Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[GuateGojira]

(08-26-2022, 09:51 PM)AndresVida Wrote: @Pckts

As much as I'm aware tbf , the lion ximpoko from Timbavati is fully confirmed by the scientists working there. If anyone have doubts one may read the pages 1-5 from the thread "largest living lions".

The Mount Kenya lion was killed for an attack on humans and there was no record or information of him killing cattles as stated by Richard Kock. Also I would like to know how a lion in east africa can prey on cattles for months (that's just a thing of impossibility).

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Regarding the lion's physical condition it was stated to be in excellent condition without being fat. Kocks recent emails confirmed it again that the lion was everything but fat. Also the BCS score was made visually and has ko reliability but even according to the paper 4-6 is ideal for a lion.

Especulation, this is what I see, several times with these "new" records.

1 - The lion Ximpoko from Timbavati was "confirmed" by the people in the area, but not by scientist. This record is not quoted or published in ANY scientific paper, or document or even popular book. Is just a popular record, not a scientific one, and that is the problem with these weights that came from personal communications. I use it as there is support from the staff in the area, but if you ask a scientist, they will not recognize this figure, this is just "from fans to fans" situation, if you know what I mean.

2 - Many times people forget things, other times they "create" things, and other times they just don't care and say what you want to hear. It is weird that Dr Kock says that this lions was not a cattle-eater when ALL the hard and real published evidence show it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, if we stay with the strick 100% confirmed information, the only thing that we know is that this 272 kg lion was big, was a cattle eater and was destroyed because of that, period. All out of that is speculation that we can't confirm, simple.

Now, these new two emails just add information about its body size using the skeleton, confirming that was nothing exceptional but also that was FAT, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, we can see that while Kock insist that it was not a cattle-eater, the official card in the skull, which is the ONLY document that also probes its alegated weight, says the contrary. Also, its size was not exceptional at all and its weight, empty or not, was influenced by its stock riding and a good deal of body fat. There is nothing more to discuss about this unnaturar and outlier specimen. Reply