Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[Stealthcat]

(01-19-2018, 10:29 AM)peter Wrote:

(01-18-2018, 11:02 PM)Stealthcat Wrote: I think that's interesting, why would the Nambibia lions be longer I mean how would that aid them in the desert, are there less large spotted hyena clans in the deserts?  From what I can see, is most lions are adapted specifically to be able to fight and kill hyenas in Africa, their bodies are specialized for this, many lions because of this have almost as if a similar design to the Hyena body.  Which I believe results in lions as a species being over all shorter than tigers, and certainly shorter per height and length. In other words, you could have a lion with a decent height, a weight of 500lbs or so, yet its body could be usually short in length for its weight and size. A tiger the same length, would likely be shorter at the shoulder and weigh less. As far as the cattle killing cats, I think for sure this increases their weights, several records show this, even some lions reaching 700 and 800lbs, the list of cattle killed was many.  The Indian cattle is also sometimes easier to kill, their cows are different, very heavy stomachs large with considerable mass in the mid section, yet very thin necks,  and the horns go backwards not forwards, so a large tiger could easily kill a huge Indian cattle with such small neck and throat area.   In contrast the African buffalo has a neck specially designed to resist the lions bite force, which it can contract the neck muscles and tendons like steel rods making it extremely hard to penetrate.

Part of the answer is in post 23, of which paragraph E was edited. To keep it short: size seems to be to food. Lions in northern Namibia have access to a lot of food nearly all the time. They most probably know about the penalty (referring to measures of ranchers), but they don't seem to have a lot of options. If we add that Kalahari and Etosha lions without a nextdoor supermarket also are large, access to cattle can have an extra effect on size.

I don't know if lions living in desert-like regions are larger than lions living in other regions, but they seem to be longer and taller. Long legs no doubt enable them to move with more ease in difficult conditions. If you read the website of Africat, you will notice that lions in northern Namibia, in spite of the heat, are quite active. When the temperature is over 35 degrees Celcius, the Namibians rest. They seem to know how to deal with heat, that is. 

Big cats living in tough conditions seem to be longer and taller than elsewhere, but not heavier. Amur tigers need to be able to deal with long winters, severe cold and deep snow. They also need to walk a lot in order to contact prey animals. Desert lions seem to be more cursorial than lions living elsewhere as well. Both cats need to walk a lot to contact prey animals and both cats have long legs and a long body. Meaby a large body is the best response to both heat and cold. It enables Amur tigers to keep warm, provided they have a winter coat (long hair), and it could enable desert lions to deal with heat (provided they have summer coat). 

At the moment, the Namibians are larger than the Russians, but one has to remember that they have had access to a lot of food for quite some time. A century ago, the Russians also had access to food. Today, most male Amur tigers range between 360-460 pounds. A century ago, when the conditions in the Russian Far East were better, they averaged 475 pounds. If the access to cattle is cut short, male lions in Namibia most probably wouldn't average 203 kg. (446 pounds). Based on what I have, they could be similar to the Russians in similar conditions.

The assumption on size (lions heavier at equal length) is incorrect. At similar length, lions have slightly deeper chests and longer skulls, but not more weight. If anything, it is the other way round. Same for exceptional individuals: exceptional lions are almost as long as exceptional tigers, but not as heavy. One reason is that lions are more cursorial. Another is they have to share. Tigers are not heavier because of their length, but because they are a bit more muscular, especially in the leg department. Tigresses, like lionesses, seem to drive prey animals at times, but males are ambush hunters going for large animals. For them, developing means to quickly subdue large animals, like size, pays. For a social big cat, things are different.

In the past, lions were everywhere. They also were larger than today. The reason was more large prey animals everywhere. When these, as a result of climate change, disappeared in the Late Pleistocene, lions had to adapt. They did in that they lost size. In spite of that, they disappeared as well. Pleistocene tigers, like lions, also lost size, but not as much as in lions. The reason is that Asia still has a number of large herbivores. Large enough for a specialist to make a decent living.

Scavengers most probably do not affect the size of big cats. Male lions are more than big enough to engage any scavenger. In spite of that, they are displaced by hyenas at times. In lions and hyenas, it is about the combined weight. For this reason, lions need to operate in groups. Solitary big cats also face scavengers, but these do not operate in groups. Size is important, but in a one-on-one, agility and speed also count. So much so, that male Amur tigers are not often displaced by male brown bears. This in spite of a significant weight deficit.

My guess is that scavengers have little impact on the size of lions, provided they live in groups. For big cats living on plains, it is about seen and be seen. This is necessary to avoid conflict. The need for visibility resulted in long legs and a large skull with a mane. And a great voice. For solitary big cats, it is about not being seen.

Both cats are very territorial. The difference is that lions often (not when males are on their own) respond directly, whereas tigers use a different method to interact. They have to, as a one-on-one about property can have serious consequences.

The question regarding Namibian lions is why females in particular respond to more access to food. Could it be they do because they, more than male lions, compare to male tigers? Not sure about that one.

I agree with you that the tiger is the most muscular big cat, at least in the arms, I'm not disputing that, they are supreme hunters and they need those muscles to catch hold of and grip the prey strongly, as well they need the extra spring in their step for the quick rush.  Deer and other prey like that are extremely fast, a solitary lion would have trouble catching them as he's not designed to catch such fast prey.  Many times a tiger will miss and not even be quick enough to catch a deer, or Indian antelope.   But here is where I differ, arms propel you forward to run or to trot, a muscular arm adds strength and can even help you jump.  The lion is not designed to catch deer like prey, they really aren't, but this does not mean they are any less strong overall.  Because the asset to assist in taking down large buffalo is extremely valuable, a large strongly built lion will have a much more easier time in toppling over a big buffalo than a weaker one, and this is the lions main prey source, they need to kill buffalo, and it gives them food for the whole pride. 

I would call Hyenas predators, lions actually will scavenge from them, a single male lion can have a hard time on his own vs a clan of hyenas, how is solitary tigress going to fair out in the open of Africa, how will a young tiger fair going off on his own.  A clan of hyenas can run an entire pride of lionesses and young lions off a kill. They are extremely smart attack in organized ways and are tireless.  Big cats have the poor endurance in comparison, its not even close, honestly male lions have to even bluff to keep them at bay. 

If you look at clips where do hyenas attack lions, often the rear, they distract them in the front then others quickly attack behind.  Other lions often attack the rear of lions.  All these battles are mostly out in the open.  If you look at the hyenas design, it has very shortened rear quarters, the reason why is to protect it and to lesson the possibly damage of rear attacks from lions and hyenas.  By the same token its to me obvious, this is why so many lions have a shortened frame, with very small rear quarters. If a hyena is designed like this for this purpose, and they live along side lions their main competitor it only makes sense the lion would also be designed like this for this purpose. 

There is data and I'd have to find it but I do recall seeing it, the lions have the denser bones out of any big cat, but I'm not sure if this includes the forearm bones, it seems there is some information that might show the forearm bones were thicker on tigers, I'm not sure and it would have to be tracked down, if anyone has it please post it. 

But with that said, you have to ask yourself how much more muscular is a tiger in the arms than a lion, how much weight does this account for?  Because the lion is also capable of being stronger and heavier in other areas that can account for larger masses which would weigh more.  The chest, shoulders, back and stomach, are all capable of being heavier and more muscular on a lion, that can potentially account for more weight. In the wild maybe you're right, lions may not weigh as much as tigers at equal heights same lengths, but I'd like to see that proof.  The reason could be the un even food distribution between them, lions fight for food at the kills, older pride members get the bigger portions and grow to be a healthier size in the long run.  Yet if you feed a lion in captivity an even amount for its whole upbringing the tiger the same, the lion can end up weighing more.  And there is proof of this, and in particular some notable sources that I'm trying to retrieve, which includes a comparison of the lion and tiger in an Italian Encyclopedia from 1977.The Italian Encyclopedia is "La vita degli animali selcatci" translated "Life of wild animals"  There is some remarkable information in this in comparing the lion and tiger by top experts and zoologist including Schaller. It is in this book, that they state overall the lion does have a superior muscle mass over its whole body, as well it states the tiger has added fat storage in its abdomen.  The problem is its very difficult to purchase this book, so I'm working on contacting an expert and hopefully get some screen pics to translate.

Ok just found it, I'm not totally clear what this is saying, the lion bones are the most robust, but it appears this is saying the forearm bones of the tiger are thicker, any thoughts?

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply