Asiatic Lion - Data, Pictures & Videos

[Pckts]

(06-18-2014, 01:00 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote:

(06-17-2014, 09:29 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(06-17-2014, 05:30 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Putting "study" and "results" in quotes when I brought up a legitmate source came off as mockery to me if that explains anything, but that's besides the point and I'll move on.

The primary source:
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/nov10/articles19.htm


 

Ok, thanks for posting the info.
So looking at the study, they used 6 lions from 3 zoos. That is all, none wild and the animals where put under and electrically ejaculated which I am sure has its own effect on sperm production. Probably why 5+ tiger didn't ejaculate at all.
This also is one study that is only captive and it also specifcally makes mention to another study where the indian lion has a higher deformity rate, lower sperm count etc... That is why one single study could never discredit another study of wild lions. like this one "The study revealed that the Serengeti group was genetically more heterozygous compared to the other two populations and the Asiatic lions were genetically monomorphic and showed significant decrease in motile spermatozoa per ejaculate and an increase in pleiomorphic spermatozoa to 66% (ref. 7). Based on these studies it was concluded that the Asiatic lion which has experienced a severe population bottleneck and has been inbreeding eversince is a highly endangered animal."
Not trying to be disrespectful, but why would this study mean more to you than the other?


On to the 2nd part of the debate:
You said
"Do not think greater testosterone increases hair, it is most probably the opposite. Greater testosterone is linked to hair loss, thus smaller manes, in theory. Note I said Tsavo lions are said to have more testosterone," as in theorized, not fact. Such theory is derived from the seemingly greater aggresson and territoriality."
 
So after I posted the link and quotes from Packer, what is your stance on this statement above?





 

 

Correct if I'm wrong, but according to this:
"Wildt et al.7 based on the ejaculate characteristics, levels of LH and testosterone in serum and allozyme heterogeneity studies of lions from Sakkarbaug Zoo, concluded that the Asiatic lions are highly inbred and exhibit low genetic variation. However, the results of this study on 16 tigers and 11 lions from three zoos in India clearly indicate that a good majority of the animals do not show inbreeding depression effects."
The more recent studies has lions from 3 programs, while the former has from only 1. That is why I favor the recent study.

Dr. Packer's data shows that high testosterone leading to hair loss surely does not carry over from primates to lions, and obviously I accept that. Previously I was bringing uo "ifs" and theories, not intending them to be read as facts, just speculation. Nice evidence to prove otherwise Pckts, I think I've spent too much time on prehistoric felidae. 
 
 

[font]"lions namely an outbred population in the Serengeti National Park (Africa), a second group living in the Ngorongoro Crater (Africa) thought to have originated from the inbreeding of six to fifteen original founders and a third group of Asiatic lions from the Sakkarbaug Zoo (India). The study revealed that the Serengeti group was genetically more heterozygous compared to the other two populations and the Asiatic lions were genetically monomorphic and showed significant decrease in motile spermatozoa per ejaculate and an increase in pleiomorphic spermatozoa to 66% (ref. 7)[/font]"

Here the study compared two wild lions and two different locations and the 3rd Asiatic Lions where from the Sakkarbaug Zoo. But that is my point, Zoo lions showing completely different outcomes. And when compared to their wild counterparts, they appear to be inbred. Which is why wild animals should be keystone to any results that matter.


  Reply