Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[GuateGojira]

(02-26-2022, 07:37 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: My question to you would be when you are really strict in low weights then i am interested why you include the 132 kg and 138 kg males from both smither and wilson. And the one Botswana male from Wilson, which is measurement wise a clear cut subadult.




Also can you show me where its mentioned that these lions were the ones measured by Campbell or the ones published by Roberts? The lions height from roberts sample were measured over curves

I don't need to be strict with anything (except with the huge record specimens and in the source of the records), I included all but is you that is playing with been "strict" with lions since the conversation about McFarlane, so that is why I mentioned all this because if I start removing all those young tigers in the samples the average will be much higher.

By the way, the lions of Smithers and Wilson (1979) are not captured by scientific porpuses, are hunting records provided by Mr P. Johnstone and came from Rosslyn Safaris in Matesi, so they are second hand sources and may have errors, not just the age of the specimens but also the stomach content and the measurement method.

We can't know if the lions of Botswana are subadults of not as we don't have studies about age in that area. Remember that are be variations between populations, so until someone can show an study on the age of lions in that area of Botswana, like those made in East Africa and South Africa, we can't affirm or deny anything on this two males. Also, those weights could be "emtpy" and the ranges presented by Smuts clearly include males as low as them. Try to found the original source (Smithers, 1971) and if you have back up for your claim, like I have done with all the evidence on young tigers in old samples, we can remouve them. Reply