Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[GuateGojira]

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

I have no idea why you bring the bone structure. There is no clear information about bone weights on lions and tigers. The FEW information available in many cases do not separete males from females, even worst, there is no information about the subspecies, origin (captive or wild) and many other details. So if you are trying to use bones as a excuse to invalidate the weights it will be futile. Remember that I offer you to use skulls (which we can know the origiin and subspecies) but you ignore it. So I see a double standard here. Unless that you can know the origin, sex, physical details and subspecies of the bones, any analisys will be useless.

The lions of Hamilton are big, but not all the lions were weighed, only 5 of the males. So we can't know how big where all the other males. Still, the date is usefull for comparison.

Lion DO consume the same amount as tigers. Food intake is the same, specially in male lions. I have no idea why you are ignoring the REAL data from ACTUAL food consumption from the sources that I provided. You are saying that is not valid because it do not show the average intake, but you should know that the average intake of the largest populations, in females for example, is the same, 14 kg for Nepal and 14 from Etosha. Certainly males eat more, and that is a known fact, they gorge themselves in every oportunity. So, you think that a male lion is going to eat 9 kg and will stop to allow his females to eat? Male lions will eat as much as they can and they don't care for other pride members, that is the true, and that is what you can see in the reports of Schaller, Packer, Smuts, Bertram, etc. I can put the information of each one of them if you want.

You can't compare the food intake of Nepalese tigers with those of Kruger based in that single document. Nepal tigers intake is real data, those from Kruger are CALCULATIONS. Seriously, you should drop that paper and actually read the people that worked with lions in the wild and read how lions eat, how often they hunt, and the size of the prey that they take.

Again, anyone here, or in comparative papers, can tell you that Africa is a heaven compare with India, prey base is huge in comparison. Tigers will be lucky of they got a group of chital deers of 60 kg, while lions had entire groups of wildebest, zebras, antelopes, buffaloes (all of them over 200 kg) and all in relatively good densities. If you want to deny this FACT, then there is no point in continue the conversation.

Tigers not only have an stroger structure, but they need to, they hunt alone and in some cases they hunt prey that lions do in groups. That is why tigers need bigger body masses and muscular mass too. They don't have the support of a pride at all. It is curious, you are saying that females have the same dimentions as males? Are you talking serious? Do you know that sexual dimosphism in lions and tigers is among the highest in cats?

And what is the point in put genetic again? I alredy explained to you. If you are going to compare lions from different subspecies there IS a difference in genetic and development of thousand of years. And if you are going to compare two different species that are separated from 2, maybe 3 millions years, then is OBVIOUS that genetic should be included in the equation. Dude, are you reading with I am writing?

There is no clearcut evidence in nothing that you have presented. Even other posters here already showed to you the flaws in the ONLY study that you presented in this discussion. You can't compare a calculated average intake with a real food intake. Check also the ocurrence of kills and how often they hunt. There is no comparison between a tigers that kill once every 8 days with a food intake of 14 kg and a lioness that hunt every 3 days and an intake of 7 kg, and leave out the lioness like those from Etosha that had an average intake of 14 kg too. Who do you think that eat more?

Again, read all the other documents and drop that single paper that is showing you that information. We also have here documents that calculate that the food intake of male Amur tigers is about 4 kg, but no one use it as the same author explain that that type of calculations are not reliable, maybe the author of your single paper should have done that too. Reply