Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[peter]

LIONESS

Interesting site and info. Many thanks. I knew Kalahari and Etosha lions were large, but I was surprised at the Namibian averages. 

This post has a few tables with measurements of wild lions and wild tigers. They can be compared, as both (lions and tigers) were measured in the same way ('over curves'). I'll start with Namibian lions.   

A - LENGTH, BODY DIMENSIONS, UPPER CANINE LENGTH AND WEIGHT OF 6 MALE AND 5 FEMALE LIONS IN NORTHERN NAMIBIA

*This image is copyright of its original author

B - EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS
 
Two individuals deserve special attention. The first is ♂ 10, known as 'Leo'. This young adult has a shoulder height of 145 cm. (...), a head and body length of 247 cm. (...) and a total length of 335 cm. (11 feet exactly). Exceptional, as he still has a bit of growing to do.

Lioness 'Spots' is even more exceptional, as she is 317 cm. in total length. I never heard of a female cat exceeding 10 feet in total length measured 'over curves'. The average of the Namibian females (just over 9 feet in total length measured 'over curves') is even more impressive than that of the males. A pity only 5 females were measured.     

C - ON THE METHOD USED TO MEASURE A BIG CAT

A big cat, just like a human, should be measured 'between pegs' (in a straight line). For some reason, this method seems to be out of date. Most biologists now measure wild big cats 'over curves'. This method can be applied in different ways, resulting in confusion. For this reason, it was severely discussed in the thread 'On The Edge Of Extinction - A - The Tiger' about a year ago. 

Poster 'WaveRiders' in particular had severe doubts about the way this method was applied in Nepal a century ago. The tables I posted had a number of male tigers ranging between 10.6 - 10.9 in total length 'over curves'. One wonders about his opinion on the 11 feet Namibian lion. Anyhow.

D - ETOSHA LIONS COMPARED TO COOCH BEHAR AND NEPAL TIGERS

The 6 Namibian males averaged 297,4 cm. in total length 'over curves', or just over 9.9. One inch longer than the famous Cooch Behar tigers shot in northeastern India more than a century ago (males measured in the same way), that is. In chest girth, the Namibians also slightly exceeded the Cooch Behar tigers. Same for weight (484 vs. 461 pounds). 

As to the effect of sample size. The 3 male lions in the table averaged 219 kg. (484 pounds). They were 23 pounds heavier than the Cooch Behar tigers, that is. Apart from these 3 weights, I found 6 more. As some had been weighed more than once, I used the average of all attemps. These 6 males (203, 208, 180, 210, 185,71 and 177,33 kg.) averaged exactly 194 kg. If we add the 3 males in the table, the average for all (9 males) is 202,34 kg. (just over 446 pounds), as opposed to 461 for the Cooch Behar male tigers. 

I don't know if all Namibians were baited, but chances are that quite many were. There is a conflict between ranchers and lions in northern Namibia. It was one of the reasons the project was started. Of the 53 Cooch Behar tigers weighed, 7 were loaded with beef. All in all, I'd say that the Cooch Behar sample is more reliable in this respect.

It's more difficult to compare the 6 Namibians to the 66 Nepal tigers shot before World War Two. The reason is that the Nepal tigers, apart from one exceptional male of 10.9 and 705 pounds, were not weighed. All I can say is that the Nepal males were a few inches longer.

Here's a table with measurements and weights of 131 male Indian tigers and 66 male Nepal tigers shot in the period 1869-1939 for comparison: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

E - PERSPECTIVE

e1 - Males

Based on what I have, I'd say that the Namibians top the list for length (in lions). I also think they're taller than anywhere else. I'm not that sure about weight, as we need to know a bit more about the Crater. If Packer says Crater lions are big, they're big. The problem we don't know how big.

As to exceptional individuals in lions. It's well-known that very large individuals can be found nearly anywhere. The longest skull I measured (408,00 mm. in greatest total length) was from a lion captured in what's now Ethiopia. I have one record of a male lion of 10.2 in total length measured 'between pegs'. The second longest is 9.10.

The longest measured in Namibia is 11 feet in total length measured 'over curves' (...). If we deduct 6-7 inches, he would be 10.5-10.6 in total length 'between pegs'. This means he compares to the giant tiger shot by Hasinger in northern India in the late sixties of the last century. This tiger was 11.1 in total length 'over curves' and 10.7 'between pegs'. The giant male in South Africa Stephenson Hamilton was after ('Tshokwane') a century ago could have compared, but that's just speculation.

Looking at the averages, the conclusion for now is that Nepal male tigers top the list for total length 'over curves'. I think they also top the list for weight. Northern India (including Bhutan) could be second. In the table above, 33 males shot in northern India averaged 298,18 cm. in total length. In weight (444,46 pounds), they compared to the Namibian lions (446 pounds), but my take is the Indians were heavier. The reason is that many large males were not weighed (see the liner notes in the table above). Cooch Behar male tigers more or less compare to Namibian male lions, but the Cooch Behar sample is more reliable. For now, I'd say that the Namibians are fourth, just ahead of the Amur tigers, but we have to add that the Amur sample, which included 3-year old males and a few 'problem tigers', is a bit feable as well.

Based on the averages we have, I'd say that wild male tigers of large subspecies seem a bit longer than the longest lions (2-4 inches). In the department of exceptional individuals, however, the difference seems to be very limited. The main difference is that male tigers reach, say, ten feet 'over curves' more often than male lions. Remarkable, considering the total number of tigers and lions. 

In weight, the difference seems to be more outspoken. If we ignore the exceptional Amur tigers well exceeding 700 pounds shot in the 19th century (not accepted by authorities), the 10.9 and 705-pound Nepal tiger tops the list for now. The heaviest wild male lion is the Kenian lion shot and weighed by De Kock. This exceptional male was about 600 pounds and also had a very large and robust skull.  

e2 - Females

The average of the 5 Namibian females is exceptional in all departments. Here's a table with averages of Indian and Nepal tigresses for comparison:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Not Nepal or Indian tigresses, but wild Amur tigresses, at 274 cm. in total length measured 'over curves', top the table for tigresses. The Namibian lionesses, at 274,6 cm., are a trifle longer than Amur tigresses. The weight table is topped by Cooch Behar tigresses (310 pounds). Although shorter, they were, and still are, more robust than tigresses from other regions. Compared to the 5 Namibian lionesses (320 pounds), however, they lack 10 pounds. 

We can compare both tables to a degree, but there are two problems.

One is sample size. One can't compare the average of a small sample with the average of a large sample. The reason is the considerable amount of individual variation in big cats. A large sample, even in a region known for large individuals, has large and small animals. The effects of small or large individuals will disappear if the sample is large enough. If the sample is small and has a giant or a dwarf, these exceptions will have a considerable effect on the average. Have another look at the lion table above. Male no. 5, an adult, is much smaller than the others. Without him, the average length of the 5 others is not 297,4 cm., but 307,7 cm., a difference of 4 inches.   

Another problem is that (most of) the Cooch Behar tigresses (we returned to females) hunted wild animals, whereas the Namibian lionesses, forced by conditions, thrive on cattle. Although some think that the effect of this way of life is limited, it most certainly isn't. Bears and big cats living on lots of protein all year every year not only are much heavier than their relatives going for berries (bears) or small prey animals (tigers), but also larger and I mean larger.

Quality isn't the only factor affecting size. The amount of food also has an effect. Humans today eat a lot of crap, but they eat lots of it. The days of starvation are all but over, that is. The result is that humans are bigger, and larger, than a century ago. Same for other mammals, like big cats.

Africa and India have long been a paradise for animals. Tigers of large subspecies were and are a bit longer and heavier than lions also living in food hotspots. The reason is that tigers don't have to share. If you live in a food hotspot and don't have to share, chances are the averages will be a bit more impressive in the long run. Today, most Indian tigers live in small, but well-stocked, reserves. As a result, they thrive. If we add competition, chances are only the fittest will survive. There are no good samples, but I'm quite sure that Indian tigers today are a bit bigger, and larger, than a century ago. In some regions, the average of territorial adult males most probably is very close to, or even over, 500 pounds. 

For indirect proof regarding the effect of food, we need to visit Russia and Manchuria. A century and a half ago, this region was thinly populated, densely forested and well-stocked. The result was large tigers. In the 20th century, hunters discovered this new paradise. It didn't take them very long to finish it. After World War Two, there were 50 tigers left, meaby even less. As a result of protection, they made it to today, but the effect of habitat destruction, overshooting and a population bottleneck still is well visible. The Russian Far East no longer has many large herbivores. Tigers, for this reason, need enormous territories to make ends meet. The conditions are so difficult, that timber wolves, often faced with energy deficits, decided to call it a day. A century ago, very large packs were not uncommon in the Russian Far East. One of the reasons that hunters in the Russian Far East are willing to tolerate tigers today is that tigers limit the number of wolves. The days of very large tigers in the Russian Far East, however, are over. Not a result of genes (captive Amur tigers still are the largest big cats), but of conditions. Captive Amur tigers can get to their potential, whereas their wild relatives can not. Same for bears and big cats living in conditions were protein is no problem and hunters are not allowed. 

Lions living in northern Namibia thrive on cattle. The result is quite many large animals and impressive averages. Most of the animals weighed were baited, but they were big, and large, before they were baited for the reason stated.        

Sexual dimorphism in lions seems to be less outspoken than in tigers. The table above shows quite a bit of overlap between males and females. Lioness 'Muna' had the longest head (54 cm.) by a margin. In skull circumference (88 cm.), she also topped the average for males (83 cm.). Lioness 'Spots', at 317 cm. in total length, is the the longest female cat I know of. The average chest girth of the 5 lionesses would have been over 125 cm. if the immature lioness (no. 8) would have been removed from the table. This means that they would have averaged well over 150 kg. (351 pounds). 

The main differences between males and females were neck length (20,24%) and leg length (15%). In total length, the difference was well below 10%.   

F - TO CONCLUDE

It could be that some have a few doubts on the averages of the Namibians. I know the sample is small. I also know that most thrive on cattle. Their neighbours, however, also are large. Etosha lions are known for their size. Same for the Kalahari lions. One Kalahari male, although loaded, was 260 kg. 

What is large? Large is long, tall and robust (over 400 pounds). Compared to a human, a 203 kg. (448 pounds) male lion is a giant: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply