Asiatic Lion - Data, Pictures & Videos

[Pckts]

Here is what gaute had to say on Lion subspecies and Indian lions
"The new studies of Mazák and Christiansen shows that lions and leopards are very close in they morphology and overlap in some characteristics. Besides, size is not a good form of classification as those fossils from Sri Lanka could be just huge Pleistocene leopards.
 
On the DNA issue, check this data on the Asian lion and lions overall:
 
I think this is the perfect place to present my analysis on the evolution of the lion, based in the last document (2013) of Dr. J. M. Dubach and his team. This is the link for the original document: http://apcro.org/wp-content/uploads/2013...ConGen.pdf
 
Officially, there are only two main groups of lions, the sub-Saharan African lions (P. leo leo) and the Asian-Barbary lions (P. leo persica). However, Dubach et al. (2013), which summarize all previous genetic studies plus the one of they own, offer us a more complicated scenario with different taxonomy:
 
There are two main groups in Africa, those from the East and those from the Southern part of the continent. However, there are some populations that are more genetically closer with different areas, like that of Tsavo which is closer to the South African lions. This suggests that there existed re-colonizations through the lion evolutionary history. At the end, this Sub-Saharan African genetic group (East and Southern Africa) is classified as Panthera leo melanochaita, this is because the name “melanochaita” is the oldest for this group (based in a specimen from the Cape, South Africa) and according with the laws of taxonomy this should be the correct one. By the way, Dubach shows that the genetic of the Ethiopian lions is closer to the East African lions, so they must be classified with them and not with the Asian lions, which apparently, never reached that area.
 
About the Asian group, the genetic evidence proves that Barbary lions and Asian lions are UNDISTINGUISABLE, and belong to the same group, so the names “leo” and “persica” are related with the same dichotomy of animals. Beyond this, the lions in West and Central Africa are believe to descent of Asian animals, that enter in a second invasion wave that gives origin to Barbary lions and all the populations that are neighbors of the Atlantic ocean. According with the laws of Taxonomy, the oldest name for this group is “leo”, which is based in a specimen from Barbary, so all the this lions are named as Panthera leo leo.
 
Finally, the highly inbreed population of India, which count with only c.400 specimens is classified as Panthera leo persica, this is because they status of Highly endangered, not because there is some genetic differences. However, the document of Dubach was published only in February of 2013, before the publication of the excellent book of Dr Valmik Thapar (April, 2013). So, at the light of the new evidence, the Indian lion Per Se, should not be classified as a distinct subspecies, however, it is interesting that the genetic evidence shows a clear link between them and the Barbary lions and not with those from Botswana. This suggest that the surviving lions from Gir are those descendent from the Persian lions transported by Alexander the great and the Mughal (which are the original group of lions that re-invaded the north and west of Africa), while those lions exported from Botswana and other parts of Africa simple disappeared and are no longer existing in the Gir pride. In this clear case of “were they came” issue, the Gir lions are no other than Panthera leo leo, but for conservation issues, they are classified as P. l. persica.
 
In this case, the taxonomic classification of the modern lion is this:
 
* Sub-Saharan African lion: Panthera leo melanochaita (two clades: East Africa and Southern Africa)
 
* North-West-Central African and Asian lion: Panthera leo leo (one single genetic group).
 
* Asian lions in Gir: Panthera leo persica (for conservation purposes only).
 
Link:
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/top...ns?page=34
 
The issue is much clarified, the “Indian” lions from Gir came from Persia-Barbary region, while those from Mozambike are simple extinct and with no descendent in the modern Gir “megapride”. The document of Barnett et al. (2009) and Bertola et al. (2012) also corroborate this issue: Indian and Barbary lions are the same, genetically speaking.
 
At the end, there is no (and never was) such a thing as “Indian” lions Per Se, even fossil evidence is equivocal as there is not a proper classification from part of the sources and no DNA study have been made on them."

"The separation of species-subspecies of the great cats, like the lion of the tiger, has both biological and political issues, especially for the legal protection between countries.
 
For example the separation of tiger subspecies has been a good point to engage the protection programs on the world, even when biologically, there is practically no such thing a “subspecies” on the mainland tigers. However, the laws writen to protect them take in count these scientific names, so for political and ecological issues, the subspecies approach is important and must be sustained. Even this classification by the IUCN and the WWF is the base to they plans on this subspecies scenario.
 
The same goes with the lion. Dubach et al. (2013) is very clear, there are only two lion subspecies in the world, the sub-Saharan African lion (Panthera leo melanochaita) and the Asian-Barbary-West-Central African lion (Panthera leo leo). However, the status of the Gir lions is critical and taking in count that even when they are not from India per se, they are the last population of Persian lions, so they are indeed very important biologically and ecologically. In this case, the name Panthera leo persica should be taken in count, especially when the protection laws already take in count this name.
 
Sometimes, Biology should made space to the polities in the modern world, especially with highly endangered species."


  Reply