ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)

[Shadow]

(10-24-2018, 06:01 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Like I said before, I think is futile to continue arguing about this weigtht, because is already accepted in the scientific books.

However, regarding the credibility of Dr Richard Kock, I think that there is no point on it as Mr Kock did not published anything directly. In fact, Nowell & Jackson (1996) quoted what was probably an unpublished paper that was certainly housed in Kenya, or maybe it was send to them by Kock, or something like that - it only says "R. Kock in litt. 1993". But none of the two sources shows that Kock published something regarding this figure, so his accuracy is not relevant here.

Now, regarding the emails and its content, in this case is the reliability of the posters, not Dr Kock, what is in the table. Are "Tigerlover", "Boldchamp" or "Waveriders" reliable? That is open to question, and will depend of the reader. I think, and is my personal idea based in the emails and the reported cases of cattle-eaters, that this lion do had some stomach content, small or not depends of apreciation (5 kg may be small for a lion, specially of that size) and was probably fat (for wild animal standards), but this is open to debate and depends of the emails, not directly of Dr Kock. Again, the aceptance of the emails depends of the reader and the two documents and the pink card do not mention anything about stomach content or anything like that.

If the lion had or not stomach content was very relevant in the old days of AVA forum, so relevant that even a little difference in the emails created huge discusions. What you think that is small, it wasn't in those days.

I think is safe to quote the weight as it is in Nowell & Jackson (1996), with the details from Peterhans & Gnoske (2001) and maybe we can add those from the pink card in the picture. Anything out of that is pure speculation.

I reply in a little bit different order. First that + - 5 kg. There I was talking about possible errors what can come in weighing "in field". Those weighings are made with different equipment and in difficult conditions and there can be many factors causing some inaccuracy. I keep pretty much every weight taken like that, approximate weights. And I don´t mind, it is hard work many times and a few kilos here or there isn´t so important, when we are talking about big animals. If we are too pedantic, next thing to argue is, that when one animal was shot, how much it bled before weighing, there we can argue easily about another 5-10 kilos depending if bullet cut artery and animal bled heavily before final breath :) Stomach content is again another case.

What comes to stomach content, I just said, that Kock seemed to keep it insignificant in this case and I didn´t see any dramatic contradiction in his emails. For him that lion can be quite minor issue and when replying for courtesy while doing something more important for him, answer can be quick and short. People can give two answers, which are basically same answer with just a little bit different words, because they have no idea, to what kind of discussion their emails are then attached. 

What other issues there have been in discussions about this lion, luckily I haven´t seen those heated up "debates" :) I know, that in many forums discussions are more or less excuse for some people to compete in how much they can curse, call names and try to insult others, topic isn´t important, important is to show lack of any manners and immaturity. In those conditions there is a big temptation to forget objectivity for anyone.

Anyway my point wasn´t to debate about this lion, for me it´s quite meaningless if it was 230 or 250 or 270 kg. Lions in captivity are much heavier, so we aren´t talking about some 8th wonder of the world, whatever that weight was, but about a big lion and all of those weights are in possible range for a lion to reach if it has enough prey to eat for some time period. More interesting topic for me would be, that in what weight a tiger or lion in wildlife starts to be too heavy to be able to hunt efficiently or is there such weight :)

About this topic my points were just weighing in field, was there any real contradiction in emails (I think not) and then credibility of Kock (, which I think is in decent level). He is also alive so if someone have doubts and is interested, he is most probably possible to contact and make questions. I have to admit, that I am not that interested, but if someone is. And speculation.... yes, there is almost every time room for that, sometimes it is reasonable, sometimes funny and sometimes frustrating. Depending quite a lot about arguments used to back up that speculation. Reply