Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[GuateGojira]

(02-12-2022, 06:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Im making my conclusions mainly based on the large sampled datas and regarding the "modern" datas i have my pundits. The datas i am talking about are Brander(n=42), Behaar(n=44) and Hewett(n=20) which indicates a average weight of c.200 kg (190-210) kg. 

Regarding the asiatic lions i think you get my point. First of all their skeleton size is proven to be identical compared to that from african lions. Skull isnt really important in this case. With the humans i wanted to show how unimportant weights are to determine the genetical size. Also i got that conclusion when i compared many african lions together (both sampled datas and individuals). Also when you compare again the lionesses with other population this claim is confirmed again. Just look at dewalt keets data what conditioning can do with an animal. The males were impressive by being just 7% lighter but the females were 21% lighter (118 kg vs 144 kg) comapring northern and southern Kruger population




The only option that african lions are genetically heavier is(extremely unlikely as i said): They are build significantly more robust in their structure. That means = heavier and stronger/robust bones.

Though again the chest girths are normal for a lion of that weight. Take a look at Tom (146 kg) and compare him just as an example to the asiatic lions from Jhala(Male 1 for example). Also i didnt say there isnt any difference.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


Also i checked the PDF from MacFarlane. Chico was when immobilised 2-3 years old, 188 kg. But at the end of the study around 4 years old (The study went 108 days). So its a bit confusing but given on that information Chico was more of 3 old or slightly over it, whoch shows he could have been a big lion compared to Sm009. Include it or not it wont change the average really but i was pointing it out because of his really large size and potential.

Thats just my view ... feel free to disagree

Why you have "pundits" about the modern data on tigers? What do you mean with that?

I see a big contradiction here. First you say that skeleton is important and latter you diminish the importance of the skull? So, take a decision man, bones are or not important for you? Also you say that the equality in the skeleton size between the Asian races and the African races is "proven", well I will like to the see the bones measurements that proves that, femurs, ulnas, humerus, etc. Because I have a huge data on lion bones and there is 0 comparison between subspecies, except for skulls, a part of the body that prove my point but that now is irrelevant for you.

Again, humans are not a good example, we don't like lions, we don't have subspecies like lions. Human size is regulated by many other factors that include economy, education, location and of course genetic (none of them, except for genetic, applies to lions). So put humans as an example is completelly ilogical at this point. The case of Keet and the Kruger lions is just a focalize case under the same population, this can't explain the differences between Asian and African lions. Lions in Asia are differente in morphology and genetic than African lions, even in captivity the African lions are heavier, so that is not just looky or food intake, that is genetic and is basic to understand why the subspecies exist.


The example of the lion Tom is completelly unaplicable here. You are just using the chest girth because is equal, but there are many other factors, the health, status, food intake, that is important in the weight. None of these values are known, so just because they have the same chest girth do not means that they are going to have the same development. Check that the lions in India are full grow adults and Tom was a young one still in development.

Including or excluding "Chico" did change the average, and this is the point in all the discussion. You guys are trying the increase the body mass of lions by force and that is not how this works. If we are 100% strict with the values, we should exclude all the weights gatered by emails and personal comunications, news reports and take only those from publised books and per review documents. IF we do this, tigers are still the heaviest cat, but of course the people in Carnivora forum do not want that, they want to increse the weights even if they need to include UNREALIABLE weights of 700-800 lb lions that are unknown to any reliable Biologist.

My advise, if you want to make reliable calculations and statements, do not follow the people like Boldchamp and they fellows, that is not the correct way. That is all I need to say and years of useless debates with that kind of people is my backup. Reply