The size of the Barbary lion

[GuateGojira]

(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?
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 *

 

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]
 

  Reply