WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
|
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
|
  *This image is copyright of its original author Also not in the frame, but Caesar was 8-9 years old, he also probably had a little stomach content as they had killed a hippo earlier that week, but as he’s always heavy. Not 100% comfirmation, but this guy seems very legit. And I know that he follows Masai Mara lions, and about Caesar being weighed. Big lion for sure.  (02-19-2019, 06:48 AM)Pantherinae Wrote: Wow! If that's true then he'd beat or atleast match (depending on stomach content) Koch's 270kg male. Are you waiting for further confirmations? (02-19-2019, 07:17 AM)Rishi Wrote:No he didn't Know more about it, measurements etc. only the weight :)(02-19-2019, 06:48 AM)Pantherinae Wrote: Also to get any information from Masai Mara is a pain in the a** I have searched info I know exists for years, but I have hardly found a thing. (02-19-2019, 07:21 AM)Pantherinae Wrote:(02-19-2019, 07:17 AM)Rishi Wrote: Wow! If that's true then he'd beat or atleast match (depending on stomach content) Koch's 270kg male.No he didn't Know more about it, measurements etc. only the weight :) No, i meant from the person that got transferred. One who took the weight? This could be the new highest weight recorded in lions, if you can get it confined than that's be really big news! (02-19-2019, 07:34 AM)Rishi Wrote:I have no idea who he is, he worked for a vet team in the Masai Mara, that vet team is almost impossible to get any info from (I belive it’s the Sky vets). I have tried many times, belive me.(02-19-2019, 07:21 AM)Pantherinae Wrote:(02-19-2019, 07:17 AM)Rishi Wrote: Wow! If that's true then he'd beat or atleast match (depending on stomach content) Koch's 270kg male.No he didn't Know more about it, measurements etc. only the weight :) But this guy had a some inside info. As he spends a lot of his time in the Mara and arranges trips there. So no I have no clue about it, nor do I think we will ever get it. We stumbled on this info as it’s actually my older brother who found it as he enquierd about info on an upcoming Mara trip we have planned. And I told him to ask about Caesar. Coincidence for sure.  (01-17-2018, 10:41 PM)TheLioness Wrote: TheAfricatfoundation "lioness spots - we weighed her (158 kg)" This is terrible, is seems that ALL, and I mean ALL the pages-pdf-documents related with those measurements are completelly erased from the original webpages. All the links are dead, those posted by my and those from you. I tried to reconstruct my database but it seems that now is lost, at least the original sources. 
 (01-18-2018, 03:48 PM)peter Wrote: B - EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS About the lions from Hobatere, I can't belive in those measurements, there are many errors. Check this summary, from the tables of 2015 and those from @peter:  *This image is copyright of its original author They are measuring the lions following the protocol of the ALPRU, which to use a tape and take the length from the tip of the incisors (not the nose) following all the contuours/ondulations of the back (not a straight line). This is not the form used by Dr Sunquist in Nepal, and certainly not the one used by other scientists in Africa like Dr Packer or Dr Loveridge, which biggest lions do not surpass the 209 cm in head-body. Even the Amur tigers measured by the Siberian Tiger Project, which apparently were measured pressing the tape on the curves, did not produced such an exagerated sizes. Certainly, while all the other specimens seems to match with moder/old measurements, the problematic ones are the males HPL-2 (Volkel) and HPL-10 (Leo) and the female HPL-11 (Mee), especifically in the total length and shoulder height. I see that the errors are mainly in the head-body length, excluding the head and the neck length. In the past I was quite sure that the length of the neck was already included in the head-body, based also in pictures, but now that all the posters agree that the neck should be taken appart, the measurements of those 3 particular specimens are certainly incorrect in some form. Also the shoulder heights, which apparently are not those of the entire length of the from limb, still shows a high degree of magnitud diferent from other lions measured in straight line, which suggest that there do not represent the real standing height of those lions. This is also why is not good to measure an animal in "pieces", they should use a large tape and measure the animal in just one row. I am disapointed of these "new" methods that only mimic the old unreliable ones from the hunters. It is also incredible how this sizes are in included in litterature and nobody actually take a time to analyze if those measurements are realistic. It seems that the analytic critics of Sterndale, Pocock, Brander and others, are just forgoten. These lions from Namibia are big ones, there is no question about that, but certainly a length of 335 cm and shoulder height so up to 145 cm are just in the realm of imagination and old hunting stories.
Lions from the Kalahari - body size:
I found a thesis from Dr Kevin MacFarlane about the lions in the northern region of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR), the name of the thesis is: "The Ecology and Management of Kalahari lions in a Conflict Area in Central Botswana". Is a good document, published in 2014, here is the link: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu....885/102146 Now, this document focus in the lion population in the northern region of the Kalahari, an area know for its large lions and, guess what, it have body measurements. Check the table, furnished by me:  *This image is copyright of its original author The original table is on page 219 (and a summary in page 100) but I also used the table in page 71 for the ID and names of that animals, so I found a somethings that are a little confusing. For example, sometimes they mention the lion "Corkwood" as MM105 and in others as MM106. The same happen with lioness "Steph" identified as SF009 or SF010; for this same female, the total length is showed as "249 cm", but the add of the head-body length (158 and 79) gives "237 cm", however I leave the original figure; in the case of males BM060 and MM106, I did corrected the total length figures. One last thing, there are two sets of measurements from female PF015 "Isolde", I guess that is the same female but the measurements are so diferent that it looks like a completelly different animal, so I put it separatelly. These lions were measured also by the ALPRU method, but still, the body sizes are not abnormal as those from the Hobatore lions, supporting my claim that something is incorrect in the measurements of that other population. Check the measurements and we can see that these are amoung the largest lions on records, in fact, they are heavier than those from South Africa. Please take in count that other lions were also captured, but some of them had only the neck girth measurements (which I don't included) and others do not have any measurement. So that table that I posted here is only with the animals measured and weighed. This picture labeles as the male that weighed 222 kg, it seems that is incorrect, as this male is PM001 and according with the document, was not measured or weighed.  *This image is copyright of its original author Save the data, have a nice day! 
 (09-25-2019, 01:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Lions from the Kalahari - body size:@GuateGojira Thanks for sharing very valuable information Kalahari Lions are really big 
MODERN METHODS TO MEASURE WILD BIG CATS
I agree the methods used to measure wild big cats these days are, ehh, quite fascinating, Guate. My guess is they're, methodwise, more or less re-inventing the wheel, but we have no other option but to use the information offered. It's better than nothing at all. In spite of the questions in the department of methods, it's clear that lions in southwestern part of Africa are large animals. Kruger lions seem to have the longest skulls, but lions in the southwestern part of Africa seem to be as long and heavy. At the level of averages, they could top the tables. The (Hobatere) male below, at 203 kg. (448 pounds), is big in every way:  *This image is copyright of its original author Although lions in the southwestern part of Africa are larger than in other regions (referring to averages), exceptional individuals have been seen just about everywhere. In some time, I'll post a table with measurements of skulls of lions shot in what used to be Belgian Congo. Not a few Congo lions had big and robust skulls. As to the tables you posted. Maybe you can add a few liner notes on the method used to measure the lions. The tables you posted, by the way, are appreciated. Good information is way more informative than anything else.
Thank for your words @peter. In fact, you are right in one point, something is better than nothing. Check how many measurements and weights we have from lions in Africa and even India been published, and now check how many measurements are from Indian tigers! It is a real pitty that none of the Indian scientist are publishing anything, in fact, it seems that just Dr Sunquist/Smith/Tamang (from Nepal) and Dr Karanth/Mallik/Barlow (India and Bangladesh) are the only ones that actually published body measurements from tigers in the Indian subcontinent. Must ot the time there are only weights, and very few, mostly from news reports that are not entirely reliable or accurate. Check for example Dr Chundawat which published the same information about its tigers in three diferent documents, specially in his last book, but he never provided any body measurement!
It seems that just the scientists from USA/Russia from the Siberian Tiger Project took the time to publish all the set of measurements, and assuming that they actually used the same method as the scientists in Africa (except Hobatere region, obviously) which is to use a tape along the curves following the contours, all the measurements are comparable. Those from Nepal and Thailand (proved) and Nagarahole, India (guessing) are not comparable, as they use a different method, holding the tape as straight as posible. However, while the figures of the lions from the Kalahari match those from Hwange, the Serengeti and the west of Africa, as it seems that they all use about the same method, those from Hobatore, specially the specimens that I signaled, are by no means reliable at all and should not be quoted. Check this other case:  *This image is copyright of its original author And this is from the great Enciclopedia "Mammals from Africa" of 2013, in the chapter of the leopard (in page 165 from Volume 5). So, how those exagerated measurements from those leopards were published in a modern scientific document is still a mistery for me. I mean, been big cat experts, nobody take a moment an actually think that a leopard of 183 cm in head-body is the same as a lion or tiger, and obviously a cat of that size will not weight only 69 kg? And this assuming that the heaviest weight came from the longest animal. It seems thatt while the goal of modern scientists is the conservation and the understanding of the ecology of the great cats, I think that at some point some of them should take a little of time to review they methods and results in the morphological department, if not, we will return to the lions and tigers of 11 or 12 feet long, just like the old records, and Hobatere is a good example, especifically the specimens HPL-2, HPL-10 and HPL-11. (09-25-2019, 08:04 AM)peter Wrote: The (Hobatere) male below, at 203 kg. (448 pounds), is big in every way: Actually, as far I know, this lion is from Phinda Private Game Reserve. The pictures of the lions in Hobatore are nothing exceptional, even smaller than this male. 
Well really if you look at even Russia is not publishing measurements on any regular basis. We will just have to wait and wait, a few of us are (very understandably) running low on patience.
(09-25-2019, 06:32 PM)Richardrli Wrote: Well really if you look at even Russia is not publishing measurements on any regular basis. We will just have to wait and wait, a few of us are (very understandably) running low on patience. That is correct. It seems that The Amur Tiger Programme is not publishing more weights in its webpage and I have not found any publication about the body measurements of the tigers that they have measured, which I guess will be larger than those recorded by the Siberian Tiger Project, based in the fact that they specimens are heavier. We will still need to wait, but at least we have the full set of measurements from the tigers of Sikhote Alin that the Siberian Tiger Project published since 2005. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |