Desert Lions

[peter]

Guate is right: according to V. Mazak (1983), the Amur tiger from the Duisburg Zoo was measured 'between pegs' by Dr. Gewalt, whereas the desert lions were measured 'over curves'. It's also true that lions have absolutely and relatively longer skulls than tigers. 

The other measurements in the table underline that there is no relation between head length and body length in big cats. Same for the relation between head length and skull circumference. One needs a complete picture to get to a conclusion on size. This why biologists need to take as much measurements as possible.

The method most often used to measure big cats today ('over curves') is unreliable. Big cats should be measured in a straight line ('between pegs'). A curve measurement can be taken in different ways. If a lion is measured by four different people in this way, you will get four different results every time you try.      

Wild Amur tigers have a relatively long body. This, many think, is needed to preserve heat. Desert lions, most probably about similar in weight (not sure), seem to have a relatively short body, long limbs and long skulls. This could be an adaption to the conditions as well.   

I always thought that lions in the southwest (Etosha and Kalahari) and the southeast (Mocambique) were a bit larger than anywhere else, but Kitchener, who wrote that individual variation within a region is more pronounced than variation between local types (at the level of averages), might well be right. The most robust skulls I saw where from animals shot in the southeastern part of Africa. The longest skull I measured, however, belonged to a male captured in what is now Ethiopia. He died in the Amsterdam Zoo.

V. Mazak measured many lion skulls. The longest and biggest of these belonged to Atlas lions, but everything else I have points in the direction of a moderately-sized local type. Atlas lions, however, could have had the biggest skulls for their size and they also seemed quite robust. The conditions in which they lived, to a degree, compared to the conditions in which the Kalahari lions live.

Here's two very old pictures. The first lion is a captive adult male. The second is a captive subadult from the London Zoo (1896):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

A century and a half ago, naturalists and hunters distinguished between many local types (subspecies). The information they collected, however, was sidelined later. Not saying it was a bit unfortunate, but it did result in a loss of information. A great pity. Reply