ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)

[GuateGojira]

(10-17-2019, 08:05 PM)lionjaguar Wrote: I can't understand after lion and jaguar debate. Why are we only using weight to conclude which populations are the largest? Why are we ignoring other measurements?

Very good question. I also had the same question many years ago, but it seems that in Biology (and incredible also in Paleontology) the body mass is the best indicator of "size".

For example, a giraffe will have bigger measurements than an elephant, but in fact the elephant is by far the biggest land mammal of the Holocene thanks to it huge weight. Some guy ones made an explanation between a little car and a boat, the boat was of 5 meters long while the car was only 3, but the car weighed 1.5 tons, while the boat (which was an inflated one) weighed only 500 kg! So, that is why the body mass is the most used method to estimate size in animals.

However, for me, measurements are also valid and usefull BUT, we have a problem. The methods to measure the animals are not standarized. Some people may tell you that there are only two methods: between pegs and over curves. That is partially correct, but in fact there is a large gray area between these two methods. For example, some people measured the animals between pegs, but they stretch them a lot, even beyond the normal animal size, or they were measured in depresed areas with not a straigh ground, so incorrect measuremenst could be reported. In the along the curves method, some people put the tape on the back of the animal, let's say a tiger or a lion, and hold it straight imitating the "between pegs" method, so they results can be comparable, other leave the tape a littler more loose but do not press the tape, while others did presed the tape with different degrees taking some curves or others following every single curve of the body, like the old records. And now the ALPRU method stated a method to measure African predators that starts in the incisors (not in the nose like every single record in the past and present) and following all the curves, providing an even more exagerated figures.

So, that is the problem comparing measurements, we need to be very sure of what method the investigator/hunter used to got the measurements. If not, you may end comparing large animals "between pegs" with small animals "over curves" and pressing the tape, and we will see that they are "equal" in size, when actually is not the case.

One good example are lions. Checking all the measurements of the largest 50 lions (for a list of about 150) hunted by Stevenson-Hamilton in South Africa, a very reliable source byt he way, his largest lion was of 206 cm in head body and had a skull of about 406 mm, this is a real giant amoug lions. However now we see a lion in the Hobatere region that measure about 240 cm in head and body only! And this came from a sample of less than 10 males measured over the curves with the ALPRU method. So without knowing these facts we could conclude that the lion from Hobatere is the largest, while in fact the one from South Africa is the bigger one.

So, measurements are reliable if we know the method used, if not, they need to be discarted. And also, knowing the method, we can compare them only with the other measurements that used the same method, if not it will be an unfair and unreliable comparison.

Based on measurements, I can tell you that the lions from South Africa are the bigger ones, measured between pegs, but now we have populations from Serengeti and Namibia that match they sizes, but just because these animals are been measured "over the curves" and pressing the tape (like the case of the Kalahari lions). Reply