WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
The size of the Barbary lion
The size of the Barbary lion
|
The size of the Barbary lion
|
This topic was made by Guate at animalbattles board sometime ago. This is direct copy excluding the unimportant parts.
0 - Was the Barbary lion, the famous population in the north of Africa, a truly giant? Are those claims true? The next topic show that the Barbary lion was of the same size than they brothers of India and West Africa. None reliable weight has been reported from this population, but the few sizes and skull dimensions show that they are not exceptional in any particular characteristic.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author 1. Charles Guggisberg It has been long debated which was the size of the Barbary lion. At this moment, the best source is the book “Simba, the life of the lion” of Charles Guggisberg (1961), check the image:  *This image is copyright of its original author As we can see, the sizes reported are no larger than modern lions from East Africa, or a better comparison, of the same size than those from West Africa and India. Some weeks ago, I buy the book “Wild Cats of the World”, also of Guggisberg (1975) and he put the same data about the Barbary lion that he puts in his previous book. Check the image:  *This image is copyright of its original author So, I search the original source of the data which is this book: * Brehm, A. E. 1925. Tierleben. Vol. 4. Leipzig. After a few searches, I found it in the web here: https://archive.org/details/brehmstierlebena12breh The reference is different (year 1915, Vol. 12), but the data is exactly the same. Now, check the measurements that Brehm states:  *This image is copyright of its original author Brehm was probably one of the best Zoologists from Germany and the entire world. His data most be taken as mandatory and his statements are highly reliable, although now somewhat outdated. Brehm states that the adult Barbary lions have a shoulder height of 80-100 cm, a head-body length of 160-190 cm and a tail length of 75-90 cm, which produce a total length of 235-280 cm. This size is similar to all the other lion populations and don’t present any exceptional dimension. 2. Nobuyuki Yamaguchi Yamaguchi & Haddane (2002) made a good investigation about this lion, check it: “How big was a Barbary lion? The famous French zoologist Cuvier measured a six-year-old captive-reared male Barbary lion, which had head and body length of 5 pieds 2 pouces (= c. 1.58 m), tail length c. 66.1 cm, height of forequarters c. 83.6 cm and of hindquarters c. 83.6 cm (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). This lion was caught in eastern Algeria in 1795 at about one year old and died at ten years old in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Although the live lion may not have given Cuvier accurate measurements, the animal seems to have been very small for a male lion. It is, however, doubtful whether captive Barbary lions, usually captured as cubs and kept in menageries during the 18th or 19th centuries, attained the full body size. Cuvier himself referred to undesirable captive conditions at the menagerie (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). Cornish (1899) reported that big cats only lived, on an average, for two years in London Zoo in the mid-1800s. Gérard (1856) also expressed his concern about the captive condition of lions at the Jardin des Plantes. On the other hand, he described a big wild Barbary lion he shot with the comment `This lion, compared to the finest of those which are exhibited in our menageries, or at the Jardin des Plantes, was what a horse is to a donkey. . .' There is, however, no credible record of body measurements of wild Barbary lions. Gérard (1856) described the size of wild male Barbary lions as c. 2.3 m from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail, which measured c. 90 cm, and their weight as c. 270–300 kg. If this had been true, Barbary lions would indeed have been big amongst lions. However, the methods of obtaining these measurements (e.g. straight or along the curve) were not specified, and the accuracy of the measurements themselves may be questionable, as Gérard made them in the field. Although Pease (1899, 1915) suggested that North African lions might have become very heavy because they fed on mutton so much, regarding the body length he seems not to have believed what he himself quoted – an Algerian lion whose head and body length was c. 2.5 m and the tail length 75 cm.” “The largest Barbary lion skull so far measured, which is partly broken, has an estimated greatest length of c. 360 mm (Mazák, 1970; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Although 360 mm is not small, big skulls of sub-Saharan lions easily reach a maximum length of over 380 mm, and some even over 400 mm (Hemmer, 1974; Best, 1981; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Does this mean Barbary lions were not particularly big? Due to such a small sample size, we have to wait until more specimens may become available. The big lion Gérard shot in Algeria was presented to the Duchess of Orléans (Gérard, 1856), but the current whereabouts of this specimen and other wild-shot Barbary lions which decorated Gérard's Paris residence are not known.” Source: http://www.izn.org.uk/Archive/321/Izn-321.htm#lion Conclusion of Yamaguchi: there are no reliable sizes of wild Barbary lions, nor any weights. Yamaguchi, the “god” of hard-core-lion-fans presents a good case where he states that there is no evidence or at least enough specimens to say that this lion was larger than any other population. In fact, if we follow the new genetic evidence and with the presented sizes, we can conclude that this lion was of the same size and weight than modern Indian and West African lions, which incredible, reach the same sizes despite the large geographical distance. 3. Skull size About the skulls, Yamaguchi & Haddane (2002), quoting Mazák, states that the largest skull from this population was of c.360 mm, which is smaller than the maximum of other lion populations (South Africa, up to 419 mm according with Hemmer (1974)). However, a new investigation of J. H. Mazák (2010) provides new figures, check the image:  *This image is copyright of its original author This table presents the following average for the population in the north of Africa: Greatest skull length: * North Africa: Males – 372.3 mm (n=3) Females – 318.3 mm (n=2) The second sample from North East Africa (specifically Ethiopia, including those from Addis Ababa) is dubious on its classification, because some authors believe that they are from descendents of the Barbary lion, but the last genetic study show that they are closer to the East African lions (Dubach et al., 2013), so its inclusion here will be incorrect. Although small (n=3), the sample of Barbary lions show specimens that are clearly larger than the record stated by Yamaguchi, with a probable maximum between 410-420 mm. Even then, there are several records of lions with large skulls and small bodies, so this large skull size only suggest that Barbary lions were as large as other populations, but that they were no exceptional in any case. Here are some images of a Barbary lion skull found in the tower of London:  *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 Sadly, there are not measurements available, but they seem to be very small. The average for the Indian lions is of 338.9 mm (n=6) according with Mazák (2010) and of 344.0 mm using 4 specimens from Pocock (1939) and Prater (1921). The largest Indian lion skull available measured 365.8 mm (Prater, 1921). Mazák (2010) presents only one skull of 330 mm from Iran and one of 347.8 mm from West Africa. Obviously these samples are pretty small, but even then, it seems that the Barbary lions had larger skulls than those from Asia and West Africa. Could this mean that the largest specimens of the Barbary lions were larger than those from these regions? Probably they did, but we don’t know by how much. A study of the relation between skull length and body length of lions could help us with this problem. 4. Conclusion 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. 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. Barnett 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. 
Here is the link of my original post: http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/55/The-size-of-the-Barbary-lion#.U0BS8VcXK8w
I have more genetic data from many other documents, I will share it with you here. For the moment, is 100% sure that Barbary lions, Indian lions and at some degree the West African lions, are genetically indistinguishable. Besides, they morphology seems to be equal. Check that both Barbary and West African lions have the same belly fold and they skulls also have the divided foramina aperture in they skulls. If Indian lions have other differences, this are only because they are highly inbreed, and based on they genetic, they are like twins and have ZERO genetic variation (O'Brien et al., 2003).  (04-05-2014, 10:53 PM)Kingtheropod Wrote: This topic was made by Guate at animalbattles board sometime ago. This is direct copy excluding the unimportant parts. Seems the jury is still out on this, due to limited data. (04-06-2014, 04:29 PM)chaos Wrote:(04-05-2014, 10:53 PM)Kingtheropod Wrote: This topic was made by Guate at animalbattles board sometime ago. This is direct copy excluding the unimportant parts. If you talk about the size issue, you may be right, although the few reliable data available suggest that they were no larger than any other lion population. Now, about the DNA issue, that is written in stone by now. I will put the other genetic studies soon. 
Chaos, could you please not quote the entire opening post? It makes the page quite hard to read. Thanks
Here is a picture of a lion from Paris, possibly Barbary in descent...
 *This image is copyright of its original author Also, here are a few measurements of lions taken from that zoological gardin... https://archive.org/details/cihm_35627
This article, posted by Apollo, is the last evidence that Indian and Barbary lions are the SAME subspecies and for extention, they should be of the same size, just like West African lions are of the same size than Indian lions. 2+2=4, no need to discuss any more. Check the article:
India could soon help bring back an extinct, spectacular species of lions Kounteya Sinha,TNN | Apr 2, 2014, 08.54 PM IST LONDON: India could soon help bring back an extinct lion species. DNA tests by an international team of scientists has confirmed the lions in India have close genetic links with the now extinct Barbary lions. This means that "reseeding" Indian lions could bring back the extinct species and reintroduce lions into North Africa. Less than 400 Asiatic lions survive at present on the Kathiawar Peninsula of India and the species is listed as endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Barbary lions of North Africa — including mountainous regions — extending from Egypt to Morocco were also called the Atlas lions and had the most spectacular physical features of all lion species. The lion's extensive mane made it look majestic. It was a lot larger with differently-coloured eyes to other lions. Dr Ross Barnett of Copenhagen University, who had started the research during his days at Durham University in UK, sequenced the DNA from the skulls of two Barbary lions once held in Britain's Tower of London. It has helped reveal the origin of modern lions. The skulls of these lions dated as living in the 14th and 15th centuries were discovered preserved in the Tower of London's moat. Dr Barnett said he was surprised by the incredibly close relationship between the extinct Barbary lion from North Africa and the Asian lion from India. This he says could now get conservationists start talking about resurrecting the subspecies and reintroducing lions into North Africa". Despite the large geographical distances between them, the Indian lions seem to be closely related to Iranian lions and the Barbary lions of North Africa. The study says: "In the tiger, another charismatic felid species, studies of ancient mitochondrial DNA have suggested a close relationship between the extinct central Asian Caspian tiger and the extant Amur tiger. This has allowed conservationists to discuss the translocation of Amur tiger stock to occupy the former range of the Caspian tiger with support from the World Tiger Summit. Similarly, if no examples of purebred Barbary lions can be found within the zoo population, there might be scope for restoration of the North African lion population using the closely related Indian lion." A genetic analysis of living lions and museum specimens confirms modern lions' most recent common ancestor lived around 124,000 years ago. Dr Barnett said, "Understanding the demographic history of a population is critical to conservation. This is particularly true for the lion which as a consequence of millennia of human persecution, has large gaps in its natural distribution and several recently extinct populations. We sequenced mitochondrial DNA from museum-preserved individuals including the extinct Barbary lion and Iranian lion as well as lions from West and Central Africa. We have identified deep, well-supported splits within the mitochondrial phylogeny of African lions." The lion had one of the largest geographical distributions of any terrestrial mammal during the Late Pleistocene, ranging from southern Africa through northern Eurasia to Central America. Widespread hunting and anthropogenic changes to lion habitat are continuing to reduce lion populations across their entire range. The research says: "From the DNA analysis, we identified four new mitochondrial haplotypes: one from North Africa, one from a suspected Barbary lion present in medieval London, one from Iran, and one from Senegal. Four of the six Barbary lions exhibited sequence identical to that of the extant Indian lion." "International bodies currently recognize only two lion conservation units: African and Asian lions. The data clearly show that Asian lions are nested within the diversity present in Central, West and North Africa. Of particular concern are the central African and western African populations, which may be close to extinction, with estimates of 800 lions in West Africa and 900 lions in Central Africa. The close phylogenetic relationships among Barbary, Iranian, and Indian lion populations are noteworthy given their considerable geographical separation. The restoration of the extinct North African Barbary lion has attracted the attention of conservationists both inside and outside North Africa," it added. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/...140748.cms 
A little off topic but does the fact that the evidence suggests that barbary lions from the north are smaller than cape lions from the south completely disprove bergmanns rule?
Same thing for Amur tigers being smaller than central indian tigers? It is also interesting to me that both barbary and cape have large belly manes while both are from different sides of the country. What is the difference in climate between the two, if anybody knows? continent * (04-15-2014, 09:58 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: A little off topic but does the fact that the evidence suggests that barbary lions from the north are smaller than cape lions from the south completely disprove bergmanns rule?To sincere, there is also no direct evidence that the Cape lions were any larger than the lion populations of Kruger or Etosha. The few skulls available and the mounted specimens in Museums show that this was as large as a normal Southern African lion. Now, this population DO have a reliable recorded weight, which is from a male hunted in the Orange free state in 1865 that weighed 583 lb (264 kg), there is no description of its stomach content, but surely not empty. Mazák accept this record and many old sources too, I don't know why it was latter forgotten and no longer quoted in modern documents. Now, if we take in count that Cape lions were of the same size than Southern African lions, that Barbary were of the same size than East African lions, and that Southern > Eastern, then Cape lions would be bigger than Barbary lions. About Bengal and Amur tigers, in fact, both are of the same body size (Amur longer, on average). The difference is in the weight and chest girth, but this can be easily explained by the huge prey base of India and the few prey base of Russia. In the old days, Amur tigers weighed the same than Bengals, so we can conclude that both are/were of the same body size and weight and had the same skull dimensions (although Amur tigers have wider muzzle and higher sagital crest). This disprove the Bergsman's rule? Not sure, but there are too many factors apart from the climate like prey base, territorial behavior, prey size, etc. For the moment, Bergman's rule do NOT apply at all with tigers and lions; prey base, origin of the population and other factors are much more important than just climate. Returning to the lions, the mane of Cape lions is different than that of the Barbary lions. Mane on Barbary lions begins in the chest and run trough the belly. Cape lion's mane begin in the groin, not the chest and rarely run trough the entire belly. It is say that the mane of the Cape lions was darker than that of the Barbary, which have a blond ring around the face, while that of the Cape was entirely black (not entirely sure about this last characteristic). Obviously these characteristics are based in stuffed specimens, so there is not 100% certainty about its accuracy. Hope this helps. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I aggree that there is no certainty on whether barbary or cape are larger or if cape where even a sub species at all.
Aren't the bengals measured equal to the length of amurs? Do bengals also have a slightly taller shoulder height as well? I find the mane differences to be the most interesting. I wonder what dictates why these manes are different from each other and the purpose of them. Thanks for the info Gaute. (04-15-2014, 11:48 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I aggree that there is no certainty on whether barbary or cape are larger or if cape where even a sub species at all.On the DNA issue, it is 100% certain that Cape lions are not a different subspecies, those editors of Wikipedia insist in ignoring the scientific papers (those that don't follow they agendas, at least), as they still use the Cape lion as a distinct subspecies and still separate the Caspian from the Amur tiger. So, Cape lions are only the southern population of the still living South African lion that live very well in Kruger NP, South Africa. About the length of Bengal and Amur tigers, in fact, if we take only scientific records, the longest Bengal (311 cm; Nagarahole) is longer than the longer Amur (309 cm; Sikhote-Alin), however how much of that is body and how much is tail? In fact, the longest head-body length recorded fro Bengal (204 cm; Nagarahole) is shorter than that of the Amur (208 cm; Sikhote-Alin), so in actual body length, Amur tigers seems longer. Now, about records in general, the samples of Brander and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar produced an average total length of c.282 cm and a head-body of c.190 cm, while those from Chitwan and Nagarahole produce about the same figures. Modern and old Amur tiger records produce average figures of c.295 cm in total length and c.195 cm in head-body. Again, records suggest that Amur tigers are longer than Bengal tigers. About the shoulder height, the only reliable heights recorded for wild Amur are those from the Siberian Tiger Project, and produced an average of 95 cm. However, take in count that these measurements were taken, sometimes, over they un-stretched arm, so its actual standing height most be larger. About the Bengal tigers, there are no values in the scientific records, but those from Brander and Cooch Behar produce figures of exactly 1 m in height, taken between pegs on stretched arms, from shoulder to wrist. I believe that if measured in the same way, Amur tigers would have the same shoulder height, and in this case, both Amur and Bengal tigers would have an average shoulder height of 1 m, which is the same that Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) stated in the book "Wild cats of the world". In conclusion, Mazák statements than Amur tigers were the largest of the subspecies of tigers is incorrect, as both old and modern records show that the Bengal tiger was about the same size. In round numbers, Amur and Bengal tigers are about the same body size and shoulder height, but in modern days Bengals have higher weights and larger chest girths (some old Amur records shows reliable weights of up to 254 kg (Slaght et al., 2005) and chest girths of up to 150 cm (Sowerby, 1936)). In popular language, Amur tigers are longer, Bengal tigers are heavier and both have the same shoulder height.
Do you think the heavier size of the bengal has to do with the fact that they don't need fat the way a amur does, so when amurs and bengals are similiar in body dimmensions, the bengal will be heavier because of the extra muscle they possess?
Not entirely, but possible. Both Amur and Bengal hunt some of the most formidable prey available, included the gaur, the moose and even the brown bear (tigers are among the few carnivores that directly hunt other carnivores and eat them). So, they need the same body proportions and strength. However, take in count that the Amur tiger have one of the most dangerous preys in they top list: the giant Russian wild boar. This beast is incredibly strong and as dangerous as any bear (Indian boars don't even compare to this huge guy). That is why I think that Amur tigers have the longer canines, on average, and have the larger muzzle and sagital crest of all the tigers, in order to develop the strongest and most formidable bit of all the tigers. The only other tiger population with these tools is the Caspian one, which by the way, relay even more on wild boar than that of the Amur region.
Records and studies indicate that there is no apparent variation in weight, and probably fat level, at the Bengal tiger populations. However there is an important variation among Amur tigers, although this could be positive (good prey availability) or negative (starving underweight specimens, mostly in winter). Under this situation, it is possible to say that at similar weights, a Bengal tiger will be more massive in muscles than an Amur tiger, but it will also depend of the time of the year in the condition itself of the specimens. So, it will be too risky and inaccurate to say that Bengals will have extra muscle than an Amur one. From my point of view, both cats have the same massiveness, as are the top predators in they own areas. This topic is about the Barbary lion, so let's do something, I am going to create a topic specifically for the comparison between the Amur and the Bengal tigers. Then we can continue or conversation and we can put more data. What do you think? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |