Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[SpinoRex]

(02-11-2022, 02:09 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 01:42 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I know that. I read the page and the data from W.Campbell is really reliable(fair weights and measurements) and it seems he had contact to roberts. I was pretty disappointet that they didnt give an average but ranges. I dont have the weight but the Etosha male was estimated to be at least 240 kg, which is really big and maybe he could have even add weight as he was 5.5 years old. Are the measurements over curve or between pegs? 

Quote:Interestingly, the average for the lions of Berry is of 190 kg including stomach content, while those from Smuts average 187.5 kg excluding stomach content. This may suggest that lions in South Africa were indeed heavier than those from Etosha.

Yes thats true. But looking at the weight revealed by Africat, Van dyk and other measurements of wild lions the weight should be around 200 kg. They should be around the same weight unless the conditions or whatever are different. But the lions of smuts where definetely heavier than those of HuBerry as he included also unhealthy males and so on.

I personally dont believe in any significant differences between lions. Weights arent showing really the (genetical) size but more the condition of an animal. This is exactly what rob told me as well. The question would be are they genetically heavier (which i dont believe or the differences marginal). Asiatic lions from Jhala who were as long and tall as the Kalahari lions from MacFarlane. However the difference in weight was 50 kg with the 5 adult lions of Macfarlane averaging 211 kg. However im interested how heavy Chico would have been in his adulthood as he was at 2.5 yo 206cm long and 188 kg.

I only saw the picture from the book of Pitman. If you have the original page from Campbell, can you share it please?

As far I know, the measurements reported by the late Dr Hu Berry in his email were taken in straight line. He estimated that male at 240 kg empty.

About the new weights, they seems to be focused in the biggest males available, Smuts did better as he included all the males available and was unbiased on it. Certainly, the avearage for the adult males is around 190 kg in the best cases, but if they focus only in the territorial big ones, it could be 200 kg. The same with tigers, overall the average is 200 kg, including youngs and old ones, but if we focus only in territorial ones it will be no less than 210 kg.

Finally, I don't think that we can compare the lions from India and those from Kalahari (the new measurements, of course). We know that both were measured along the curves, but we don't know how they applied that method, did they hold it straight?, did they pressed the tape?, how much they press it? These are questions that we can't answer unless the specific persons can explain it. Asian lions are genetically different from lions in Kalahari, so genetic is always an strong force that drive the morphology, also all the animals darted, from both places, were is excelent conditions. Both old and modern records always shows that Asian/Barbary/West-Africa lions are smaller and lighter than those from East/South Africa. If you check the measurements "between pegs" you can see the real difference.

With the male "Chico", it is no clear when he was measured, in one table it says 2-3 years and in other it says 4 years (fully adult) so it is not clear. Evidence and other adult males in litterature confirm that based in its weight and size it was clearly an adult male, unless that included a good amount of food. So in this case there are 6 males (7 weights reported), not 5, and the average will be 209 kg, not 211 kg.

Hi,

The Paper came from Roberts 1951 book, page 292. But he had contact with him apparently looking at the text. Exact measurements and the average weight should be around 200-205 kg for the adult males. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:About the new weights, they seems to be focused in the biggest males available, Smuts did better as he included all the males available and was unbiased on it. Certainly, the avearage for the adult males is around 190 kg in the best cases, but if they focus only in the territorial big ones, it could be 200 kg. The same with tigers, overall the average is 200 kg, including youngs and old ones, but if we focus only in territorial ones it will be no less than 210 kg.

Thats partly true yes but not for all measurements(focusing on large ones). First of all based on weights i have to know if you are talking about empty stomach. Yes the weight about the SanParks lions(220, 225 kg), Madikwe were focused on the biggest. Smuts data showed an average of 187.5 kg on an empty stomach, which supports a "normal" weight of around 195-200 kg without huge lions. Looking at the data from Dewalt Keet 16 male lions that didnt have tubercolosis weighed 200 kg. So a healthy male should be around 190 kg empty. Generally non-terretorial male lions will be lighter especially in such areas like africa. Combining the data from Smuts and D.Keet the average male in Kruger is around 190 kg empty and 200-205 kg with some content. My empty stomach estimate for Dewalt Keets lions is 193.3 kg (adding the infected lions) and the normal weight at least 200 kg. Looking at the southern Kruger lions and the conditions they were living in they were still impressive.

Btw thats the reason i use only large sampled datas to make claims about average weights. Collected datas are nice but may have significant differences. The ones of tigers and lions are very similar, which may be caused by the fact nonterretorial tigers were captured ig, which live in harsher conditions of course. The weights i have seen from those individuals most of the time are around 180 kg. My estimate for the whole bengal tiger population is 190-210 kg with the ones in the good areas averaging maybe 210 kg. (including both groups, terretorial and nonterretorial)

First of all i think tigers cant be compared to lions. In size definetely but the former one lives completely different and in a different habitat. Also again i believe its individually as they got nearly the same skeleton structure. And a more accurate comparison would be sucessfull/moderare nonterretorial males and maybe nomadic lions (Lions that live like Ximpoko and Mabande, Homob Coalition and so on).

That my opinion when people compare lion and tigers. I do believe bengal tigers are slightly heavier nowadays but depends on region of course. But all in all unsignificant

The question is are terretorial male lions really big or are they in a good condition? The answer is they are in a good shape and therefore not heavy most of the time after i spoke with Rob but more consistent i weight.  A pride male has to share the prey with a whole pride. Non-Terretorial males or maybe nomadic ones are reported to have a MUCH higher or lower food intake than pride males looking at the study from Smuts. Those can be compared to tigers maybe. A sucessfull nonterretorial male lion (maybe also nomadic lions) will be definetely heavier than a pride male but thats rare. No matter how strong against a pride it has no chance and hyena & dog packs will be also dangerous. They have more meat available and therefore will consume more and they killed larger number of bufallos. But how many nonterretorial males manage to live like that? Very few. All mentioned in the study from Smuts:
https://www.academia.edu/24385710/Huntin...plications

Also if you look at it. It isnt a coincidence that MOST big lions were indeed Nomadic or solitary ones. Examples are Ximpoko, Mabande, Old Birmingham male, The lion from Mount Kenya .... . Or those males who arent living directly in a pride like a 3 male coalition. 

Quote:Finally, I don't think that we can compare the lions from India and those from Kalahari (the new measurements, of course). We know that both were measured along the curves, but we don't know how they applied that method, did they hold it straight?, did they pressed the tape?, how much they press it? These are questions that we can't answer unless the specific persons can explain it. Asian lions are genetically different from lions in Kalahari, so genetic is always an strong force that drive the morphology, also all the animals darted, from both places, were is excelent conditions. Both old and modern records always shows that Asian/Barbary/West-Africa lions are smaller and lighter than those from East/South Africa. If you check the measurements "between pegs" you can see the real difference.

Actually the Asiatic lions were longer as they werent measured with ALPRU. They should be around the same length thats for sure. Im pretty sure that those weight differences arent caused genetically. Observe a skeleton from both subspecies.... the difference in their robusticity will be as neglible as their difference in skeleton size = basically nothing. As i mentioned earlier look how humans change their weights.... a heavier human is nowadays by no means genetically heavier (potential). Im not saying there is no difference but even if there is a difference is neglible. Are crater lions genetically heavier than those from Kruger? I doubt it but they maximize their potential.

Quote:With the male "Chico", it is no clear when he was measured, in one table it says 2-3 years and in other it says 4 years (fully adult) so it is not clear. Evidence and other adult males in litterature confirm that based in its weight and size it was clearly an adult male, unless that included a good amount of food. So in this case there are 6 males (7 weights reported), not 5, and the average will be 209 kg, not 211 kg.

You made an error. The ages presented in your table were the ages AT THE END OF THE STUDY. The ages when they were collared are different. I remember Khan85 wrote to me something like that. 


regards Reply