WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
|
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
|
 (02-24-2022, 04:36 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: First of all if you talk about "large" then the table you made are considering kruger lions as the largest cats in the world but the table has few errors. Some lions you included are from East Africa. @GuateGojira if you can add something i would be interested as well. I would devide in into "large sampled datas and collections". On the weights: For readers they need to know that those values that you shared are your interpretation, not based in any document or any back up statement from other experts. The only real value is the figure of 187.5 kg for males from Smuts. I checked the document of Keet and the sample of 16 doesn't say that is only males, but also includes females, so is 16 male and female lions from each population. Do you have the full document, or just the abstract? Also those weights are not adjusted for stomach contento, so normal weight is not even near the 200 kg, in fact, if we put those two samples together we get an average of 193.3 kg unadjusted, that means that the healty lions could be as low as 190 kg in the best case and the unhealthy even less. So, for the moment, the estimation of about 190 kg is the best case. The 18 lions from Roberts may include youngs (like Brander) but are also unadjusted for stomach content. Finaly, the sample of known males (Keet is still not know the real number of males) is of 81 and the average that I got "weighted" is of 191.8 kg (if I include the 6 males that you shared with me and the lion of 264 kg that is labeled as "Cape lion", the average is of 192.6 kg). Empty weights may be about 187 kg overall and prime males, based in Smuts, is about 196 kg. The maximum (from the Timbavati record) is not 253 kg, that is an exact number and we don't know how much that gorged lion actually ate, in this case the correct estimation for that lion is about 250 kg emtpy (lions can eat over 33 kg in one meal) and that is from a reserve that bread lions llike turist atractions (Timbavati is a private reserve), but is still usefull. I prefer to use the male of Roberts of 251 kg, we don't know its stomach content but at least it was not from a hunting reserve (as far we know). Actually, I use both records, I want to be clear on this. On height: You know how tall is a cat of 116 cm? I am telling you this because is very easy to take the values published with no criticism, but we need to use logic and a size like that is too exceptional to be correct. The height of 114 cm recorded from Pitman is at some point suspicios as he did not measured it, he just got the records elseware. However, the figure of 114 cm from Selous came from an exceptionally large male and is more reliable. Now, the photogrametry is still not 100% exact, there is a range of error and we need to be carefull even if they say that the error is low. I will like to go deeper in that document to clarify some doubts because I remember when Dr Brady Barr use it in the wild with several mammals, and the results were normally larger than the taken ones, as far I remember. About the tall lioness, captive animals may develop huge sizes. I still remember this captive Amur tigress as large an a full adult male lion of good size:  *This image is copyright of its original author Check this other tigress:  *This image is copyright of its original author So it doesn't matter how remarkable can be a captive specimen, it only reflect the form that it was raised and cared. On the length: The longest lioness, by far, is the female reported by Stevenson-Hamilton with 193 cm between pegs. That figure is reliable and I have saw lionesses of huge sizes. Now, about the lioness from India, we need to be more critic and not only swalow the figures because are impresive or serve to an agenda. Check all the measurements first, here is the same info from the original document in this table that I created:  *This image is copyright of its original author If you see, it doesn't make sense that a lioness is bigger than all full grow male lions in this list. That figure is certainly a typo, an error in the document. How do you think that it will look a lioness of 209 cm in head-body even if is "over curves", with a weight of only 110 kg and a chest girth of 105 cm??? It will look like this:  *This image is copyright of its original author That is why we need to be carefull with the measurements published. There is another report of a lioness with a head-body of 2197 mm reported by Smithers (1971), but that is also an error and that was probably the total length and the tail was of 825, THAT size make more sense. So, in conclution, we need to use logic with measurements too, just like I have done with the last paper published on the tigers of Panna. By the way, check the size of the larges lion recorded by Dr Loveridge, with 211 kg and probably a head-body over 200 cm over curves (biggest lion in his sample measured 209 cm over curves in head-body length, so it could be this specimen):  *This image is copyright of its original author Do you still think that an "under the average" Indian lioness of 110 kg can be of this dimentions? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |