Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[peter]

ALL

The lion mods asked me to do a bit of reading, as they think a storm could be building. I read a few pages and didn't see any problems, but I did notice no 'likes' were given. Unusual for the lion section and meaning the heat is on. Here's a few things to consider when size is discussed. 

ABOUT FACTS AND OPINIONS

There's very reliable information about the size of wild male Kruger lions. A few decades ago, they averaged 187,5 kg (just over 413 pounds) on an empty stomach and, at 380 mm (just shy of 15 inches), topped the list in the department of greatest total skull length. Meaning we're talking about a very large big cat. 

I've measured a few captive male lions in a Dutch facility and saw a lot more in different zoos and facilities. Based on what I heard when I measured 3 adult male lions in a facility, my guess is most people do not really appreciate the size of an adult male lion of, say, 400-420 pounds (181,44-190,15 kg) and 8.8-9.0 (264,16-274,32 cm) in total length measured 'between pegs'. A pity, as they're impressive by any standard.  

In the tiger extinction thread, I posted a number of tables about the size of wild tigers shot a century ago in what used to be British India. Going over them, one could conclude large individuals are about 10% heavier than average. In a very large male, the difference can be as much as 20%. If this rule is applied to Kruger lions, it means large and very large males range between 200-225 kg (442-497 pounds). Exceptional males, still on an empty stomach, exceed that mark (225 kg). 

The tables I referred to (above) suggest a gorged wild male Indian tiger is 55-65 pounds heavier than an empty male of similar dimensions. Applying this information to wild male Kruger lions, the result is 555-565 pounds for a gorged large male. Some individuals no doubt reach 600 pounds (272,16 kg), but males of that size are exceptional.   

Captive male African lions seem to be as large as their wild relatives, if not a bit larger. There's reliable information about males exceeding 260 kg (575 pounds) and I saw one from Timbavati in a Dutch zoo slightly exceeding that mark. The vet who introduced me to him was experienced. He said the white male, also as a result of his size, hadn't come cheap and added some private reserves (in South Africa in particular) were quite involved in selection. The reason is both hunters and zoos like 'm big. Breeding (semi-wild) large lions in private reserves, whether you agree or not, is a business. What PC said about semi-wild lions, therefore, isn't a result of preference. 

Talking about PC. He isn't, as some suggested, a 'tiger fan' trying to downgrade lions. He's also involved in discussions about the (alleged) size of wild Amur tigers (see below). It seems he prefers peer-reviewed documents over anything else. A result of his background or training? Maybe, but my guess is it could be a result of something else. He's one of the few members of Wildfact who actually saw wild jaguars, lions and tigers in their natural habitat and knows a male lion or tiger exceeding 500 pounds (226,80 kg) is quite something. 

As to the member who posted the skulls of two large male Kruger lions. I've talked to vets involved in the procedure (referring to Rowland Ward). Skulls of wild male Kruger lions, at 380 mm, top the list. I don't doubt some skulls reach 16-16,5 inches (406,4-419,1 mm) or even a bit more, but a zygomatic width of 12 inches for a wild male lion is something else. I've measured skulls of wild male lions approaching or exceeding 16 inches in greatest total length and noticed time and again that even a width of 10,5 inches is rare. Skulls of wild male big cats often are a bit longer than those of their captive relatives, but they're also narrower. Meaning I have a few doubts about a skull of a wild male lion exceeding 11 inches, let alone 12. Records and all that, you know.  

Here's a picture of a wild male lion (Namibia) next to a male biologist (...). Although big in every way, the lion, in excellent condition, was 203 kg (448 pounds):

*This image is copyright of its original author

TO CONCLUDE

When discussing the size of big cats in general, our advice is to distinguish between peer-reviewed documents and other information. In peer-reviewed documents, you'll find info about the aim of the project, the people involved, the methods used, the individuals selected and a lot more. I'm referring to all factors needed to produce a document that meets the threshold in all respects.  

I'm not saying most of the info posted in this thread is unreliable, but one has to remember selection isn't going to produce a reliable result at the level of averages. Also remember there are different ways to measure a big cat. Here's an example of the impact of selection. 

In 2005, a table about the size of wild male Amur tigers measured and weighed in the period 1992-2004 was published. All animals are from one reserve and they were caught with Aldrich footnares. Not a few males tried to escape these footsnares. Two succeeded when researchers and rangers approached. The result was two injured researchers. At least one male tiger later perished as a result of the injuries he sustained when he tried to escape. According to a document about the impact of these footsnares that was published on a Russian forum in 2012, more males were affected.  

Anyhow. The males captured and weighed averaged 176,4 kg (389 pounds). A good representation on an average adult wild male Amur tiger? There are some doubts. The sample is limited (a); young adults are included (b), and all tigers are from one reserve only ©. One of the young males, as a result of his condition, had to be euthanized. In spite of that, he's in the table.  

The average of 176,4 kg stood for some time. In the years that followed, more males were captured. Most of them exceeded 389 pounds. Less than two decades later, information about 3 male tigers recently captured in a new reserve in northeastern China was discussed on a Chinese platform. Reliable information? Well, one of those involved is a well-known biologist.  

So what is the weight of an average adult wild male Amur tiger? The answer is we don't know, but they range between 140-270 kg (310-597 pounds). This is without young adults. The 140 kg male was very old (about 15 years of age).     

Are there differences between wild male Amur tigers, wild male Indian tigers and wild male lions in southwestern Africa at the level of averages? According to Guate, who keeps track of the weight situation, there isn't much to choose between them. Tigers in India and Russia seem to be a bit larger, but in the skull department it's the other way round.    

This, of course, is difficult to accept for some. The result was a barrage of records of giant lions and tigers in different threads. I'm not saying all are unreliable, but our advice is to wait for a peer-reviewed document before getting to a conclusion. That can take a while. The reason is biologists are not too interested in size. Their goal is conservation of big cats walking the edge.   

You still want to discuss giant lions and tigers? Do what you have to do, but remember it takes skill to debate. More often than not, you will have to accept to agree to disagree. If you can't, the advice is to stay away from debates. 

Remember you (referring to all members of Wildfact interested in wild lions) created a very interesting section. In our opinion, the lion section of Wildfact is one of the best. We don't want to see it ruined because of fruitless 'debates' about size. Debate all you want, but remember it always is about respect in the end. Also remember the mods will act when problems erupt. Reply