There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
02-22-2022, 01:42 AM( This post was last modified: 02-22-2022, 01:45 AM by SpinoRex )
(02-21-2022, 08:23 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-20-2022, 11:04 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: I dont think thats the right argument tbh. But anyways as i said its about the same
It is not the same. Old bones lost condition with time, this is showed in all the cases of skulls that when dried and now they weight less with time. Some bones may even shrink or turn to dust if they were not correctly prepared (boiled) and sadly, that is a common factor.
So Khan85 is right, bones may weigh or measure less than they original mass with time, if not correctly prepared. This detail is important in comparison, together with the status of the animal, the age, sex, subspecies/population, origin (wild or captive), health status, and other things that I may forget now.
All i know is that the lion sexes were mixed and subspecies unknown (asiatic or african) and had a humerus length of c.312mm and the Bengal Tigers also (c.314 mm). The heaviest tiger humerus was still in the average range for lions. What i noticed that tigers had constantly heavier left sided bones although the right bones were longer.
Yes you are right. Those studies have most of the time not detailed infos but arent useless. Anyways the difference are basically no differences. I dont know how major those differences are....
02-22-2022, 02:37 AM( This post was last modified: 02-22-2022, 02:38 AM by SpinoRex )
(02-21-2022, 08:18 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-20-2022, 10:43 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: You took it too offensive regardless of the infos in your replies. I dont hate you and saw many great tables from your side but you get too much aggressive/offensive in these type of disagreements. Many things i mentioned are clear-cut basic things and not excuses(dont understand what excuses). I will not mention tigers next to lions as a comparison because the different lion population, subspecies do it even better when we want to show how unreliable weights are to determine the size of a species. (Or size potential)
Quote:I have no idea why you bring the bone structure. There is no clear information about bone weights on lions and tigers. The FEW information available in many cases do not separete males from females, even worst, there is no information about the subspecies, origin (captive or wild) and many other details. So if you are trying to use bones as a excuse to invalidate the weights it will be futile. Remember that I offer you to use skulls (which we can know the origiin and subspecies) but you ignore it. So I see a double standard here. Unless that you can know the origin, sex, physical details and subspecies of the bones, any analisys will be useless.
The question from your side was the bone structure right? A weight difference (except for individualism) between lions with similar skeleton size can be only explained by the bone structure (Robustness). Im involved in bodybuilding and thus i know exactly how weight is influenced. You can calculate the lean mass of a human by taking into account the bone structure and thus you will get the lean bodymass potential. Compare a human of a same height with a ankle of 22 cm and 19 cm wrist to a human with a 20cm ankle and 17 cm wrist. In terms of individualism thats not a wonder but if you get that for a whole population thats indeed a really significant difference in bone structure, which would be noticable directly in a depth study for bones (such as for lions and tigers). And you can guess even then the weight difference is 5% (85.5 kg , 90 kg for both humans). Though again you can doubt the data. But the datas in terms of bone robusticity are there and they arent small in samples. The datas i mentioned for bone weights came from bengal tigers and lions with both having identical bone lengths. The factors you mentioned are more present for lions so thats not a good argument to ignore the datas. Especially when most bones are from bengal tigers.
I didnt ignore the skulls but what you want to proof with the skulls exactly? The lion populations have identical skeleton sizes. Kruger lions have different skulls but arent larger overall (skeleton).
Quote:Lion DO consume the same amount as tigers. Food intake is the same, specially in male lions. I have no idea why you are ignoring the REAL data from ACTUAL food consumption from the sources that I provided. You are saying that is not valid because it do not show the average intake, but you should know that the average intake of the largest populations, in females for example, is the same, 14 kg for Nepal and 14 from Etosha. Certainly males eat more, and that is a known fact, they gorge themselves in every oportunity. So, you think that a male lion is going to eat 9 kg and will stop to allow his females to eat? Male lions will eat as much as they can and they don't care for other pride members, that is the true, and that is what you can see in the reports of Schaller, Packer, Smuts, Bertram, etc. I can put the information of each one of them if you want.
You can't compare the food intake of Nepalese tigers with those of Kruger based in that single document. Nepal tigers intake is real data, those from Kruger are CALCULATIONS. Seriously, you should drop that paper and actually read the people that worked with lions in the wild and read how lions eat, how often they hunt, and the size of the prey that they take.
Again, anyone here, or in comparative papers, can tell you that Africa is a heaven compare with India, prey base is huge in comparison. Tigers will be lucky of they got a group of chital deers of 60 kg, while lions had entire groups of wildebest, zebras, antelopes, buffaloes (all of them over 200 kg) and all in relatively good densities. If you want to deny this FACT, then there is no point in continue the conversation.
I would like to see the evidences that they have the same food intake. Calculations aside are better than mere estimations and it wont change ANYTHING that the NT males consumed more *when* they killed a prey. A tiger when terretorial lives thus in much better conditions than a single lion (no matter terretory or not). Of course from your side it was even more worse to come up with single meal datas, which have no valuable information. About the etosha females you are certainly incorrect although i would say the food intake isnt significantly different as the ones in etosha weighed 141 kg and those nepal tigresses 139 kg.
You are considering the TOP group of lionesses and not the average. This data comes from the book written by Mel, Fiona sunquist on page 292. And in a more detailed study the food intake overall was 10 kg and not 14 kg. Also again look at the different food intakes. This document is interesting as well (about etosha female lions)
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unlike in India.... Africa is a place with much more action, and has more factors. As well as more dangerous enemies and rivalities and generally the stress accuring there(Deseases as well). A small research in depth should clarify that easily, especially the paper from Dewalt Keet regarding the southern Kruger lions as well. You can see how the females differed in weight as well as the males.... and the lionesses were as heavy as the asiatic lionesses, which again shows its nearly all about conditioning. I have a question to you. Do you think those lions from Serengeti are lighter than the ones from Kruger at similar conditions? If Africa is a heaven according to you then tigers even in the present of lions should be heavier in africa than they are in india. That doesnt make any sense and that also because you came with 1 factor.
The lions were heavier and such overlaps can not happen if a species has truly the better bone structure. I never denied the difference in blood. I am mentioning the differences in there bone structure. That means if you take any bone of a african lion and compare it to a asiatic lion i doubt there will be a difference in robusticity let alone a significant one i mentioned before. I have every right to claim this because of numerous studies and the weights i was able to analyze.
Quote:Tigers not only have an stroger structure, but they need to, they hunt alone and in some cases they hunt prey that lions do in groups. That is why tigers need bigger body masses and muscular mass too. They don't have the support of a pride at all. It is curious, you are saying that females have the same dimentions as males? Are you talking serious? Do you know that sexual dimosphism in lions and tigers is among the highest in cats?
And what is the point in put genetic again? I alredy explained to you. If you are going to compare lions from different subspecies there IS a difference in genetic and development of thousand of years. And if you are going to compare two different species that are separated from 2, maybe 3 millions years, then is OBVIOUS that genetic should be included in the equation. Dude, are you reading with I am writing?
There is no clearcut evidence in nothing that you have presented. Even other posters here already showed to you the flaws in the ONLY study that you presented in this discussion. You can't compare a calculated average intake with a real food intake. Check also the ocurrence of kills and how often they hunt. There is no comparison between a tigers that kill once every 8 days with a food intake of 14 kg and a lioness that hunt every 3 days and an intake of 7 kg, and leave out the lioness like those from Etosha that had an average intake of 14 kg too. Who do you think that eat more?
Again on what this idea is based? Its based on nothing and actually its even proven to be wrong. Lions hunt large animals and the fact that they do it in a group doesnt mean they have to evolve weaker when a male lion has to hunt ALONE when being Nonterretorial or living as a nomadic lion with a terretory or searching for it (with some other males most of the time). Yes they hunt sometimes animals lion hunt in groups. So nomadic male lions do it as well (kalamas for example, he killed bulls alone). You should read what i wrote. I meant that the dimensional size in females and males is the same when we talk about the differences. I didnt say they have the same dimensional size.
Why do lions hunt more often than tigers? Because they are a pride and therefore a buffalo may look in less than 12 hours like a skeleton.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I cant find the study anymore. But in South Africa there were on average also 40-50 per lion (LFU). Around 250 kills per year with c.7 lions.... seems low but as some arent adults the LFU was used. Thats the result of a pride that was studied.
Quote:Again, read all the other documents and drop that single paper that is showing you that information. We also have here documents that calculate that the food intake of male Amur tigers is about 4 kg, but no one use it as the same author explain that that type of calculations are not reliable, maybe the author of your single paper should have done that too.
I would like to see the datas and that wouldnt wonder me as amur tigers live in some places under horrible conditions. I think they get their basic diet (talking about the healthy ones) but not more than that actually (depends in some areas but generally speaking)
First, I am not angry or anything like that, that is just the form I wrote. So, no offense.
Second, as you continue with the bone issue, I will like to see those bones, especifically where it says that those are "Bengal", I mean, clearly saying that came from wild male and females specimens from India/Nepal/Buthan region. Rememer that if only says Bengal and came from captivity, those maybe not pure bread and even from Indochina and Malaysia (remember that before 1970 all tigers from Indochina and Malaysia were clasified as "Bengal" too). So, I want to see those bones first, I will like to see the study, because the ones that are normally used are from unidentified specimens, with no location, and samples are not even as big as you want to make it show.
I see your point in the comparison with humans, but your point is invalid if you can't provide a sample on wild lions and tigers and that is simple unavailable at this point. However, tigers (Bengal ones) had bigger girths (chest, wrist, arms, etc) than lions, so based in your assumption, that means that tigers are bigger also in body robusticity. And we do have girths data to prove this point. And about the skulls, thay are not quite the same, there are variations, even between populations. So if you want to use bones, you must include skulls in your analysis.
Again, like I said, lion intake is the same, but the page of Dr Sunquist book only shows the extreams in females populations. Check that what we can see is that there are variations int he food intake on lionesses, with depends of the season. Also, we should see the original source and see how often they hunt, that is CRITICAL as I told you before, is not the same a tigerss that kill one prey every 8 days and eat about 14 kg in three days, than a lioness that kill every 3-4 days with the same intake, even with an intake as low as 6 kg, still the lioness is eating about the same in a daily baisis if we take the total amount intaked and divided it in the 7 days of the week. That is my point, all those numbers are relative to how often they kill, how many pride animals are present and the huge factor, if the male lion is there. After all, even when the females eat 6 - 14 kg depending of the season and place, you can be 100% sure that the male lion will eat the entire kill alone (if small) or eat until gorge (if large) and then will live space to females. None of the studies quoted by Sunquist in his book (that you show here) focus in males.
Please remember that the weight of 131 kg of tigress from Nepal is already adjusted while the figure of 141 kg for lionesses is not. Unadjusted, the weight of tigresses is of 145 kg.
About your question: Do you think those lions from Serengeti are lighter than the ones from Kruger at similar conditions? If Africa is a heaven according to you then tigers even in the present of lions should be heavier in africa than they are in india. That doesnt make any sense and that also because you came with 1 factor.
Certainly lions in the Serengeti are the SAME subspecies as lions in Kruger, so they genetic is the same and will weight the same in similiar conditions. Check the lions from Crater are big and compared with the biggest lions from Southern Africa (Etosha for example). Tigers are not adapted to live in Africa, they do not have the morphological characteristics for that. You are talking about two species separeted by 2-3 million years ago so your attempt to compare tigers in Africa do not make sense at all. Other people already tried to do it, but is not even fair, is like to try to put lions in Ussuri, do you think that they will survive in that harsh climate, with such a low prey base and specially with the grupal stile of lions? Honestly your assumption is ilogical and do not prove anything. Any animal that is fully adapted to its enviroment like great cats will fail if is introduced in a harsh form. African lions failed in India even when the Indian lions trive in similar habitat. Coincidence? Obviously not.
About this: That means if you take any bone of a african lion and compare it to a asiatic lion i doubt there will be a difference in robusticity let alone a significant one i mentioned before. I have every right to claim this because of numerous studies and the weights i was able to analyze.
Did you have bones from Indian lions to compare with those from Africa? If not, lest use skulls and you will see the difference, not only in size but also in anatomy and morphology. Sorry, but those "numerous" studies are not about lions or cats over all, don't they?
And finally, you acepted the fact that lions hunt more often, and also you acept that is because they live in prides, this is exactly what I told you before. So now you only need to acept the fact that they eat the same or even more than a lone tiger because they eat more often, and thanks that they have a bigger prey base, they can do it much better than a tiger. Actually this is what Dr Sunquist theorized in 1981, that tigers do not live in groups because is uneconomical (few prey and small size) in comparison with lions (more prey and bigger size). Even when in Africa there is more competition (in the deceases is the same in any part of the world, so no big factor), this is covered by the pride size to protect they prey.
About this too: I cant find the study anymore. But in South Africa there were on average also 40-50 per lion (LFU). Around 250 kills per year with c.7 lions.... seems low but as some arent adults the LFU was used. Thats the result of a pride that was studied.
What pride, how many "real" lions per kill, which season, which area, what subspecies/population?? Details.
Amur tigers probably eat the same as any large tiger, it do not make sence that they will eat less. The factor here is the prey density, how often they need to kill and how much they eat in that timeframe. Prey in the cold last a little longer than in hot climates. Tigers in Nepal and Nagarahole rarely stay more than 3 days in a kill, independently of the size. I will search the paper for you.
Though i took it then falsely as a offensive reply... m
I think it will be a useless discussion without clear-cut datas (i dont think they will ever exist if i am being honest). About the african lions i do not know that they are called as the same subspecies now (previously southern ones were seperated). And they have also different skull sizes but as i said i dont think that makes a difference. I understand your skull point. But thats not enough and what i am talking about is the bone robusticity and even then with a noticable difference (the human example) the difference at least at similar conditions shouldnt be 50 kg.
I found the studies finally...
Yes lions hunt more often. I mean how 50 preys are enough for a pride? But as i said i found more datas but those are from small reserves and not from Kruger. But still from SA. https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ll_reserve
This study estimated the food intake for adult males via calculation at 4.1-4.6 kg for lionesses, 6.5 kg for male lion and for subadults overall 3.2 kg and has generally valuable infos. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC117162
The nepal tigresses weighed 140 kg. But they werent adjusted from what i know looking at the tables (the males werent adjusted). I dont have the paper but remember it like that.
So i dont know how tiger would do in africa but physically i dont think it would be a big problem. They are fast and strong big cats like lions but of course the conditions are different and therefore confrontet with a different lifestyle. But that comparison wasnt the main point and isnt good enough.
I personally dont think any population is challenging the crater lions in terms of size. Those of delta lion might be not far away but the bulkiness of those lions are unrivaled. Even those from the Ngorongoro CA are big but not near to the Crater area. The fact that even lions like kalamas were lucky to enter the crater sometimes shows how strong the males are there. In the dry seasons the lions seem to be slightly leaner in terms of fatpercentage but still impressive. I mean those that live in the crater and not the ones that visited the crater for a short time...
(02-22-2022, 02:37 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Though i took it then falsely as a offensive reply... m
I think it will be a useless discussion without clear-cut datas (i dont think they will ever exist if i am being honest). About the african lions i do not know that they are called as the same subspecies now (previously southern ones were seperated). And they have also different skull sizes but as i said i dont think that makes a difference. I understand your skull point. But thats not enough and what i am talking about is the bone robusticity and even then with a noticable difference (the human example) the difference at least at similar conditions shouldnt be 50 kg.
I found the studies finally...
Yes lions hunt more often. I mean how 50 preys are enough for a pride? But as i said i found more datas but those are from small reserves and not from Kruger. But still from SA. https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ll_reserve
This study estimated the food intake for adult males via calculation at 4.1-4.6 kg for lionesses, 6.5 kg for male lion and for subadults overall 3.2 kg and has generally valuable infos. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC117162
The nepal tigresses weighed 140 kg. But they werent adjusted from what i know looking at the tables (the males werent adjusted). I dont have the paper but remember it like that.
So i dont know how tiger would do in africa but physically i dont think it would be a big problem. They are fast and strong big cats like lions but of course the conditions are different and therefore confrontet with a different lifestyle. But that comparison wasnt the main point and isnt good enough.
I personally dont think any population is challenging the crater lions in terms of size. Those of delta lion might be not far away but the bulkiness of those lions are unrivaled. Even those from the Ngorongoro CA are big but not near to the Crater area. The fact that even lions like kalamas were lucky to enter the crater sometimes shows how strong the males are there. In the dry seasons the lions seem to be slightly leaner in terms of fatpercentage but still impressive. I mean those that live in the crater and not the ones that visited the crater for a short time...
Yes, sorry, in the middle of the debate some hard words my arise, but it maybe be because English is not my main language, but believe me, I am not upset.
Thank you for the studies, so again, necesary food intake for great cats, specificall lions and tigers, will be calculated between 4-6 kg for females and 7-8 kg for males. You will see it in any wild cat book. In fact, as far I know, that is the daily amount that most zoos manage. Here in Guatemala they feed lions and tigers with 5 kg for females and 7 kg for males, divided in two meals, one in morning and one in night.
The original figure for tigresses in Nepal is 140 with a sample of 19, but that includes recaptures. If we use only the known 7 adult weights (of 8) is of 145 kg. And we need to take in count that some subadult females (4) already weighed like adult ones (3 of them over 120 kg). So that is why excluding the 14 kg the average is about 130 kg empty.
Personally I think that tigers will fail in Africa with a harsh introduction, all predators are social there and the leopards survive because they are sneaky and can claimb trees. Cheetahs suffer a lot and lions/hyenas/Lycaons had constant competition. Tigers do not had that, they may compite with wolves, dholes and leopards, but they normally dominate all of them. Crocs, snakes and bears are not direct competitors and tigers can kill them. So tigers evolved to be true kings by they own, but they don't had to compete with such a large amount of predators. Nature is very wise and that is why when the original Panthera specimen evolved in Africa, they adapted in the only two forms that could survive until our days (lions and leopards) and in Asia the tiger dominated (leopards were already prepared, as they evolved at the side of lions) but is tide to close forrests and water bodies with low prey base and low competition. This do not means that tigers are weaker than lions, after all tigers are doing well in the reserves from "Saves China's Tigers" and trive even in the open habitat, but eventually tigers would need to change to survive in Africa, and that can be done only with time (which may take several decades, if not more...). Tigers are very social actually, with tigresses living in clusters and all of them are related, like a lionesses pride that is scatered in they own personal space. Male tigers respect tigresses when they had cubs and may even wait for they turn and play with they cubs. So tigers had all the capacity to be social like lions, but in Asia is uneconomical. The hole last chapter in Dr Sunquist document of 1981 is very ilustrative in these points, plus the books of Valmik Thapar, which I had in my library.
Via personal communication with Dr Packer, he told me that they had never published any information about Crater lions, but that he remember that that the biggest and smallest chest girth for males in that population is of 143 cm and 120 cm respectivelly, with an average of c.130 cm. This is close to other Southern African populations with similar prey rich habitats. Until someone did actually weight those lions (like the tigers of Kaziranga) all will be only speculations.
02-22-2022, 10:37 PM( This post was last modified: 02-22-2022, 10:39 PM by GuateGojira )
(02-22-2022, 01:42 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: All i know is that the lion sexes were mixed and subspecies unknown (asiatic or african) and had a humerus length of c.312mm and the Bengal Tigers also (c.314 mm). The heaviest tiger humerus was still in the average range for lions. What i noticed that tigers had constantly heavier left sided bones although the right bones were longer.
Yes you are right. Those studies have most of the time not detailed infos but arent useless. Anyways the difference are basically no differences. I dont know how major those differences are....
Just like I told you, too many variables. I can guarantee that all those specimens are from captive origin and the subspecies/population issue, which is important in the wild, but in captive specimens is a mess, as many times they are mixes.
Personally, bones can be used to study morphology and adaptations, like many studies made in fossils cats, but for robusticity they may need to be taken like a grain of salt, as captive cats depend of how humans rise them.
That is why I insisted in the skulls, because they are the only ones that we actually know that came from wild, and maybe a couple of bones from other specimens.
(02-20-2022, 11:04 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: I dont think thats the right argument tbh. But anyways as i said its about the same
It is not the same. Old bones lost condition with time, this is showed in all the cases of skulls that when dried and now they weight less with time. Some bones may even shrink or turn to dust if they were not correctly prepared (boiled) and sadly, that is a common factor.
So Khan85 is right, bones may weigh or measure less than they original mass with time, if not correctly prepared. This detail is important in comparison, together with the status of the animal, the age, sex, subspecies/population, origin (wild or captive), health status, and other things that I may forget now.
All i know is that the lion sexes were mixed and subspecies unknown (asiatic or african) and had a humerus length of c.312mm and the Bengal Tigers also (c.314 mm). The heaviest tiger humerus was still in the average range for lions. What i noticed that tigers had constantly heavier left sided bones although the right bones were longer.
Yes you are right. Those studies have most of the time not detailed infos but arent useless. Anyways the difference are basically no differences. I dont know how major those differences are....
The 4 lions were captive and the tigers were unknown, but most probably from deceased wild tigers since they were procured by Department of Wildlife Health and Management.
(02-20-2022, 11:04 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: I dont think thats the right argument tbh. But anyways as i said its about the same
It is not the same. Old bones lost condition with time, this is showed in all the cases of skulls that when dried and now they weight less with time. Some bones may even shrink or turn to dust if they were not correctly prepared (boiled) and sadly, that is a common factor.
So Khan85 is right, bones may weigh or measure less than they original mass with time, if not correctly prepared. This detail is important in comparison, together with the status of the animal, the age, sex, subspecies/population, origin (wild or captive), health status, and other things that I may forget now.
All i know is that the lion sexes were mixed and subspecies unknown (asiatic or african) and had a humerus length of c.312mm and the Bengal Tigers also (c.314 mm). The heaviest tiger humerus was still in the average range for lions. What i noticed that tigers had constantly heavier left sided bones although the right bones were longer.
Yes you are right. Those studies have most of the time not detailed infos but arent useless. Anyways the difference are basically no differences. I dont know how major those differences are....
The 4 lions were captive and the tigers were unknown, but most probably from deceased wild tigers since they were procured by Department of Wildlife Health and Management.
(02-20-2022, 11:04 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: I dont think thats the right argument tbh. But anyways as i said its about the same
It is not the same. Old bones lost condition with time, this is showed in all the cases of skulls that when dried and now they weight less with time. Some bones may even shrink or turn to dust if they were not correctly prepared (boiled) and sadly, that is a common factor.
So Khan85 is right, bones may weigh or measure less than they original mass with time, if not correctly prepared. This detail is important in comparison, together with the status of the animal, the age, sex, subspecies/population, origin (wild or captive), health status, and other things that I may forget now.
All i know is that the lion sexes were mixed and subspecies unknown (asiatic or african) and had a humerus length of c.312mm and the Bengal Tigers also (c.314 mm). The heaviest tiger humerus was still in the average range for lions. What i noticed that tigers had constantly heavier left sided bones although the right bones were longer.
Yes you are right. Those studies have most of the time not detailed infos but arent useless. Anyways the difference are basically no differences. I dont know how major those differences are....
The 4 lions were captive and the tigers were unknown, but most probably from deceased wild tigers since they were procured by Department of Wildlife Health and Management.
(02-20-2022, 11:04 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: I dont think thats the right argument tbh. But anyways as i said its about the same
It is not the same. Old bones lost condition with time, this is showed in all the cases of skulls that when dried and now they weight less with time. Some bones may even shrink or turn to dust if they were not correctly prepared (boiled) and sadly, that is a common factor.
So Khan85 is right, bones may weigh or measure less than they original mass with time, if not correctly prepared. This detail is important in comparison, together with the status of the animal, the age, sex, subspecies/population, origin (wild or captive), health status, and other things that I may forget now.
All i know is that the lion sexes were mixed and subspecies unknown (asiatic or african) and had a humerus length of c.312mm and the Bengal Tigers also (c.314 mm). The heaviest tiger humerus was still in the average range for lions. What i noticed that tigers had constantly heavier left sided bones although the right bones were longer.
Yes you are right. Those studies have most of the time not detailed infos but arent useless. Anyways the difference are basically no differences. I dont know how major those differences are....
The 4 lions were captive and the tigers were unknown, but most probably from deceased wild tigers since they were procured by Department of Wildlife Health and Management.
(02-22-2022, 11:11 PM)Khan85 Wrote: The 4 lions were captive and the tigers were unknown, but most probably from deceased wild tigers since they were procured by Department of Wildlife Health and Management.
I don't know about the tigers, as far I know they burn the wild tigers when they died.
Paper says: Gross anatomical study was conducted on humerus of 5 adult tigers of either sex, two procured from Department of Wildlife Health and management and three from Department of Veterinary Anatomy and Histology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Madhya Pradesh Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur (M.P.) India.
For me, it sound that all are captive, it is easier to get them, but I may be wrong. One of us should try to contact the authors and make sure. Is just a suggestion, and also to get the sex of the specimens.
(02-22-2022, 02:37 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Though i took it then falsely as a offensive reply... m
I think it will be a useless discussion without clear-cut datas (i dont think they will ever exist if i am being honest). About the african lions i do not know that they are called as the same subspecies now (previously southern ones were seperated). And they have also different skull sizes but as i said i dont think that makes a difference. I understand your skull point. But thats not enough and what i am talking about is the bone robusticity and even then with a noticable difference (the human example) the difference at least at similar conditions shouldnt be 50 kg.
I found the studies finally...
Yes lions hunt more often. I mean how 50 preys are enough for a pride? But as i said i found more datas but those are from small reserves and not from Kruger. But still from SA. https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ll_reserve
This study estimated the food intake for adult males via calculation at 4.1-4.6 kg for lionesses, 6.5 kg for male lion and for subadults overall 3.2 kg and has generally valuable infos. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC117162
The nepal tigresses weighed 140 kg. But they werent adjusted from what i know looking at the tables (the males werent adjusted). I dont have the paper but remember it like that.
So i dont know how tiger would do in africa but physically i dont think it would be a big problem. They are fast and strong big cats like lions but of course the conditions are different and therefore confrontet with a different lifestyle. But that comparison wasnt the main point and isnt good enough.
I personally dont think any population is challenging the crater lions in terms of size. Those of delta lion might be not far away but the bulkiness of those lions are unrivaled. Even those from the Ngorongoro CA are big but not near to the Crater area. The fact that even lions like kalamas were lucky to enter the crater sometimes shows how strong the males are there. In the dry seasons the lions seem to be slightly leaner in terms of fatpercentage but still impressive. I mean those that live in the crater and not the ones that visited the crater for a short time...
Yes, sorry, in the middle of the debate some hard words my arise, but it maybe be because English is not my main language, but believe me, I am not upset.
Thank you for the studies, so again, necesary food intake for great cats, specificall lions and tigers, will be calculated between 4-6 kg for females and 7-8 kg for males. You will see it in any wild cat book. In fact, as far I know, that is the daily amount that most zoos manage. Here in Guatemala they feed lions and tigers with 5 kg for females and 7 kg for males, divided in two meals, one in morning and one in night.
The original figure for tigresses in Nepal is 140 with a sample of 19, but that includes recaptures. If we use only the known 7 adult weights (of 8) is of 145 kg. And we need to take in count that some subadult females (4) already weighed like adult ones (3 of them over 120 kg). So that is why excluding the 14 kg the average is about 130 kg empty.
Personally I think that tigers will fail in Africa with a harsh introduction, all predators are social there and the leopards survive because they are sneaky and can claimb trees. Cheetahs suffer a lot and lions/hyenas/Lycaons had constant competition. Tigers do not had that, they may compite with wolves, dholes and leopards, but they normally dominate all of them. Crocs, snakes and bears are not direct competitors and tigers can kill them. So tigers evolved to be true kings by they own, but they don't had to compete with such a large amount of predators. Nature is very wise and that is why when the original Panthera specimen evolved in Africa, they adapted in the only two forms that could survive until our days (lions and leopards) and in Asia the tiger dominated (leopards were already prepared, as they evolved at the side of lions) but is tide to close forrests and water bodies with low prey base and low competition. This do not means that tigers are weaker than lions, after all tigers are doing well in the reserves from "Saves China's Tigers" and trive even in the open habitat, but eventually tigers would need to change to survive in Africa, and that can be done only with time (which may take several decades, if not more...). Tigers are very social actually, with tigresses living in clusters and all of them are related, like a lionesses pride that is scatered in they own personal space. Male tigers respect tigresses when they had cubs and may even wait for they turn and play with they cubs. So tigers had all the capacity to be social like lions, but in Asia is uneconomical. The hole last chapter in Dr Sunquist document of 1981 is very ilustrative in these points, plus the books of Valmik Thapar, which I had in my library.
Via personal communication with Dr Packer, he told me that they had never published any information about Crater lions, but that he remember that that the biggest and smallest chest girth for males in that population is of 143 cm and 120 cm respectivelly, with an average of c.130 cm. This is close to other Southern African populations with similar prey rich habitats. Until someone did actually weight those lions (like the tigers of Kaziranga) all will be only speculations.
I personally think a chest of 130cm in generall isnt average especially talking about a whole population. Did Packer record a chest of 143cm? Or was it 134 cm? I remember reading both numbers. The average lion of around 200 kg has an average chest girth of around 125 cm.
Exactly because of those reasons tigers cant survive in africa. Alone a tiger has little to no chance and low survival ability and needs a lot of food. Unless they come "along" with lions a bit (some alliances or mating with lions). But that means bad news for male tigers most of the time.
Also i was checking some weights recently and found some infos about that 272 kg lion from Namibia(Etosha), he was at the stage of death before being killed. I thought it would be interesting for many here(Will post it on a different thread). This male lion was like Ximpoko the forefather of a huge male lion coalition (Probably even bigger than the birimingham boys).
Quote:My first acquaintance with Etosha is in the 60s / 70s with the legendary Roy Sterley, working at the Anderson reception gate on the way to the Okaukuajo camp.
He impressed me with his courtesy, charm and gallant attitude, especially towards ladies by lighting a small flower for them and saying: "A beautiful flower for a beautiful lady".
He was an excellent shooter with a revolver and deadly with a knife. His training ground was his own private shooting range just outside the gate. Every year tons brought him the empty beer and soft drink cans seeing that there was always a shortage of him for target shooting.
It is said that on one occasion a motorist hit him and before he hit the ground, his revolver was out of its sheath and he was ready to shoot.
People may have called him a "showman", but I found him a remarkably respected and true gentleman.
So over time I got to know Barnebi de la Batt, Polla Swart, Stoffel Rocher and many others, as well as the old Phalaborites like GP and his sister Fanie le Roux, Schalk van der Sand and their families, and so I learned about the “ lion parties ”held at Leeubron.
There was a herd of lions with the male named Castor in command. He won the position after defeating his brother Pollux in a fight over a female, possibly Isabella. Castor was a majestic beast and had a hanging lip left over from the battle. This was probably the most photographed herd of lions in the world.
Every Wednesday and Saturday evening a goat was shot and taken to Leeubron where it was hooked to a chain, one point of which was cemented in the ground, and then driven away.
Castor and his herd then started with the festival and sightings of tourists who were then allowed in ten cars (at 10 Shillings- R1.00 per car) at the festival.
Stoffel Boucher tells me the following:
One night a newly appointed official asked if he could control the lion festival. Permission was granted to him and on arrival there he stopped and did not hook the chain but climbed out and sat on the hood and took out his documentation to check the cars' registration numbers so as to see if everyone had paid.
The spectators tried to get his attention but he did not mind. He then climbed down to walk backwards to hook the chain. The reason why the spectators wanted to draw his attention was that Castor had already jumped up and was eating. With a growl in his face the official fell backwards and with one leap he jumped through his window, into the vehicle.
Much later he shouted at Mynhardt Blom: "What are we doing now and how do I get out of this dilemma? !!"
With the help of Blom and his VW Beatle, they then managed to get Castor off the bowl and hook the chain so the festival could continue.
Jack van der Spuy tells me the following:
One night he decides to inspect the lion festival. Arriving there, he finds the man in control full of blood in his face and clothes. Upon inquiry, the official explained that the passengers of an eleventh car, who did not pay, became aggressive with him when he tried to send them back and a fight broke out. The lions came to see what was going on and they had to flee in their cars. After the lions returned to the prey, the fight between and official and the tourist resumed. Jack sent the official back and sorted out the extra tourists himself.
So there can probably be a lot of anecdotes coming up.
These festivals were stopped by Jymie Ebedis. He felt it was unnatural and the lions would no longer be able to adapt well in the wild. Many people were also unhappy because the lions were not there every Wednesday and Saturday either. However, it remains the free nature.
Castor is getting old and Stoffel saw one day, when he passed by Leeubron, this beloved, once majestic animal l and was dying by the water. There was a swarm of foxes just waiting for him to die. Stoffel went to Okaukuajo to fetch his gun and witnesses to rescue the animal from its suffering. The post-mortem examination revealed that he had a fever due to pneumonia.
Giel Visser and Pieter Buys were told to make a plaster cast of the forepaw. The print was later cast in the form of an ashtray to sell to raise funds. I had the privilege of being able to buy one of the ashtrays. There may also be a printout for the research station at Okaukuajo. The skin has been the jewel in Polla Swart's office in Windhoek for many years.
Our radio amateurs have a local talk radio that can contact widely through amplifiers and hehalers. So I listen with one and a half ears to a few people in the Pietersburg area. I then heard a young doctor tell of the beautiful gift given to him by one of his patients. It was a print of a lion's trail in the shape of an ashtray measuring 12cm in diameter.
According to their conversation, I could deduce that they were under the impression that it was a massive big one. I got up and went to measure Castor's. It was 23cm compared to their 12cm. I figured that because 23 is almost 2 x 12, I would just shrink it to 19cm.
At the first opportunity, I break into the conversation and tell them my story as outlined above. The doctor then responded as follows:
First, he compliments me on my beautiful story, telling me I am privileged to be able to come to such places and to have such special experiences. He reckons that in his consulting room, directly behind him against the wall, hangs a trophy from an impala head. A strange thing happened, when I mentioned the dimensions of my ashtray's track, the goat started crying and tears dripped down his shoulder.
02-23-2022, 06:10 AM( This post was last modified: 02-23-2022, 06:34 AM by Pckts )
Pugmarks of 20 x 20cm are very large but the terrain can make a difference. Mud or soft terrain will expand a pugmark under the immense weight of a big male. For comparison this was Saddam’s large pugmark from Kanha
*This image is copyright of its original author
But he wasn’t the largest male around and Banda, the male mentioned below bottomed a 225kg scale for reference. As well as another pugmark 20 x 20 on hard ground
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unfortunately your account doesn’t give any details and reducing it because of some sort of error seems odd. Regardless pugmarks generally can’t tell us how large male is, but they’re still a tool.
(02-23-2022, 03:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I personally think a chest of 130cm in generall isnt average especially talking about a whole population. Did Packer record a chest of 143cm? Or was it 134 cm? I remember reading both numbers. The average lion of around 200 kg has an average chest girth of around 125 cm.
Exactly because of those reasons tigers cant survive in africa. Alone a tiger has little to no chance and low survival ability and needs a lot of food. Unless they come "along" with lions a bit (some alliances or mating with lions). But that means bad news for male tigers most of the time.
Also i was checking some weights recently and found some infos about that 272 kg lion from Namibia(Etosha), he was at the stage of death before being killed. I thought it would be interesting for many here(Will post it on a different thread). This male lion was like Ximpoko the forefather of a huge male lion coalition (Probably even bigger than the birimingham boys).
You are right, average chest girths in male lions is between 116 to 126 cm. Only those from Namibia are of 132 cm but from an small sample.
Yes, he told me 143 cm in his new email. I remember the old email that said a range between 127 - 134 cm, but the new one that he send me is between 120 - 143 cm. Maybe is a typo, maybe this is the real range, I don't know honestly.
About the lion "Castor", is good to know that there is information about it, but I doubt about that weight of 272 kg. I mean, is not quoted by anyone, there is no record of him, we don't know if it was actually weighed. In fact, in the article that you posted do not mention anything about it. Lions in that area, as far I know, were not captured until the study of Dr Hu Berry and his heaviest male was of 260 kg (including stomach content). And finally, the only image that mention the weight is a random image with no source, so it is unreliable unless than someone can track the original document, study and the author of it.
People use to see an image in the internet and automatically accept it, but image can be fake too, so until the original source of that claim is not presented, we can't accept that this lion was actually weighed and not just estimated, IF that even happen.
(02-23-2022, 03:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Also i was checking some weights recently and found some infos about that 272 kg lion from Namibia(Etosha), he was at the stage of death before being killed. I thought it would be interesting for many here(Will post it on a different thread). This male lion was like Ximpoko the forefather of a huge male lion coalition (Probably even bigger than the birimingham boys).
Quote:My first acquaintance with Etosha is in the 60s / 70s with the legendary Roy Sterley, working at the Anderson reception gate on the way to the Okaukuajo camp.
He impressed me with his courtesy, charm and gallant attitude, especially towards ladies by lighting a small flower for them and saying: "A beautiful flower for a beautiful lady".
He was an excellent shooter with a revolver and deadly with a knife. His training ground was his own private shooting range just outside the gate. Every year tons brought him the empty beer and soft drink cans seeing that there was always a shortage of him for target shooting.
It is said that on one occasion a motorist hit him and before he hit the ground, his revolver was out of its sheath and he was ready to shoot.
People may have called him a "showman", but I found him a remarkably respected and true gentleman.
So over time I got to know Barnebi de la Batt, Polla Swart, Stoffel Rocher and many others, as well as the old Phalaborites like GP and his sister Fanie le Roux, Schalk van der Sand and their families, and so I learned about the “ lion parties ”held at Leeubron.
There was a herd of lions with the male named Castor in command. He won the position after defeating his brother Pollux in a fight over a female, possibly Isabella. Castor was a majestic beast and had a hanging lip left over from the battle. This was probably the most photographed herd of lions in the world.
Every Wednesday and Saturday evening a goat was shot and taken to Leeubron where it was hooked to a chain, one point of which was cemented in the ground, and then driven away.
Castor and his herd then started with the festival and sightings of tourists who were then allowed in ten cars (at 10 Shillings- R1.00 per car) at the festival.
Stoffel Boucher tells me the following:
One night a newly appointed official asked if he could control the lion festival. Permission was granted to him and on arrival there he stopped and did not hook the chain but climbed out and sat on the hood and took out his documentation to check the cars' registration numbers so as to see if everyone had paid.
The spectators tried to get his attention but he did not mind. He then climbed down to walk backwards to hook the chain. The reason why the spectators wanted to draw his attention was that Castor had already jumped up and was eating. With a growl in his face the official fell backwards and with one leap he jumped through his window, into the vehicle.
Much later he shouted at Mynhardt Blom: "What are we doing now and how do I get out of this dilemma? !!"
With the help of Blom and his VW Beatle, they then managed to get Castor off the bowl and hook the chain so the festival could continue.
Jack van der Spuy tells me the following:
One night he decides to inspect the lion festival. Arriving there, he finds the man in control full of blood in his face and clothes. Upon inquiry, the official explained that the passengers of an eleventh car, who did not pay, became aggressive with him when he tried to send them back and a fight broke out. The lions came to see what was going on and they had to flee in their cars. After the lions returned to the prey, the fight between and official and the tourist resumed. Jack sent the official back and sorted out the extra tourists himself.
So there can probably be a lot of anecdotes coming up.
These festivals were stopped by Jymie Ebedis. He felt it was unnatural and the lions would no longer be able to adapt well in the wild. Many people were also unhappy because the lions were not there every Wednesday and Saturday either. However, it remains the free nature.
Castor is getting old and Stoffel saw one day, when he passed by Leeubron, this beloved, once majestic animal l and was dying by the water. There was a swarm of foxes just waiting for him to die. Stoffel went to Okaukuajo to fetch his gun and witnesses to rescue the animal from its suffering. The post-mortem examination revealed that he had a fever due to pneumonia.
Giel Visser and Pieter Buys were told to make a plaster cast of the forepaw. The print was later cast in the form of an ashtray to sell to raise funds. I had the privilege of being able to buy one of the ashtrays. There may also be a printout for the research station at Okaukuajo. The skin has been the jewel in Polla Swart's office in Windhoek for many years.
Our radio amateurs have a local talk radio that can contact widely through amplifiers and hehalers. So I listen with one and a half ears to a few people in the Pietersburg area. I then heard a young doctor tell of the beautiful gift given to him by one of his patients. It was a print of a lion's trail in the shape of an ashtray measuring 12cm in diameter.
According to their conversation, I could deduce that they were under the impression that it was a massive big one. I got up and went to measure Castor's. It was 23cm compared to their 12cm. I figured that because 23 is almost 2 x 12, I would just shrink it to 19cm.
At the first opportunity, I break into the conversation and tell them my story as outlined above. The doctor then responded as follows:
First, he compliments me on my beautiful story, telling me I am privileged to be able to come to such places and to have such special experiences. He reckons that in his consulting room, directly behind him against the wall, hangs a trophy from an impala head. A strange thing happened, when I mentioned the dimensions of my ashtray's track, the goat started crying and tears dripped down his shoulder.
From some years ago I see that some fans mention the lion "Castor" as a record specimen of 272 kg, however there is no scientific document, no paper, no book that mention this figure. There was just one image from an unknown paper/book that mention this. So I investigated and I found the original source of that weight, check it:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now, the interesting thing is that Wood do not provide the source of his information and in the next edition he remouved this figure, obviously because is an error. Now, how we can be sure of this? Well because of the fact that the lion was NEVER WEIGHED. Check this from a book of 2007 where the late Dr Hu Berry participated:
*This image is copyright of its original author
As we can see, it was the people, the persons that saw him that estimated that weight, and in the moment when he died it was in a very bad shape, so a posthumous weight could not be as high as 272 kg, specially by the description of the lion in that moment.
So, this is the problem when we don't dig on the figures. The record of lion Castor is not real and we can discarded inmediatelly.
Two last things:
1. The paw print, like PCKTS says, vary depending of the soil, we know this thanks to the Amur tigers that were measured both, in snow and in the animal itself. So that paw size reported by Castor is unreliable and definitelly an exageration.
2. In the same document of Gerald Wood he mention the reports of the Barbary lions of 300 kg and he also concluded that are unreliable. So, for the Barbary "fans", there is no reliable information about weights of Barbary lions up to 300 kg, that is a myth created by the French hunter (cog cog..Gerard...) that also said that Barbary leopards were of the same size as lions (sic!).
(02-23-2022, 08:25 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote: As I've done with Jaguars now I've decided to do one for Lions!
Enjoy
*This image is copyright of its original author
First of all if you talk about "large" then the table you made are considering kruger lions as the largest cats in the world but the table has few errors. Some lions you included are from East Africa. @GuateGojira if you can add something i would be interested as well. I would devide in into "large sampled datas and collections".
- Weights -
Large Sampled Datas
From Smuts we have a good data set with uncluding purely random males (no matter what condition). The average worked out at 187.5 kg on an empty stomach. How much these lions would weigh on general cirumstances? I think around 197 kg.
From Dewalt Keet in 1999 the average for 16 non-infected Kruger males was 200 kg. The other 16 were infected and lived under much different circumstances and still were 187 kg. So this data suggests a normal weight of 200 kg
The data given by Roberts includes 17 lions (with some subadults) but also falls in that range compared with the 2 previous datas
Collection
From the datas i was able to get i got an average of 195 kg (n=90) with at least more than half lions having an empty stomach. Looking at the general weights the empty weight is around 190 kg and the natural weight around 200 kg. The max weight is 253 kg on an empty stomach.
The average comes at 102 cm. The tallest wild lion was of 116.14 cm (+/- 1.8%), which means 114-118 cm(minimum-maximum) using an accurate method which just differed 1.8%(males) and 1.6%(females) from a standard measurement method. https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ican_Lions
The tallest female in this study is a captive one of 110 cm, which is remarkable
- Length (max) -
The longest lion was 218.44 cm, which seems to be right. One can note that the longest asiatic female even surpassed the longest kruger female(192 cm streight) by measuring 208 cm over curves!
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
