Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[GuateGojira]

(02-25-2022, 06:54 PM). So SpinoRex Wrote: These arent interpretations really. Quoting this weight it should be always remembered that the lions were ADJUSTED for stomach content which puts them therefore at around 197 kg unadjusted (looking at the calculations and the protocol by bertram). Therefore i am not a fan of empty stomach weights especially in such datas as they tend to underestimate the weight automatically.

Quote: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.

Its like the Southern Kruger Lions that around 16 lions were collared for both sexes. The Paper is a abstract but from SANPARKS itself (couldnt be more accurate). Under "normal" i dont consider the empty stomach weight but the unadjusted weight of an large sample as most arent adjusted. Suggested by Roberts and from Smuts the average male lion (including all sorts of individuals) average at 187.5 kg on an empty stomach and therefore as i said previously a "normal" weight of c.197 kg. The Data from Roberts is probably slightly above that including the study from Keet pointing also torwards that number with 200 kg. The data from Roberts defientely include some subadults (at least 1).

About the southern population im really strict although im someone who tends to include all sorts of lions up to a certain degree. You should think about it to include them by just looking at the infection they had (let alone the conditions, which are horrible because of tubercolosis).

Quote:https://www.jstor.org/stable/20095595

Abstract

Pulmonary tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium bovis was diagnosed in an adult male African lion (Panthera leo) by culture of tracheobronchial lymph node at necropsy. The main clinical signs included weight loss and dyspnea. Clinical pathology showed an inflammatory hemogram, mild anemia, persistent hypercalcemia, and mild azotemia. Sera from the affected animal, conspecifics at risk, and nine clinically normal lions were analyzed retrospectively for antimycobacterial antibody using a protein A-linked immunosorbent assay. The affected lion and one clinically normal long-term cage mate had relatively high titers compared with those of two other animals at risk and nine clinically normal lions. These results indicate that serology was useful in identifying lions with active tuberculosis caused by M. bovis, and/or lions that have been exposed to M. bovis.

When i read Branders book about the Rhinos and some tigers he clearly mentioned that these were adult males and went a bit more in detail. Also the measurements are showing that there werent immature animals really (Or in a unsignificant degree)

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote: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.

The new weights are 220,225,205(empty),248(empty),163 kg. The Male lion Kwande was later said to be an estimate by the reserve management/HQ but instead the heaviest male weighed 248 kg on an empty stomach. In 2001 that weight wouldnt wonder me.... they were really really bulky (you saw the pics i guess). Also i included the weights from Pitmans book of 217 kg n=5 (189 kg - 251 kg, unadjusted) and the other 2 males of 179 kg(unadjusted) and 216.3 kg(empty stomach) from Kruger. I didnt inlcude the 264 kg lion. Instead of this lion i included the weight of ximpokos partner Mabande. Yes with pixel scaling i got 197 kg on an empty stomach for the best age group, which shows they are easily above 205 kg(unadjusted) by following smuts strict method. 

Though the weight of 253 kg came probably after the adjustement of c.30 kg. So also a more rounded number. The exact number of the total weight isnt revealed (280, 281 and 283) and thus the estimate for this lion would be more or less a minimum empty weight as he could have been well at the 260 kg mark. I used the number of 253 kg as its exact and wanted it to be over the weight of 251 kg (as ximpoko was obviously heavier than that unadjusted lions).

Timbavati is hosting normal wild lions with some of their lions preserved in special areas with fences (i.e white lions). Its connected to Kruger and basically a 100% wildlife area especially talking about these two males who were weighed at COLLARING and not after these **** hunters got their license to kill them. These two males were the forefathers of the current birmingham coalition btw, so you know their origin. So these lions have nothing to do with that kind of stuff. Mabande somehow managed to survive after both of his big partners were killed. He left timbavati years ago because of the pressure and isnt at his best condition rn.

Quote: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.

I know how tall a lion of 116 cm is but some managed to surpass 110cm evidently with 2 being 114 cm and. So that male would be just 2 cm taller and looking at the other graph the numbers are really realistic. How much the method differs... well it depends on the scientists or the method in the method. But i understand you of course. But regardless even then this in the worst case confirms the number of 114 cm. As these are percentages the general height doesnt matter really. Also i remember this tigress but the male was still a bit larger. But even then one may notice the thickness. 

Quote: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

*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.

Weights at these lengths can accur especially talking about asiatic lions in general. Note 209 cm over curves isnt noticably more than 193 cm between pegs. But some needs to ask jhala about it. Also it not comparable to the dimensions of the smither lioness. The one is legendary-impossible and the other one is possible.

Man, your fisrt statment is YOUR interpretation, you are not talking about "empty stomach", you are talking about averages of 200 kg for male lions, and THAT is what I corrected. nothing in the informatino of Smuts even suggest that. Your estimations are not based in anything that Smuts or any other expert suggested.

About this: "Its like the Southern Kruger Lions that around 16 lions were collared for both sexes. The Paper is a abstract but from SANPARKS itself (couldnt be more accurate). Under "normal" i dont consider the empty stomach weight but the unadjusted weight of an large sample as most arent adjusted. Suggested by Roberts and from Smuts the average male lion (including all sorts of individuals) average at 187.5 kg on an empty stomach and therefore as i said previously a "normal" weight of c.197 kg. The Data from Roberts is probably slightly above that including the study from Keet pointing also torwards that number with 200 kg. The data from Roberts defientely include some subadults (at least 1)."

So you don't have the original document. In this case, how can you be sure that are not 16 lions both male and female included? Check that the list that you presented here do not match with the information provided in the abstract, so something do not make sense here. Again, be a little more critic in the lion data (just like you are with tiger data) and see that something do not match between the table that you presented and the abstrat. By the way, it doesn't matter if the document came from SANPARKS or from NASA, the point is that there is no published document so how can be sure that the information is correct? We need the original paper (if this actually exist) or in that case we need to real data of the lions. Because if not, I think that we need to quote the average of the lions presented in the table and not those from the abstract (for Southern Kruger lions at least). Do you think that is fair?

And again, nothing in the information of Roberts or Keet or Smuts suggest an average over 200 kg, for the contrary, all suggest that the average is about 190 kg and not completelly empty. Of course that Roberts could include some subadults, I accept that, because they were hunted animals and he was not present there, so he needed to trust in whoever provided the figures.

Now, if you starting remouving the sick specimens with lions, I think that is fair to remouve also the sick/unhealty tigers that has been captured and that are not in healthy state, you think is fair too?

About Brander, I want to ask in what part did he provided the methods that he used to state which animals are adults and which no? Can you show it? Meanwhile check this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So Brander itself says that the method to estimate the age of the tigers is subjective, specially in those years. Now check what Dr Jhala says, based in modern techniques:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this is corroborated in the tigers captured in Nepal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see there is a substantial overlap in size and weight, so whatever the method Brander user, definitely was not 100% efective and is more than sure that subadults/immature specimens of the size of adults were included in his sample. So we can conclude that based in several captures and with scientific methods that adult male tigers weight between 200 - 260 kg with some cases as low as 180 kg "healty", but lower than that will be unhealthy/sick/strayed specimens. Sadly, ALL the specimens from Sundarbans are in that bad state, so for them we don't know how a healty specimen looks like.

Now let's go on this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The males that you send me are 5: 237, 230, 222, 248 and 205. Pitman (1943) mentioned the two lions of 179.2 and 216.4 kg BUT the 5 lions that average 217 kg are already included in the records of Roberts, so you are using them twice. About the lion "Mabande", I did not found any information in the database, may you share the source here?

So nothing, again, suggest an average of up to 200 kg, but about 190 kg, half of them empty and half of them not. And we are using the same records. About the lion of 264 kg I included this last time because Cape lions are in fact South African ones, but you have a point in not including it, as Mazák (2013) quotes two sources for this weighed and none of them is primary one, and Gerad Wood also do not present a primary source, so I am not sure about the reliability of this old record.

About the lino of Timbavati, as far I know, it was 280 kg, but if you say that it was around 280 kg, that means that we don't even know the real weight, so how can we use it? Now I have serious doubts about that weight, specially because the article in the webpage was deleted, there is no references in anu document and again, we are just trusting in emails from Boldchamp. I will continue using the 250 kg figure, but is doubtfull now. Definitelly they said around 250 kg, not around 260 kg, again that is your perception and not a very exact one for some reason. Using one of the emails but ignoring the other ones is not fair or logic, don't you think?

So you can hunt lions in Timbavati? I edited my post because I though that no, but now that you confirmed that means that Timbavati is also a private hunting reserve that bread lions for hunting. Mmmm, that reduce its credibility. 

About the shoulder height, so you are agree with me on this, that wile we have confirmation of lions (and tigers) up to 114 cm in shoulder height reliable measured "between pegs", all estimations above that must be take with caution.

Finally, this part from you, about the Asian lioness is very dissapointing: "Weights at these lengths can accur especially talking about asiatic lions in general. Note 209 cm over curves isnt noticably more than 193 cm between pegs. But some needs to ask jhala about it. Also it not comparable to the dimensions of the smither lioness. The one is legendary-impossible and the other one is possible."

I was waiting from you a more reliable perspective about how morphology works, but I am dissapointed. If you think that Asian lions are like cheetahs, or if you are prepare to defend the indefendeble, then it doesn't make sence in discussing this point with you. I showed you the measurements of males and females, you SEE than that particular lioness is bigger than all the males based in those measurements and that is of the same size of the biggest Zimbabwe lion measured by scientists and you still think that the measurements of that particular lioness are real? Are you sure about what you are defending? Did you see that the shoulder height is only 81 cm (from shoulder to tip of paw, because is obvious that all the shoulder heights in the document are not the real standing heights) and the chest girth of only 105 cm? This is how your "reliable" Indian lioness will looks like:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Each scare is 10 cm, both lionesses are scaled at 75 cm in stainding height and the upper lioness has a head-body of 190 cm "straight line" and even then, it looks horrible and biologically IMPOSIBLE. The under one measure 150 cm straight and you see the difference.

Now you see the error? You see my point when I say to you that we must not swallow everithing without been critical? Please think about this again.

Please see that when I make my conclutions I am doing it based in facts stablished by experts, and because I don't want to be acused of biased I use all the small weights for the tigers, but if we exclude all those small males under 170 kg (just like you want to do with the exclution of the South African lions from the southern region), the average for male Bengal tigers is higher by a significative margin. Reply