Lions in Central and East Africa

[peter]

YOUR TABLES

In order to prevent a misunderstanding, I first want to say both tables are unique, very informative and much appreciated, Guate. They are a major contribution to the discussion about the general size of lions in Central and East Africa. This is the main thing to remember. 


DE ALMEIDA

If you read the tables, the conclusion is lions in this part of Africa average 179,5 kg. (males) and 128,1 kg. (females). The real averages, as you added at the bottom of both tables, are a bit lower (174 kg. for males and 121 kg. for females). In order to prevent problems, I propose to construct a table that has everything on size. This table could be an overview of averages and should be as reliable as possible. I would go for peer-reviewed publications first. We could add a table with information on lion size from hunters later.

The lower average for males (see above), as you wrote below your table, is a result of information on lion size in De Almeida's book. I read his book. Although I take his word, one would like to see a bit more than what he offered.


SUBSPECIES

As for Dubach's conclusion regarding lions in Central, East and South Africa. I do not doubt the conclusion he got to, but it is a fact there are significant differences between regional populations in Africa. We could consider these as a result of a cline or decide to dig a little deeper. 

Before we do, we have to consider the debate on tigers and subspecies as well. In the last 15 years, different biologists, based on good information, got to very different conclusions regarding tigers and subspecies. In spite of the quality of the information they offered, the questions on subspecies and taxonomy still haven't been answered. Could happen in lions and subspecies as well.


CLINES

We could say a lion is a lion anywhere. We could also decide to offer a cline for all questions regarding size differences in different regions. Although we would be right, we also have to remember concepts do not offer a lot of information. 

My take for now is to try to find out a bit more regarding local differences. If we find (unknown) factors behind a cline, chances are this concept will become more defined. Maybe a cline could work out differently in different regions. Maybe there is no real cline in some animals or some regions. Maybe humans are way more important than a cline.


PROPOSAL

Knowledge always is a result of good questions, hard work and details. In order to find answers, one could start at the top (deduction) or at the bottom (induction). I wouldn't know how to approach evolution, but I do think we, fossilwise, only saw the top of the iceberg. Genetics, in my opinion, also is just only starting. General ideas based on research in both fields, although interesting, are just that. We can't dismiss attempts to collect more information as superfluous, because we just don't know what we'll find below the surface.

I definitely like everything I read on evolution, clines and related and I also think lions are lions and humans are humans anywhere, but that doesn't mean I'll leave it at that. The more I know about the past, the better the chance I'll understand today and act, evolutionwise, in a responsible way. Not superfluous if we take what we see today into account. I mean, if we continue this way, the big cats won't be the first to disappear.

Maybe Kitchener is right regarding clines, but a cline doesn't do a lot for understanding and it also doesn't explain why exceptions seem to be the general rule. Same for the idea regarding uniformity often seen in many species. There's always a bit more to it and I propose to test what can be tested, especially in a forum like this one. Reply