Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[GuateGojira]

Ok, let's go straight to the point on these posts of @Yusuf:

Quote:Personally I disagree a bit. Especially at the claim that tigers are more robust which is nonsense in my opinion if you look at studies were the bones are analysed or fights were tigers bones got often destroyed by lions.

Where do you got this nonesense? There is no study about this, no one had analized and disected the corpses of the dead lions of tigers that had died in intraspecific fights and had reported that the bones of the tigers were broken by the lions. There is not a single scientific study reporting this, not even a "popular" one. Honestly, this is one of the worst lies that I had ever saw in this endless and idiotic "tiger vs lion" debate.

Quote:First of all I want to share a reliable account. In would include them to the southern lions because they came from there.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Do you know that this is not a valid source, correct? @Pckts made an excelent work traking this page and showing that it is not reliable at all. In fact, the quoted weights are definitelly not real, they are only estimations made by the news papers like many weights reported in the web. I had several reportes of lions of 250 or tigers of 260 and even 280 kg from news papers, but none of them are corroborated. Unless than the weights were published in a scientific paper or at least corroborated by the primary source, we can't trust the news reports.

Quote:You did in your tables miscalculations(which is normal therefore I dont want to attack you with that). The weight difference between lion and tigers is about 10 kg. 10kg is about 5% in the weight range were the lion and tigers are. That is nearly nothing. Like you comparing a 60kg to a 63 kg guy. Lions are therefore 2% taller.

Again, where you got that? Where is the "miscalculation"? Honestly, were do you got those percentages? How do you know that the diference between lions and tigers is about 10 kg? Are you taking in count all the subspecies, or just some subspecies?

The differences between lions and tigers in "species level" is about 15 kg in favor of the lion and the difference at "subspecies level" of lion and tigers is about 14 to 23 kg in favor of the tiger, depending of the sample, population and the inclution or not of subadults.

The tallest lions and tallest tigers measured the same (114 cm between pegs) and the diference in average is less than 2 cm. In this case is correct to say that the largest lion subspecies is 2% taller than the largest tiger subspecies.

Quote:Tigers have not more girth in the chest department. They overlap if you take a closer look. But I'm sure that lions have a more solid chest than tigers on average. Note tigers have a thicker skin and more fat than lions in the belly and chest area and this will surely add 1 inch or more. (I practice myself bodybuilding and I know how much girth I loose in cuts). About 3% of girth i loose from my biceps and that only because of FAT!

Evidence shows that tigesr had bigger chest girth, on average and in maximum figures. This of course apply to the Bengal tigers compared to any lion population. The tick of the skin had nothing to do with increasing the girth, specially in Bengal tigers which had a short coat like any lion in Africa. Other thing, belly fat has nothing to do with chest girth, so why you mention that? Both lions and tigers had about the same fat percentage, so if you going to the old fat comparison from AVA/Carnivora/other weird lion-fanatic-forums that used just two or three Amur tigers against other few of captive lions, you are just wasting your time.

Quote:I saw some photos of the Alpru Protocol. It seems not really bad. If you look at volkel he has a solid height and he is not 20cm away from 118cm. The problem is you cant really know how big lion no matter if 13 ft with one picture where the lion stands alone.

Are you serious? Did you saw the true size of those male lions?

*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

Do you still think that these lions are over 330 cm in total length? Obviously you are not been objective at all if you think that these short lions actually measured that. From a sample of 134 males from South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania and India (only places where lions were measured "between pegs"), the longest lion measured 307 cm.

Quote:So... Skin measurements. Are they accurate? No but we know how much they differ from "between pegs" lengths. About 1ft (30cm) ... the datas I have seen suggest this. EDUAD FOA shot for example a 3.57m and 3.81m Lion. These were Skin measurements. Mean the Lion could be 3.51m between pegs.

Honestly, did you belive this nonesense? This shows how little expecience you have on these things. The skin of a cat can be streached much more than just 30 cm. In fact, those lions could be as low as only 3 meters between pegs! The skin can be streached to huge sizes, if not check the figures in Rowland Ward Records of Big Game with lion and tiger skins measuring up to 4 meters. So, under your logic, those tigers could measured 370 cm "between pegs". The skin measurements is the most UNRELIABLE method the measure an animal. I guess that you also believe in the records of 10 meters long Anacondas based in the skin.

Quote:Skin is not fur PCKTS. Tigers have FUR and lions have some Hairs. Also in the picture you can see that the mane not influence the girth of the Chest really.

No at similar Size they don't overlap. Lions have definetely more solid chests at similar size. Tigers have normally a bit thicker skin. 

Note the tigers for the Chest datas were bigger and larger than the lions. 

The weight difference is about 10 kg because datas agree with it. Bengals overall are 200 kg and Kruger Lion 193 kg(with new datas I got). The Zimbabwe Lions are on average 195 kg and the Namibian lions 198 kg(with the 217,5 kg Lion). So ok let us say without Sundarbans it would be 202 kg. The difference is still extremely low... nearly nothing.

Especially in Capitivity tigers aren't heavier really than lions in same conditions.

Now you can argue with Guate... and not with me. He collected the pictures.

*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

Ok, this is simply stupid. Where do you got that "Tigers have FUR and lions have some Hairs"? Both animals have fur, not just "hairs" as you say. I don't know where you got your average figures but you must know that all the lions from Zimbabwe and Namibia are not adjusted for stomach content, so the real values are lower than those. In fact, you should check the table and not only the image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Finally, Are you criticizing the images I used? You should know that when I choose those images I done it because they are among the best images showing the animals in its side view position. Again, the belly fold is NOT related with chest girths, so the fact that the belly fold is common in Bengal tigers, rare in African lions and a mandatory characteristic in Indian lions, is irrelevant in the chest girths. Now, you SHOULD know that the skin fold in the chest is a characteristic of ALL the great cats, tigers-lions-jaguars-leopards. Check these few African lions for example:

*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

I had many more image showing this, in fact the lion that I choose you can see the skin fold in the chest too. All the lions had a skin fold in the chest. So, your claim that the skin fold in the chest increase the chest girth can be discarted as lions DO have the skin fold in the chest, even when they do not have it in the belly in most of the cases.

Quote:Personally I don't like this topic about fights. Ok but I think I showed why this claim is true. And that aren't nearly all datas. Feel like a fanboy now...

I don't buy this at all. Now we can see that you are just a hard-core lion fanatic from the same school of Catlion/BoldChamp/Starfox/Assad, a group of people that did not produced anything good, except for a lot of lies against the tiger, an animal that had done nothing against them but that they constantly attack and that they hate with no reason. So like @Shadow said, if you are starting to polute this forum with crap from "Carnivora" or "Wildanimalwarfare" you need to stop this.

Quote:Personally 272 kg should be a fair max weight for lions. Many are reported. Also some reached even 280 kg with 100% confirmation but with stomach content.

With Guates Table the Average is for 93 S. Lions 193 kg. Excluding the 120 kg lion then its 194 kg. So a weight of 190-195 kg on average for a Kruger Lion should be fair.

Are these sources in Guates Table included? Because I didnt saw them.

The lions of Dr Wenger are already included, also the lions of 477 lb and the one of 395 lb. The lion of 272 kg was not confirmed by first hand sources, so while we can take in count like an "exceptional specimen", especially by the fact that is the only lion in the Southern African lion reported with that body mass, we can't include it. The same happened with other big tigers over 272 kg that were not included as they are also excepcional animals, and that will create a bias in the final averages. Finally it is important to remember that the lion of 280 kg was NOT 100% confirmed, we only had a "confimation" email (that could be fake, by the way) and the figure is not published in any scientific document or any news paper and the original webpage don't even exist anymore. So, that figure is just managed by us and is more like a "courtesy" to take it in count (I included it, by the way, together with the lion of 251 kg reported by Roberts that by the way, was not adjusted for stomach content). If you ask to lion experts like Dr Yamaguchi they will tell you that the heaviest lion 100% corroborated weighed 260 kg included stomach content and that the lion of 272 kg from Kenya is reliable BUT it was a cattle killer and consequently very bulky; take in count that the next heaviest lion in the entire East African region was of 235 kg, that says a lot about the lions in that region.

Quote:The 260 kg Tiger had a cheat girth of 140cm and a 240kg lion from Namibia 139cm. Tells everything in my opinion.

Btw I don't believe that tigers are heavier than lions. The best thing is not believe datas 100%. Note there aren't many big same sized weight datas of tigers. Only two... from Bander and Behar.

I remember the old times were many laughed about Boldchamp were he said tigers and lions are similar in weight and size.... at the end he was true... quite a bit funny.

No. 1. The male M-105 (Sauraha) from Nepal had a chest girth of 140 cm and a weight of over 272 kg, the figure of 261 kg is the result of a chest girth/weight equation.

No. 2. If you say that the "best" is not believe in the data", then there is no point in correcting you as you will continue denying the facts even if you show it to you.

No. 3. Who says that tigers and lions are of the "same size"? They are not, they are closer in several aspects specially in the averages, but at the end of the day the tiger is still the biggest cat in modern times with Bengal tigers reaching the edge. Reply