The size of the Barbary lion

[Matias]

@peter, thank you for your insightful response!


As you said, many variables shape the great especimens. Size and physical appearance in captive felines are the result of factors that, to a large extent, are dissociated from free life; and numerous cases of morphological identification of captive lions are confounded by the combined or selective effects of abrasion or wear, nutrition, testosterone levels, climate and temperature..., in general, lions and tigers in zoos should not be used as a benchmark for wild comparisons. Nature has endless mysteries, and our attempt to interpret the “reasons” that generate large specimens is very complex, where we are certainly led to a rationalization that little can serve as truth in absolute terms – much more intuitive. But let's go ahead, it's always a pleasure to try to understand the engines of evolution and adaptation.


Body size is not a predictor of evolutionary success, and large species with high specialization are the first to disappear when their ecological conjuncture changes. Reaching adulthood and reproducing through generations is the simple function of any living organism to thrive. Often, the search for this theme of great specimens reduces the focus of what is really important, even if it is indisputable that the size of a lion or tiger exerts a fascination on people. Nature gives the same animal that inhabits different areas different sizes, and some species become extreme dwarfs, such as the 'pygmy elephants' that inhabited the islands of Cyprus, Malta and Sicily - all descendants of the genus Palaeoloxodon (the straight-tusked giant). It is not very difficult to understand the body variables that we have today, of the few or many that we had in the relatively recent past in continental habitats, whose body dynamics were directly linked to the broad questions of the ecology of life of each of these felines. 


There is a recent footage in the Bale Mountains (Ethiopia), video below, where a black maned lion, apparently short in stature and stocky in body, walking along the paved road. Their physical appearance is closely linked to the lions at the Addis Ababa Zoo and claims have been made for the “Barbary” origins of these lions, noting the possibility that ancestors were a gift from the Sultan of Morocco to the Emperor of Ethiopia, but recent genetic work molecular indicates that captive Ethiopian lions are a distinct subpopulation in their own right. I think it plausible that such similarities are a good thermometer to understand that the morphology of Barbarian Lions cannot be framed in terms of similarity with captive animals from any geographic point. I still assume that the lions that inhabited the coastal strip to areas of the middle Atlas had different physical characteristics than those that inhabited the arid belt further south. But it's just an intuitive thought, as if we rationalized morphological aspects based on climate we would not have the notorious maneless lions of Tsavo, in contrast to the protruding maned lions seen in some males of the Namib or even the Kalahari.

One point I would like to share with you is about old photographs. The issue of image projection greatly deceives the size of the animal. Distance, angle and perspective make all the difference. I totally agree with this image of a lion, it makes us believe that its head seems to have large dimensions compared to the rest of its body. The problem is that if we design reasoning based on something that is not true, everything else is worthless. This applies to measurements made in the past, whether by hunters or even researchers, as it is also plausible that inaccuracies are made due to carelessness and a natural lack of observing the correct angulations in a dead animal. Assigning extra inches is an easy result to achieve, intentionally or not. As for analyzing an animal's weight, the problem can be even greater when faced with scales or other precarious means of obtaining a correct ratio. This does not imply that one should give up looking for these sources as a reference, except exceptions, but rather understand that the final product of these sources cannot have absolute power in the analytical context of an explanatory analysis. 


True, the flow of new genes from outside the Ngorongoro Crater is very small and the few lions that have been observed to enter the crater are repelled and killed by the resident lions, so the genetic exchange is tiny and irregular, perhaps almost nil. Inbreeding still does not seem to reflect on something deleterious to be measured/verified, but time will take its toll, this is inevitable.


It is not yet known, and will likely remain unclear for decades, about the genetic definition/distinction of what a Barbary lion is - which genes distinguish them from the rest of the population, in the absence of a specimen of proven authenticity. It is a fact that the “Moroccan royal collection” lacks identification of its origin as faithful representatives of the population of the north. Historically, tradition explains that these lions were presented to the Sultan by the local Berber tribes and that the collection dates back centuries. The doubts start from the origin of the royal collection, and are confirmed as to the probability of hybridization in dates before 1960. In terms of practical and objective Conservation, from my point of view, nothing justifies this belief and myth of saying that  captive lions moroccan and the wild Barbary lion have significant genes and other molecular distinctions in their Microsatellite Loci that make them unique within the West and Central African lion population. Dr. Simon Black is a very dedicated researcher, but I have seen over the years that he has a personal obsession with proving and propagating the “mythological aura” of these lions, as well as maximizing their importance in understanding the role of their extinction as a model for the current extirpations of lions, notably in West and Central Africa. While he explains, he amplifies what is not concretely known, suggesting that we should maintain the classical understanding of these lions as a relic population of an ecologically distinct region. 


I simply believe that every myth has some truth in it. In the case of the Moroccan Captive Lions, the original founding population from centuries ago was built up with effective Maghreb lions. Over the decades, other lions were incorporated into the royal collection, of uncertain origin, beautiful and physically attractive specimens. In the 20th century, the maintenance of these lions was once again relegated until the 1950s/1960s and new individuals of dubious origin must have been incorporated into the royal captive population. What we have today is a high genetic partitioning that is no longer justified to safeguard this population with the proper relic to which they want to be attributed. Any lions today that live in Niokolo Koba, WAP Complex, Benoué Complex, or even in Zakouma, are effectively representative of the wild lions that once roamed North Africa. If, at some point in time, the descendant population of captive Moroccan royal lions is part of an assisted selective breeding program, first of all, it is necessary to satisfactorily know the genetic characteristics that define the true genotype of the North African group.


Anecdotally, I think that our species (genus Homo) explains a lot in what we should understand as a facilitator of countless adaptability to which animals are currently exposed and were in their evolutionary past. So, continental tigers have different sizes, shapes and markers, which we can't necessarily frame as faithful belonging to that region/geographical area. One thing that makes me reflect is that China has 4 subspecies of tigers in its territory (until a century ago) according to traditional taxonomy. If Amur tiger conservation (satisfactory co-participation between Russia and China) stays decades ahead, with natural prey density recovering, you will have great tiger specimens back in record time. In Conservation, there are those who don't care so much about subspecies – Lumpers; and those that divide to the extreme to conserve - Divisors/Splitters. Species are a biological asset to be preserved, we must view translocation/introduction within broader parameters of phylogeography, evolutionary history and available habitat.


“Without exercising intuition, we can do nothing but replicate the thoughts of others” 

Matias Reply