Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[Charger01]

(02-19-2022, 11:16 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:

(02-19-2022, 01:07 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(02-18-2022, 12:50 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I understand your other points but for me there is no way a tiger living in harder conditions than a lion in africa. Thats like saying a tiger in africa will do better than in india (even excluding prides). Tigers dont need to hunt as much as lions as they have significantly more meat available(even more so than NT males). The only serious enemies tigers have are their own species (and that in a fair 1v1 battle). Put a tiger in africa i doubt he will do better as a solitary cat than in india (even assuming prides arent existing). A nomadic male with a own area or even terretory will be definetely heavier than a pride male. So you can have your own opinion but my remains unless i see new datas. A NT male will gorge himself too and even more so than a terretorial male.

Because he collared only 2 adult males as i know but regardless even using the general average of 17 kg its ahead of the kruger lions. As assumed in the past kruger lions seem to do better than most lion population/subspecies. Weight is really tricky and when a population is called heavier than others you are automatically assuming its genetically heavier(Stronger bones structure), which can be completely wrong. The best examples are lions. I saw some measurements and weights from Hamilton and those even being really long (some 200+ cm) were 60 kg lighter than a 20cm shorter male from Kalahari. Thats the result of comparing many samples and various individual lions from my side and as you analyzed many datas you maybe noticed it. Just looking at most individuals the average lion is leaner than the average tiger, which may support my assumption in a certain way. 

If you have other points you can write it.

Like Pckts says, we can't compare India with Africa overall, not even with single countries like Kenya, Tanzania or South Africa. The African regions where lions live, especially those from the East and Souther regions, had one of the highest prey densities of the planet! They have a huge amount of prey, in all sized and weights. Preys over 100 kg are incredibly abundant and live in huge groups, plus the fact that they live in open habitat with several options to check for prey.

Now, India do not have more than 4, maybe 5, species that weight more than 100 kg (Barasingha, Nilgay, Sambar, Gaur and wild pigs with large males only). Prey density is low in comparison with any African country, specially the large animals, and most of the prey available are relatively small, plus the fact that the habitat is close and the prey is secretive. Tiger hunt every 8 days because of that, even in places like in Chitwan and Kanha, were prey has been studied too and prey crude mass since high. 

So no, there is no form that tigers had an easier life than lions, specially by the fact that male tigers need to hunt by themselves while the TM lions just need to steal the kill from the lioness and hunt just when is actually necesary. NT lions can't have this great life of the TM lions, they need to hunt themselves and more regularly, but that do not means that they eat more than TM lions, that do not make sense at all. Again, you are basing your personal conclution in ONE document, while you should read ALL the other studies about lions and only then you will see the error in your hypotesis.

Who says that Kruger lions eat less than any other lion, or tiger? 17 kg is also average for a male lion in any part, they can and do eat more than 30 kg in a moment and that is proved and recorded. And also in the necesary daily food intake, male tigers and lions are estimated both at about 7 kg per day, and in your study says 9 kg, which is even bigger for male lions, again.

We never said that Kruger lions are "genetically" heavier than any other population, that is YOUR assumption, again, incorrect. The checkings of the populations shows that all the Southern African lions had about the same weights, on average and on ranges, BUT the fact that Kruger lions had a big sample that includes specimens emtpy belly while the other don't and even then they had about the same body masses (about 190 kg for males), make us to conclude that overall they are heavier than the other populations, that is the correct conclution. Also they are bigger (length and height) because the records that we have were taken "between pegs" while those of the other populations were "over the curves". Details that probably you ignored. The fact that genetic is involved came only to light only when you compared African lion and Indian lions, that is something that is obviously different in all sences. So don't mix apples with carrots man.

The fact that male lions are leaner than male tigers do not support your point of view, for the contrary, it shows that with the same food intake and with a lower prey base, tigers are still bigger.

My words were pretty clear i think. If a animal is heavier than there are 2 options. Its heavier because of his conditioning or it is genetical heavier by a more robust bone structure. Thats the reason i dont take weights really seriously to some degree when comparing lions (i.e tiger but the diff in lions is even more noticable). Huge lions from hamilton not even reaching the average weight from past datas shows it.

The fact that male lions are leaner shows they are not consuming not as much as tigers(In a blink of an eye its pretty visible). In the future im interested to see more datas on this but the fact that the food intake was so seriously different between the tigers from sunquist and the lions from kruger shows it. You compared mostly lion and tigers when they got a meal, which doesnt have to do with the average food intake (some lions might be used to gorge themselves better than tigers). So the datas clearly doesnt support the claim that they have the same food intake.

Some might show africa as an easy land as you did. Once you are there it seems to be really different and that not only because of other animals except the lion. In the discussion my point was thats its useless to compare a solitary cat with a own terretory to a cat with a pride. Of course the place they are living in will effect it.

By believing that what you are saying you are assuming that tigers have a stronger structure, which is evidently questionable just at looking at the overlap, and importantly when comparing females, which have the largest sample and have the same identical dimension as males. At same length they are almost identical. 

Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))

So my conclusion was more than understandable it think. For some it might be coincidence but i dont think so, when most record lions where nomadic ones having a own terretory. Thats my opinion but you said im incorrect when you presented single meat datas (when both are gorging themselves).

There is a difference being heavier or genetically heavier

Again thats my opinion but you are saying im incorrect although i didnt see clearcut evidences regarding the food intake. I dont know where there is a discussion when females in large samples consumed 15 kg when pride males consumed 9.4 kg or females with 5.9 kg.

Quote:Comparing the structure(bones) then you wont be suprised when lions reaches the same robusticity and bone weight as tigers. On bone weights i was able to find scapula and humerus datas(at same bone length) and the lions were even heavier although the difference was neglible (Humerus: 404g vs 383 g, Scapula: 217 g vs c.200 g (forgot it))

Weight of the bone will depend on how long it has been stored. Older bones will weigh less than newly preserved bones. Reply