The size of the Barbary lion

[acutidens150]

(01-18-2022, 08:26 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(01-18-2022, 10:27 AM)acutidens150 Wrote: Barbary lion captive sizes.

Shoulder height: 
Male: 80-100 cm
Head-body:
Male: 160-190 cm 
Total length: 
Male: 235-280 cm
Female: 250 cm 

The fact that the smaller male is smaller than the female (or shorter) at 235 against 250, it's shorter iin length, tells me that the male isn't adult, or is a dwarf male (Barbaries in captivity were said to be smaller, usually, although sometimes they weigh a lot) Usually male lions are 30 cm (1 feet) longer than females in total length. 
So I think the male of 100 cm tall, 190 cm long, is quite average-sized.

There are no measurements from female Barbary lions in the "flesh" in litterature. About the small captive male, I am not surprised as captive specimens may be smaller (check the Ethiopian lions). However the head-body length of 160 cm is in the range of fully grow adult males lions measured between pegs, so definitelly it was an adult (tail length is not relevant and may change depending of the individuals). The same with the shoulder height.

A lion of 190 cm in head-body is average for South African lions, but not for the northern populations. In fact, that was probably a big Barbary lion, specially if we take in count the fact that the entire subspecies Panthera leo leo (which includes the Indian and West African lions) are the smaller of the populations with a head-body length of about 170-180 cm in straight line.

(01-20-2022, 05:27 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(01-19-2022, 06:36 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: So, except for the 243 kg male, there is literally nothing that we have from wild Barbary lions?

Correct, and that is sad as this animal got extinct in the wild and no one took the time to actually measure it and record real weights, just estimations and skin measurements.

Even worst, this figure of not entirely reliable for the following reasons:
1 - The record is from 1859, which is interesting as very few weights were recorded in those dates, specially in the north of Africa.
2 - There are no measurements recorded for the specimen, nor pictures, which do not add weight to its reliability.
3 - The lion was killing cattle, and cattle killers are normally heavier than regular ones, sadly Blakesley did not provided more details of the case.

Between 2004 -2005, when several scientists when together to check all the Amur tiger weights in litterature, they got to the conclution that if the record is not from first hand, reliable recorded with background information, measurements or at least pictures, the figures are not reliable (Slaght et al., 2005). Under this light, this only figure of 243 kg for the Barbary lion will be clasiffied as "unreliable", but even then I use it for reference in my comparative image, with the only difference that now I put an interrogation symbol "?" to show that the figure is not 100% accepted.

This case is not the only one, for example, there are no measurements and weights for the Bali tigers (the figures from Mazák (1981) often quoted are just his estimations based in the few available skulls) and there is only one weight recorded from a wild Javanese tiger.

I just remembered. Not doubting anything you say, but does this also mean that the 250 cm body length male woth the 75 cm tail, and the 230 cm body length male (not classified as in a straight line, could also be over the curves) is also unreliable? Just curious. Reply