Login

Kingtheropod · 04-05-2014, 11:20 PM

ASIATIC LIONS:

Status:Endangered.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) is a subspecies of the lion which survives today only in the Gir Forest of Gujarat, India. In 2010, the Gujarat government reported that 411 Asiatic lions were sighted in the Gir forest; a rise of 52 over the last census of 2005.

The Asiatic lion is one of the five major big cats found in India, the others being the Bengal tiger, the Indian leopard, the snow leopard and clouded leopard. The Asiatic lions once ranged from the Mediterranean to the north-eastern parts of the Indian subcontinent, but excessive hunting, water pollution and decline in natural prey reduced their habitat. Historically, Asiatic lions were classified into three kinds – Bengal, Arabian and Persian lions.

Their size corresponds to that of central African lions. In adult males, the maximum skull length is 330–340 mm, while that of females is 266–277 mm. They reach a weight of 160–190 kg. (n=4) for the males and 110–120 kg. (n=2) for the females. The scientific record for the longest male is of 292 cm, while the maximum height to the shoulders reported is of 107 cm. The Captain Smee hunted a male of 268 cm long, which weight 222.3 kg, excluding the entrails. The largest known wild male, in the hunting records, was exactly 3 m (9.9 ft) in length.

Until about 150 to 200 years ago, the Bengal Tiger, along with the Indian leopard, shared most of their habitat, where the Asiatic Lion was found in large parts of west and central India along with the Asiatic Cheetah, now locally extinct in India. However, Asiatic Cheetahs preferred open grasslands, and the Asiatic Lions preferred open forests interspersed with grasslands, which is also home to tigers and leopards. At one time, the Bengal Tiger and Asiatic lion might have competed with each other for food and territory.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Not quite what I stated, old chap. I measured 35 lions skulls in Dutch museums (17 ♀, 18 ♂) and than read Mazak's table on tiger skulls in order to be able to establish the differences between African lions and Indian tigers. All skulls (both samples) of adult, wild animals only. Mazak's sample was larger and therefore more reliable.

The conclusion is, there isn't much to choose between African lions and Indian tigers for greatest total length and zygomatic width. Lions have slightly longer skulls, but the difference is very small indeed. Tigers have slightly broader rostrums and longer canines.

I, however, didn't state the skulls of both species were similar and differences were only visible for experts. There are many differences and these are so remarkable even a layman would be able to distinguish between both. It would take a number of lengthy posts to describe and show all and I decided against it.

Per Christiansen ('Distinguishing skulls of lions and tigers', in 'Mammalian Biology 73, 2008, pages 451-457) measured 104 tiger skulls (25 tigris - 25 corbetti - 17 sondaica - 16 sumatrae) and 134 lions skulls (3 subspecies) and concluded 4 variables were statistically significant:

1 - Nasal length (when divided to condylobasal skull length);
2 - Height of the snout (when divided to condylobasal skull length);
3 - Height (length) of the upper canine (when divided to length of the mandibula), and
4 - Height (length) of the lower canine (when divided to length of the mandibula).

Tigers, therefore, have longer nasals (1), lower snouts (2) and longer canines (3 + 4). Certainty, according to Christiansen, 100%. All other variables were unreliable.

To return to my table and Mazak's table. I thought it would be a good idea to post Maza's table again in order to see the diferences between African lion skulls and Indian tiger skulls at a glance.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The only figures that I had personally found are those from Nowell & Jackson (1996) and a single record from Sterndale (1884). The figure of Sterndale is a male of 222 kg “cleaned”; those from Nowell & Jackson are 160 and 190 kg. The full reference mentions 4 males, but I had not found the other two. Here is the image, check the last part:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now I had found, in the “LeotigrisElite” forum, a very good list of measurements and weights of modern Indian lions. The figures were posted by SpiritLion a lion fan that had made a good investigation in the subject. Personally, I can’t say if the figures are true o not, but SpiritLion was a good poster and been a lion-fan I don’t think that he will diminish his beloved animal, so I believe that this data is accurate; here is the original link: http://leotigriselite.yuku.com/topic/594

And here is the list; I only put here those from the wild, as SpiritLion added 4 more captive specimens:

No. Sex Age (years) Weight (kg) Source

1 Male 4 - 5 156 Sasan Research Station

2 Male 4 - 5 152 Captured at Devalia

3 Male 4 - 5 146 Captured at Devalia

4 Male Adult 184 Wild-Gir East

5 Male 9 - 10 165 Sasan Research Station

6 Male > 10 146 Sakkarbuag-Hadala

7 Male 10 – 11 157 Sasan Research Station

8 Male 10 - 11 148 Sasan Research Station

9 Male 9 - 10 162 Sasan Research Station

10 Male > 12 150 Sakkarbuag-Sasan

11 Male > 14 159 Sakkarbuag Jashadhar

12 Male Very Old 150 Janak - from Gir Forest

13 Male Adult 157 Sarjit - from Costal area

The average weight of these 13 males is of 156.3 kg (range: 146 – 184 kg).

If we add the other two males from Nowell & Jackson, there we have that the modern Indian lion average 158.8 kg (n=15; range: 146 – 190 kg).

Finally, if we add the exceptional specimen of Sterndale (1884), we have this figure:

* Average weight of male Indian lion: 162.8 kg

* Range: 146-222 kg

* n= 16

So, even when this pictures of Indian lions show magnificent specimens, they are smaller than we tough.

Complementing the body weights, here is a list of body measurements of modern wild specimens:

No. Sex Age Total Length (cm) Tail Length (cm) Height (cm)

1 Male 8 269 79 115

2 Male 8 270 89 116

3 Male 4 -5 258 82 90

4 Male 4 -5 252 76 90

These were posted by SpiritLion.

Together with the record specimen of 292 kg in Nowell & Jackson (1996), I can say that the average total length of the modern Indian lion is of c.268 cm. Pocock mention two specimens, but he only say that were measured “in the flesh”, so is safe to say that those specimens were measured over curves.

Finally, here is the picture of the largest Indian lions that I had ever seen:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here is the data of the male lions, by James Stevenson-Hamilton

*This image is copyright of its original author

Mane-development in one male:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Bruce Patterson on lion evolution

*This image is copyright of its original author

North African Lion - late XIX.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Algerian lion - 1902

*This image is copyright of its original author

Barbary lion at Bronx Zoo - 1911

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sub adult Barbary lion at London Zoo - 1896

*This image is copyright of its original author

Captive North African lioness

*This image is copyright of its original author

Young North African lion - late XIX

*This image is copyright of its original author

Lion photographed from an airplane - 1912 Morocco

*This image is copyright of its original author

Asiatic lions

The article of Lt.-Col. Fenton was published in volumes 19 (part I) and 20 (part II) of the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. Long time ago, but interesting as a first-hand account.

Lt.-Col. Fenton hunted both big cats in India. His longest tiger (North-Kanara) was 9.8, whereas three large male Gir lions he shot taped 9.5, 9.1 and 9.0 respectively. The measurements of the last male he shot were not given. In his article, he also mentions the famous 9.7 Gir lion shot by Lord Harris. Apart from these, I found a reliable report on a 9.95 male in the JBNHS (letter of P.R. Cadell, dated April 9, 1935). All measurements taken 'between pegs'.

Long animals. One has, however, to remember experienced hunters, like Fenton, often selected large males (both species). In another article published in the Journal ('The Gir Forest and its Lions', M.A. Winter-Blyth and K.S. Dharmakumarsinhji, JBNHS, Vol. 48 and 49), only 4 of 20 males got to 9 feet or a little over 'between pegs'. The longest of these, a 9.4 male with a chest girth of no less than 60 inches (JBNHS, Vol. 49, pp. 694), was shot in december 1933.

The average total length 'between pegs' of 27 males (those shot by hunters included) was a trifle under 8.9 (range 8.05-9.95). I only found one weight, but Guate (on this thread) posted recent information he found on another site.

These scans are from the first part of the article (published in Vol. 19, pp. 4-15). In the first one, Fenton compared the skull of his 9.8 North-Kanara tiger with the 9.5 Gir lion. Both male skulls, in spite of the large size of the owners, below 14 inches for greatest total length.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The 3 male skulls Pocock measured also ranged between 330,00-340,00 mm. for greatest total length. His sample, of course, was very small. Dubois, a Dutch zoologist, had a large male Indian skull exceeding 14 inches in greatest total length. I also saw and measured a skull of a captive Indian male lion (private collection) well exceeding 14 inches. My guess is the captive male in the photograph below also had a large skull.

*This image is copyright of its original author

R.I. Pocock, while working as an assistent in the British Museum, wrote a number of interesting articles on different animals. One of these was discussed on the tiger-extinction thead. His book ('The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma', Mammalia, Volume I, Primates and Carnivora, London, 1939) still is one of the most interesting and I would recommend it to anyone interested in Indian wildlife.

In the part on Gir lions, tigers and who got where first, Pocock took a somewhat different stand than most. As it didn't look too bad for lions, I decided for a repost. In the pages posted, 7 parts are highlighted.

1 - On the distribution and numbers of lions in the thirties of the last century.

2 - On the reason of the limited distribution of lions in India: humans.

3 - On the reason of the extinction of lions in Europe and Asia: humans.

4 - On the difference in character between lions and tigers, seen from a hunter's point of view.

5 - On the assumption lions were driven out of India by tigers.

6 - On the outcome of a possible encounter between both.

7 - On size and habits of lions and tigers.

All in all, Pocock could have been right on most points. Reliable records on averages show Indian tigers are a bit larger than Gir lions, but the difference is limited and lions, of course, operate in small groups. This would prevent intrusion in areas preferred by lions, if not direct clashes, than in the long run (cubs). In areas preferred by tigers, lions, for food-related reasons, probably need to split up, meaning the chance they would face a competitor of equal or slightly larger size at some time probably increases significantly. Furthermore, cubs would face a much greater risk in an area with a large competitor. Too risky, one would think. That's why lions operate in more open terrain and tigers operate in more forested areas. And that's exactly what was seen a century ago.

I'm not so sure about the part on who got where first and my guess is few are. There's just not enough known. I read an article on fossils in Shri Lanka (Ceylon) and it seems skulls of big cats have been found. Meaning one of the two (lion and tiger) might have reached the island a long time ago after all. Only to succumb later on.

The most logical explanation on the question who was where first, most probably, is in the situation encountered a few centuries ago. Meaning lions tend to inhabit lion-country and tigers tend to inhabit tiger-country and my guess is it probably always was like that.

*This image is copyright of its original author

It seems that every reputed person in the ''domain'', agrees that there is no correlation between tigers and the ''extinction'' of lions in Asia.I personally consider this rumor nothing more than a poor and hasty interpretation/excuse on the diminished numbers of the present Leo Persica.

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?