Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[SpinoRex]

(02-20-2022, 04:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(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.

You took it too offensive regardless of the infos in your replies. I dont hate you and saw many great tables from your side but you get too much aggressive/offensive in these type of disagreements. Many things i mentioned are clear-cut basic things and not excuses(dont understand what excuses). I will not mention tigers next to lions as a comparison because the different lion population, subspecies do it even better when we want to show how unreliable weights are to determine the size of a species. (Or size potential)

Quote: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 question from your side was the bone structure right? A weight difference (except for individualism) between lions with similar skeleton size can be only explained by the bone structure (Robustness). Im involved in bodybuilding and thus i know exactly how weight is influenced. You can calculate the lean mass of a human by taking into account the bone structure and thus you will get the lean bodymass potential. Compare a human of a same height with a ankle of 22 cm and 19 cm wrist to a human with a 20cm ankle and 17 cm wrist. In terms of individualism thats not a wonder but if you get that for a whole population thats indeed a really significant difference in bone structure, which would be noticable directly in a depth study for bones (such as for lions and tigers). And you can guess even then the weight difference is 5% (85.5 kg , 90 kg for both humans).  Though again you can doubt the data. But the datas in terms of bone robusticity are there and they arent small in samples. The datas i mentioned for bone weights came from bengal tigers and lions with both having identical bone lengths. The factors you mentioned are more present for lions so thats not a good argument to ignore the datas. Especially when most bones are from bengal tigers.

I didnt ignore the skulls but what you want to proof with the skulls exactly? The lion populations have identical skeleton sizes. Kruger lions have different skulls but arent larger overall (skeleton).

Quote: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.

I would like to see the evidences that they have the same food intake. Calculations aside are better than mere estimations and it wont change ANYTHING that the NT males consumed more *when* they killed a prey. A tiger when terretorial lives thus in much better conditions than a single lion (no matter terretory or not). Of course from your side it was even more worse to come up with single meal datas, which have no valuable information. About the etosha females you are certainly incorrect although i would say the food intake isnt significantly different as the ones in etosha weighed 141 kg and those nepal tigresses 139 kg.

You are considering the TOP group of lionesses and not the average. This data comes from the book written by Mel, Fiona sunquist on page 292. And in a more detailed study the food intake overall was 10 kg and not 14 kg. Also again look at the different food intakes. This document is interesting as well (about etosha female lions)

*This image is copyright of its original author

Unlike in India.... Africa is a place with much more action, and has more factors. As well as more dangerous enemies and rivalities and generally the stress accuring there(Deseases as well). A small research in depth should clarify that easily, especially the paper from Dewalt Keet regarding the southern Kruger lions as well. You can see how the females differed in weight as well as the males.... and the lionesses were as heavy as the asiatic lionesses, which again shows its nearly all about conditioning. I have a question to you. Do you think those lions from Serengeti are lighter than the ones from Kruger at similar conditions? If Africa is a heaven according to you then tigers even in the present of lions should be heavier in africa than they are in india. That doesnt make any sense and that also because you came with 1 factor. 

The lions were heavier and such overlaps can not happen if a species has truly the better bone structure. I never denied the difference in blood. I am mentioning the differences in there bone structure. That means if you take any bone of a african lion and compare it to a asiatic lion i doubt there will be a difference in robusticity let alone a significant one i mentioned before. I have every right to claim this because of numerous studies and the weights i was able to analyze.

Quote: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 on what this idea is based? Its based on nothing and actually its even proven to be wrong. Lions hunt large animals and the fact that they do it in a group doesnt mean they have to evolve weaker when a male lion has to hunt ALONE when being Nonterretorial or living as a nomadic lion with a terretory or searching for it (with some other males most of the time). Yes they hunt sometimes animals lion hunt in groups. So nomadic male lions do it as well (kalamas for example, he killed bulls alone). You should read what i wrote. I meant that the dimensional size in females and males is the same when we talk about the differences. I didnt say they have the same dimensional size.

Why do lions hunt more often than tigers? Because they are a pride and therefore a buffalo may look in less than 12 hours like a skeleton. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

I cant find the study anymore. But in South Africa there were on average also 40-50 per lion (LFU). Around 250 kills per year with c.7 lions.... seems low but as some arent adults the LFU was used. Thats the result of a pride that was studied.

Quote: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.

I would like to see the datas and that wouldnt wonder me as amur tigers live in some places under horrible conditions. I think they get their basic diet (talking about the healthy ones) but not more than that actually (depends in some areas but generally speaking) Reply