Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[Charger01]

(02-11-2022, 05:28 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(02-11-2022, 04:28 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: 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

*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 may be slightly heavier nowadays.

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 humands 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

I have that image too, conclution is that males average about 197 kg, not even near 200 kg and those were hunting records just provided to Roberts by Campbell, no information of the status of the animals and no information of the stomach content (maybe in table 36 we can see more details, but we need to check the book itself), so Robert's book is definitelly a second hand source from lions that were not reported by scientists, but a collection of hunting records that are usefull but with no details, as far we know.

I don't see the logic on the food intake of pride lions eating less than nomadic lions, but I will read the paper from Phil Richardson that you shared here. Other thing, in the paper of Dr Keet he do not adjusted his specimens for stomach content like Smuts done, so a comparison can't be done between samples. Those lions from Keet could be even lighter than those from Smuts, less than 190 kg taking in count the food in take of the lions that is about the same as tigers (c.15 kg in a day). So, I don't see any form how a male South African lion can average more than 200 kg if they do not include a fair amount of food and if they are not from a selected list of record males.

In the tiger side, the lower average that I ever calculated with the biggest and most reliable sample available, was of 200 kg, and this is including Sundarbans (98 - 150 kg) and all the probably young or ill males (150- 180 kg). Definitelly if we select the prime territorial males (180 - 272 kg), the average will increase up to 210 kg or even more if we follow the range of Dr Jhala (none less than 200 kg), using only modern records which we actually know that are adults (except for a male of 166 kg that I will like to confirm) the average is of 214 kg with some especimens empty belly.

In the document of Dr Jhala do not says that lions were measured following the ALPRU method, but lions in the Kalahari region yes. However, again, we are "assuming" that they were measured in the same form, but even if we say that they are of the same length "over curves", the other measurements, like the chest girth, shows a significan difference. Genetic is very important here, you can't discard this and I don't understand why this little group of people in other forums are using this new excuse, because is that, an excuse with no fundament, and there are several documents since the last decate showing this genetic differences between populations. There is no comparative study on the skeletons of these populations so I have no idea were you get those conclutions, but we can use skulls which are readible available in litterature and you can see that those from South Africa are massive in comparison with those from India in simple vew and in measurements too. These two subspecies are so different that they have specific morphological characteristis that has been presented in several documents and finally, genetic studies shows the difference between them, like I said before. Genetic is the base of morphology and its changes, and even if the Indian lions are of the same length, they are not as robust as those from East/South Africa and probaly this apply to its entire old range (India, Middle East, Greece, north Africa and west Africa).

Using humans as an example is not correct as we are not divided in subspecies, were are mixed populations with racial differences but that is all. And even in human populations there are genetic differences, if not, check the differences in size and weight from several populations, humans had this differences based in the populations too. As I said, we are not divided in subspecies but the races are different and the development in our bodies is different. A young man in Finland can be as tall or taller than an adult from China, for example.

About Chico, none of the tables and none of the document says what you say (I have it here right now), BUT in page 99 and 100 you can see that they refer to the weight of ADULT lions and they say that they sample is heavier than that of Smuts and the following table clearly shows that they used the 7 weights available from the 6 males, adult males. So no, the lion "Chico" was included as an adult and that invalidate any contradiction between the Appendix 4 (which has errors on it, by the way) and the Table 3.1 (also with errors that I tried to correct between the two tables). Now, if your group decide to start remouving weights in a random form just because they do not fit to they plan (Oh yes, I saw it in the other forums), then they are  clearly showing that there are not playing the game in a fair form (interestingly they are the one that say that I am remouving weights, that is so stupid). I can also remouve weights too if I want and follow the strict range placed by Dr Jhala for adult males (none less than 200 kg) or at least the range of Mazák (none less than 180 kg), but I decided to include all of them (those between 150 - 180 kg), or at least all that we don't have contrary information about they age, to make a fair sample.

Hello Guate, 

I think there were two sets of ages given for lions weighed by Dr. MacFarlane. 

In the section of "Lion Measurements" you can see that before the measurements they mentioned the date of collaring and next to that, the age. I believe this was the estimated age at the time of collaring those lions. 

And then in the section - "Chapter 3: Lions of Central Kalahari Game Reserve - General methods" there is another table with a column of age of lions and next to that a column of reason of death. I think this second column of age of lions is the estimated age at the time of their death. 

Do correct me if I am wrong! Reply