Central African and Asian lion: Panthera leo leo (one single genetic group). * Asian lions in Gir: Panthera leo persica (for conservation purposes only). Link: http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/top...ns?page=34 The issue is much clarified, the “Indian” lions from Gir came from Persia-Barbary region, while those from Mozambike are simple extinct and with no descendent in the modern Gir “megapride”. The document of Barnett et al. (2009) and Bertola et al. (2012) also corroborate this issue: Indian and Barbary lions are the same, genetically speaking. At the end, there is no (and never was) such a thing as “Indian” lions Per Se, even fossil evidence is equivocal as there is not a proper classification from part of the sources and no DNA study have been made on them." "The separation of species-subspecies of the great cats, like the lion of the tiger, has both biological and political issues, especially for the legal protection between countries. For example the separation of tiger subspecies has been a good point to engage the protection programs on the world, even when biologically, there is practically no such thing a “subspecies” on the mainland tigers. However, the laws writen to protect them take in count these scientific names, so for political and ecological issues, the subspecies approach is important and must be sustained. Even this classification by the IUCN and the WWF is the base to they plans on this subspecies scenario. The same goes with the lion. Dubach et al. (2013) is very clear, there are only two lion subspecies in the world, the sub-Saharan African lion (Panthera leo melanochaita) and the Asian-Barbary-West-Central African lion (Panthera leo leo). However, the status of the Gir lions is critical and taking in count that even when they are not from India per se, they are the last population of Persian lions, so they are indeed very important biologically and ecologically. In this case, the name Panthera leo persica should be taken in count, especially when the protection laws already take in count this name. Sometimes, Biology should made space to the polities in the modern world, especially with highly endangered species."
Using the little reliable information available, the Barbary lion (female and male) had a head-body length of 160-190 cm, a shoulder height of 80-100 cm and a greatest skull length with an average of 372.3 mm in males and 318.3 mm in females. These sizes are about the same than those of Indian and West Africa, with the exception of the relative larger skulls.
With the weight issue, judging by its body size and skull dimensions, Barbary lions probably weighed up to 200 kg (and much less in average, probably between 160-170 kg) although there is the possibility of some exceptional specimens of probably up to 230 kg like the East African lions, or even 250 kg like the Southern African lions, but this last figure will be probably just an exaggeration in the northern areas of Africa. There is only a single report of Gérard of males up to 270-300 kg, but these are simple estimations and are completely unreliable, even Yamaguchi accept this. The idea of its large size came from the large mane, but there are several captive Indian lions with heavy manes that weight less than 160 kg. There are several large lions with heavy manes in private facilities available in the web and the hard-core-lion-fans proclaim without any evidence that they are “Barbary”, but the truth is that none of them is pure Barbary or from any other population. Besides, any captive lion in cold climate can develop a large mane, so the mane is the worst factor to detect a Barbary lion.  *This image is copyright of its original author Again, here is the link of the TRUE data: http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/55/Th...xZAHIX4JXY Info on the barbary lions size compared to that of indian lions Here is some tables on the evolutionary tree between lion subspeciesBarnett et al. (2009) confirms that Barbary lions and those from India are the about the same, genetically speaking.Here is the image of the evolutionary tree of the three different taxas of “lions”, plus a little ad  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Interesting, the DNA analysis showed that Barbary and Indian lions are about the same, even more closely related than some Cave lion population between them (intra-specifically). This supports even more, the theory of Thapar et al. (2013), that lions from India were originated from Africa, and that the particular population of Gir probably came from the lions exported by the Mughals and Alexander the great, which take them from North Africa and Persia. http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/55/Th...6IcQbGfY09 All of this is thanks to Gaute's hard work, hope this helps 
Asiatic Lion from Sasan Gir, India
 *This image is copyright of its original author Image Courtesy: indianaturewatch , Photographer: Hitesh Khokhani
Male Asiatic Lion picture from Gir
 *This image is copyright of its original author All copyright belong to wildlife photographer: Nitin Prabhudesai, Image Courtsey: INW 
Is it just me, or do the vast majority of Indian lions look far inferior to their African counterparts?
I realize its a product of the gene pool, as many adults appear almost sickly looking. Sadly, many generations of inbreeding have definitely taken its toll.
I have a couple of theories as to why.
1. They are not native and genetically inbred like you said 2. They are not meant to survive in that terrain, they aren't evolved to hunt through dense Forrest and that takes a toll on their physic. But I will say that the females seem to look just fine, it's the males that usually look a little weird to me. Some females as well, who knows for sure. Either way, they are doing extremely well in the GIR now, and seem to have found their niche. Thats why they are looking for places to move them, their number are increasing. But according to body dimensions, they are very close in size. Body weight is with in 10-20kg on average between them, and some on the page before look pretty large and compare nicely to other African species. I really think the mane is what makes people think they are so much smaller than Africans. 
well the population bounced back from only a dozen Individual several decades ago so Inbreeding is an important factor in the appearance.
 (08-28-2014, 09:33 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I have a couple of theories as to why.Pckts hit the point. Indian lions are, if they are native or not, genetically inbreed at a huge level. I mean, even the cheetah have a little, very little, more diversity of genes than the Indian lions. Scientists clearly states that if you take the DNA of all the Indian lions, they are all twins!!! However, other point that is correct is that the females looks very well and in great form, despite the fact that the only two females weighed, in history, are of 110 and 120 kg, respectively. The males that we see in bad shape are probably the transient ones, after all, the dominant specimens look very well and in the same fit then they African brothers. Divyabhanusinh (2005; page 22) goes even further and states that the African lion is no larger than the Indian one, but I think this is an exaggeration from his part (or his heart). Indian lions average about 160 kg, while the East African lions average 170 kg and those from Southern Africa about 185 kg. On body dimensions, they are slightly shorter than those of East Africa, but the difference is very small (a few centimeters). I don't have the figures here, but as far I remember, males average about 265 cm in total length, comparable with the 274 cm for the East African specimens. Finally, Gir is the only place enough dry to have lions. The reports of lions in Central India are dubious now for me, and probably belongs to dispersed prides or simple introduced specimens by the hand of the man (if they are natives or not, is irrelevant in this point). The lion died from all areas in India except Gir, a place that have very few bush and more open areas. Now, at 2014, the Gir lions are at they highest point EVER. With 411 specimens, they are at the side of the Amur tiger and probably much higher than the entire population of West African lions, at only about 250 specimens! The skinny transient males, the high inbreed depression and the few mane, provoke the effect that those lions are bad, but in fact, they are good, actually too good that they need another habitat. 
The Gir
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author 
Quite impressive asiatic male lion!
 *This image is copyright of its original author
Asiatic lions since1936
year calculation by no. 1936 Junagadh king 287 1950 Winter Bleeth 227 1955 Winter Bleeth C 290 1963 Gujarat Forest department 285 1968 -do- 177 1974 -do- 180 1979 ; -do- 205 1984 -do- 239 1990 -do- 284 1995 -do- 304 2001 -do- 327 2005 -do- 359 2010 -do- 411 For 2015 calculation is started using latest technology at 625 Points by 2300 Forest employees & 250 selected volunteer expected that no of lions is around 500 Source: Raval Haresh from Indian Wildlife Photographers group |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 32 Guest(s) |