The size of the Barbary lion

[GuateGojira]

 The size of the Cape lion:

Among the diferent subspecies/populations of lions, the Cape lion is one that is normally stated as one of the largest, togheter with the Barbary lion. However, is there real evidence of this, or is just a popular "myth" based in the large size of the mane of these lions?

Using the evidence available, I will make a description of the specimens in litterature and museums, and this will give us a better idea about the size of this lion population, that based in DNA is not extinct, but it is just the southern population of the still existing Kruger lion.

1 - Body size:
The first time that it was described like a different lion population and nominated as Leo melanochaitus was by Charles Hamilton Smith in 1842, check the original description:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Since the begining, he describes its bull dog head and great size, but as most of the old descriptions, the characteristics that he used are not exclusive from the lions of that area.

However, previous to that William Cornwalis Harris (1840) is the first in present body measurements of a male and a description of the subspecies:

*This image is copyright of its original author

For Mazák (1975), those measurements are somewhat reliable but the problem is that it is not clear if he used a real specimen, or just a collection of information of several ones. In that time Mazák do had the knowledge to distinguish the measurements "between pegs" and "over curves", but he did not clarify that in his statements (will discuss this latter) and focused in knowing if it was a "live" animal or a "dead" one. Even then, its body size is remarkable:
* Total length: 320 cm
* Tail length: 91.5 cm
* Shoulder height: 112 cm

Even then, we don't know if the measurments were taken "between pegs" or "over curves" or if they were "in the flesh" or "in the skin".

Gugguisberg (1961) presented a little collections of measurements:

*This image is copyright of its original author

He clearly described the fact that we can't be sure of the realibility of those measurements, but at the same time, we can't just ignore the posibility that some of them were correct. Take in count that some of them are from museum specimens that are stuffed.

Roberts (1951) present what he think is the only realiable measurement from a Cape lioness:

*This image is copyright of its original author

He also presented other measurements of other lions, but again, is not clear if those were taken "in the flesh" or "in the skin", specially beause at the time of the original records (between 1820 - 1830) there were no reliable methods to measure great cats, which make posible that those measurements were of skins.

Mazák (1975) made a great description of this particular subspecies, however I manage to get only a few fragments of the information, so here we go:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

By the way, here is the original document of William Patterson of 1789 about the lioness hunted by him and is the first lions measurement published of this subspecies/population. Interestingly he believe that it was "not very large", which again suggest that those measurements were taken "in the flesh along the curves" or "in the skin":

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, using all the information available in these books, we can see that only 3 specimens were obtained from the Cape region and there is no evidence if they were measured in the flesh or from skins and definitelly, based in the dates of the publications none of them was measured "between pegs" as that method started by the year 1890 more or less. The 3 specimens are:

Date     Sex       Total length     Tail length     Shoulder height
1789    Female   268 cm           91.5 cm       112 cm
1822    Male       335 cm                -                  -
1840    Male       320 cm           91.5 cm       112 cm

As we can see, the measurements seems repetitive and based in the fact that the lions in those dates were measured in the skin, based in the reports of Frederick Selous in his book "A hunter's wanderings in Africa"of 1881 (first edition), we can conclude that those measurements are not reliable. Interentingly Mazák (1975) quotes other records from other areas and I can also mention others:

South Africa - Stevenson-Hamilton: 300 cm total length (94 cm tail).                                        
                    - Vaughan Kirby: 307 cm total length (89 cm tail) - height of 112 cm.

Zimbabwe - F. Selous: 302 cm total length - height of 112 cm.
"East Africa" - S. Downey: 292 cm total length.
                    - Gibbons: 300 cm total length (91.5 cm tail) - height of 109 cm.
Kenya - Hollister: 298 cm total length (103 cm tail).
          - Roosevelt & Heller: 297 cm total length (102 cm tail).


All these record lions were measured "between pegs" and from a total sample of about 400 male lions of East and Southern Africa. Just two measured around 10 ft (305 cm) long and only one aproached the 220 cm in head body (Vaughan Kirby, 1899 - South Africa), the next one been of 208 cm (Gibbons, 1898 - East Africa). So it is practically imposible that those measurements from the years 1780 - 1840 from the Cape lions were real. Like a side note, the tallest lioness from East Africa was of 102 cm (n=16) while the tallest female from Southern Africa was of 99 cm (n=25).

The only weight recorded for this population is the famous lion hunted in the Orange Free State in 1865 that weighed 583 lb (264 kg) which for Mazák is the heaviest lion reliably recorded. I have not found the original source but all the other books that quote this figure do not say if the animal was empty belly or not. Apart from this, there is no other weight in litterature available.

Mazák in his document "Preliminary List of the Specimens of Panthera leo melanochaitus Ch. H. Smith, 1842, Preserved in the Museumsof the Whole World in 1963" of 1963 (attached file) shows a list of measurements of several stuffed specimens at museums taken "over the curves". Interestingly none of them, except for a female, match the 3 sizes recorded by the years 1780 - 1840.

2 - Skull size:

In 1960, Mazák published other document about the same lion subspecies and presented a description of the characteristics that he belived were specifically of this population and presented skull measurements. @peter presented that document here and he can put it again. Interestingly Mazák made 3 documents about this lion population, showing a particular interest on them.

J. H. Mazák used only two skulls from the Cape region, both male, and only one present length measurements. This is not surprise as in the main document about Cape lions from Vratislav Mazák "Notes on the Black-maned Lion of the Cape, Panthera Leo Melanochaita (Ch. H. Smith, 1842) and a Revised List of the Preserved Specimens" from 1975 he presented a descripton of those two skulls but the interesting thing is that the big incomplete skull is the largest skull from a wild specimen that he ever measured, check this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Based on this, Mazák estimated that the large skull B.M.18.5.23.2 had a condylobasal length of near 355 mm. This is impresive as for a list of 9 males measured by him the largest skull had a condylobasal length of 350.5 mm (GL of 396 mm). Roberts (1951) present a big list of skulls and from a sample of 22 males from Southern Africa the longest skull had a condylobasal length of 348 mm (GL of 395 mm) and from 20 males from East Africa the largest male had a condylobasal length of 335 mm (GL of 375 mm). Important to notice the the longest skull from Southern Africa with 401 mm had a condylobasal lenght of 345 mm, while the longest skull of 380 mm for East Africa do not have condylobasal length (Allen, 1942), which suggest that probably the figure of 335 mm is not the maximum and based in the other 4 skulls from the same region, the condylobasal length of that large skull could be close to 340 mm. This skull is the only evidence that may suggest that the lions of the Cape region were somewhat longer than those of other areas and at diference of the large c.410 mm skull from the Barbary lion, the specimen B.M.18.5.23.2 of the Cape lion is a wild specimen and not a captive one.

I don't know if Mazák (1975) presented more body measurements or skull measurements, but based in other documesnt it seems that what I found is all. About other skull measurements, I could get this list:

Males:                          
Greatest lenght           330.8     338     358.1
Condylobasal length   319.1     287     325.5     c.355
Source                          1.          2.         3.            4.  

Females:
Greatest lenght            307       308      301    
Condylobasal length    291         -         281
Source                          5.          2.         5.

Sources: 1. Christiansen, 2007; 2. Mazák & Husson, 1960; 3. J. H. Mazák, 2010; 4. Mazák, 1975; 5. Meester, 1971.

Based in the other 3 male lions skulls, the big specimen B.M.18.5.23.2 could have a greatest skull length of  392 mm (range 367 - 418 mm), but this is just speculation as the variation is too great between the specimens.

Now let's compare these figures with the big sample of Roberts (1951) that compile a big list of skulls from Southern and East Africa:

*This image is copyright of its original author

It seems that all, except for the big specimen B.M.18.5.23.2 match the other lion skulls from the other regions. This suggest that the Cape lion was not particularly big, but match the biggest lions from South Africa. This is not surprise as we stablished very well, based in several weights, that lions in Southern Africa are the biggest of the species.

We can remember that the biggest condylobasal length from a lion, measured by Mazák, was of 377 mm, but that came from a captive lion with such a deformed skull that almoust looked like a horse.

3 - Conclusion:
Based on this evidence, there is little information to support the claim that the Cape lion was in fact a particularly large population of lions in size terms, with only 3 specimens measured "in the skin" and only one weight. In the skull department they are of the same size of the largest lions of South Africa, with a posibility that at least one was larger than the others recorded.

Interestingly there are South African lions that have the same characteristics of the Cape lions, for example this male nicknamed "Hairy Belly":

*This image is copyright of its original author

It match the especifications of Mazák and based on evidence the Cape lions were just the southern population of the existing lions of South Africa. Check this picture from skulls (probably not in the Mazák's sample), the smaller is from the Cape:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Check also this picture from @peter:

*This image is copyright of its original author

It seems that with a larger sample, we could conclude that the "special characteristics" that diferentiated the Cape lions were just random characteristics of the specific specimens studied. Similar results were get by J. H. Mazák (2010) with his study on tiger skulls.

Hope this helps to know that, like the Barbary lion, there is no evidence to suggest that the Cape lions were giants, but contrary to the north manned, the Cape probably did reached the huge sizes of the present South African lions.

Greetings to all. Reply

Attached Files

  Cape lion specimens-stuffed_Mazák-1963.pdf (Size: 1.1 MB / Downloads: 4)