There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
09-02-2014, 10:31 AM( This post was last modified: 09-02-2014, 10:37 AM by GuateGojira )
(08-31-2014, 07:21 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: Disparity in prey availability is certainly a factor, but lions (probably due to their social life style) are not that much affected by this, the correlation is not so strong (when we talk about size). South african lions are on average heavier than east african, but the difference is like 190 kg vs 170 kg (I don´t know exact numbers).
If you compare it to bengal tigers...sundarbans are around 120 kg (???)...or even less(?), while northern bengals are twice as heavy...
anyway...I see no dispute between us, basically we agree with each other...perhaps according to you the size variability among lions is somewhat bigger than according to me...
Guate?...
According with the study of Schaller (1972), the Serengeti have wooden areas and the plain ones. He states that those in the plains are the "smaller" ones as they depend to much of the variability of the seasons, specifically the great migration. In this case, the Serengeti is not like Pantherinae said, there are wooden parts and are drier parts, even then, prey density is higher than for example Etosha, which is a desert area, with low prey. Even then, food intake in the Serengeti is relative lower, apparently, than that of Etosha (10 kg against 14 kg). That is why I suggested, just that, a possible absence of correlation between prey density and size, but it seems that those are just exceptions, as the logic dictate that the largest prey density allow to grow the largest specimens, like those of the Okavango and the Crater, which have very huge availability of prey.
It seems a fact, according with Smuts et al. (1980), that the southern populations are heavier than those in East Africa, however the difference is not as large as we could think. Pckts believe that this is an effect of the sample size, and it may be true, but normally lions in the southern areas seems to reach higher figures than those of the northern areas.
In the case of the males, East African lions range between 145.4 - 235 kg, while those in Southern Africa range between 150 - 250 kg. The differences seems to be much less than we could think. Even the average figures (170 and 185 kg, respectively) are very close too. On the body size department, like I mentioned before, there is practically no difference, as the East African lions average 274 cm, while those in South Africa average 276 cm, they are practically of the same length. Only those in West African and India seems to be smaller, with average weights of about 160 kg in both cases. This raw comparison suggest that there is very little variation among the lion populations, like Pckts suggested, and this seems true even in body size, as the largest West African lions are as large as the East African ones.
On the other side, variation in tigers is huge and even absurd. The largest tigers are larger than the largest lions, but the smallest tigers are just like jaguars and large leopards. I will like to make a graphic (smaller female to largest male) in order to show a better comparison, but from the figures that I have, check this out:
Tigers overall: 75 ---------------------------------------- 300 kg
Sumatran: 75 ---------------148 kg
Amur: 110 ------------------254 kg
Bengal: 75 ---------------------------------------- 300 kg
Incredible as it is, the Bengal tigers is so variable like the entire species. I mean, the Nepal tigers average 221 kg, those of India range between 200 to 217 kg, but only those of Sundarbans average about 115 kg!
So, if we take all lion populations/subspecies, they average about 175 kg, while if we take all tiger populations/subspecies, they average about 165 kg, this is NOT quoted from Yamaguchi, but made by my own calculations and those of Peter too.
Among leopards, jaguars and pumas, there are similar results:
Jaguars: 30 --------------------------------------- 150 kg
Leopards: 20 --------------------- 90 kg
Pumas: 25 --------------------------------120 kg
There is a great variation between populations, and this caused that the old Taxonomists believed that there are several "subspecies" of these cats. Interesting as it is, genetic analysis, proved that although there is a little variations, ALL jaguar populations are of the same subspecies, which present an scenario of a single jaguar species in all America.
Finally, about lions, this is the graphic:
Southern lions: 81 ----------------------------------------------250 kg
Eastern lions: 90 ---------------------------------235 kg
West Africa: 80 -----------------------198 kg
Indian lions: 110 --------- 190 kg
Judge by yourselves. [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Largest Living wild lions ?
