WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
BODY SIZE AND MASS OF NGORONGORO CRATER LIONS
BODY SIZE AND MASS OF NGORONGORO CRATER LIONS
|
BODY SIZE AND MASS OF NGORONGORO CRATER LIONS
|
ANTEFACT
I recently read in threads of this forum as well as in older AVA threads some arbitrary and bizarre conclusions concerning the validity of the estimate (I stress the attention on the word estimate) provided by zoologists Packer and colleagues as average body mass of adult male lions of Ngorongoro Crater. The estimate figure guilty to have caused an earthquake in recent years is 212 kg. Packer also appeared to have provided as a personal communication chest girth range of Ngorongoro Crater lions as 1270-1340 mm without specifying sex and age class. This range is believed to refer to the adult male class THE CRIME On the basis of body mass vs chest girth strong correlation Packer and colleagues estimate body mass of 6 adult male lions from Ngorongoro Crater average 212 kg and 10 adult male from the Serengeti Plains average 182 kg. The adult class include animals from 6,1 to 9,8 years old (average 7.6) therefore fully grown in prime and post prime age. Note that male lions from the Serengeti came from the Plains and not from the Woodlands where prey density is higher and where lions on average appears to be slightly heavier as corroborated in part from the sample of Bertram & King (1976) mostly coming from the Woodlands (Bertram, 1978). On the basis of body mass vs chest girth strong correlation Packer and colleagues also estimate body mass of 8 adult female lions aged 3,5 to 11 years old (average 6,9) from Ngorongoro Crater average 127 kg and that of 12 adult female lions aged 3,8 to 9 years old (average 6,5) from the Serengeti Plains average 104,3 kg. This adult class include animals in prime and past-prime age as well as sub-adults (often considered as such if 2<= age < 4 years old). Note again that female lions from the Serengeti came from the Plains and not from the Woodlands The equation provided by U. S. Seal to Packer for males differs to the one provided for females. According to my info both equations have been obtained from regressions of lion data in the Serengeti Ecosystem but not including Ngorongoro Crater. MY ANALYSIS The equation for females appears to produce reasonably results and suggest, reversing the equation, average chest girth of adult female lions in Ngorongoro Crater to be 1140 mm and in the Serengeti Plains to be 1014 mm. According to my unpublished raw data from the Serengeti, from Smuts et al., 1980, summary data from East Africa (although including some unmatched individuals) and other data available from East Africa these are sensible results. However the figure of 1140 mm of average chest girth for adult female lions is undoubly a rather high value. If anything it can be noticed that the average body mass of adult females from the Serengeti is slightly underestimated from the equation as the average body mass from East Africa (therefore not only the Serengeti) with large enough sample size provide by peer-reviewed scientific publications mostly fall around 119,5 kg (Smuts et al.,1980) to 124 kg specifically for the Serengeti (Bertram & King, 1976). My unpublished raw data sample from the Serengeti of body masses matches these averages of around 120 kg well. Chest girth of 1014 mm appears very much consistent to average from Smuts et al. (1980) in East Africa while average from my homogeneous raw data sample from the Serengeti suggests a slight higher value (but it can be said is fairly well consistent too). I do not consider the average of 151 kg from Meinertzhagen (1938) for 5 adult females supposedly randomly taken in Kenya as representative. It looks like a gross exaggeration and misrepresenting the reality of the whole East Africa population although some sub-populations in Kenya such as the one from Laikipia appear particularly large. The sample from Meinertzhagen (1938) includes 2 very large female and a huge one that I have some suspect was tagged in the paper as a female for a mistake (see my more detailed comments in another thread). However any zoologist using that sample has accepted that individual as a female and therefore I accept it as such (perhaps it was really so heavy and maybe even pregnant). On the opposite the adult male sample from Meinertzhagen (1938) lacks even a single large individual among 14 with body mass in excess of 200 kg (max 191 kg, max reported by Smuts et al., 1980, 204,7 kg among 25 individuals), which is an unusual circumstance. I am not considering neither small samples at this stage nor any sample made up from the myriad of individual data available from literature as non-homogenous. I remind that any really meaningful sample in statistics must be at least random and homogeneous thus including in the present case small adult or unhealthy adult or very old individuals (all belonging to the same age class). These animals too represent the population at any given time and not only the healthy good size ones (I would say only clearly emaciated individuals should be excluded). The slight underestimation of average body mass from the Serengeti Plains does not necessarily at all implicate average body mass of adult females from Ngorongoro Crater is also an underestimate although the 127 kg figure is definitely not high for adult female lions appearing to average 1140 mm in chest girth on the basis of the reverse equation (if fully correct). From my published and unpublished raw data data I would expect an average body mass of at least 140 kg and possibly even up to around 150 kg as also evident from Smuts et al. (1980) summary data. The equation reported for males has a clear error somewhere, a typing error and not a conceptual error. The fact that the equation shown in the paper has a typo error does not implicate at all that the real equation used to get the 212 kg and 182 kg average body mass is not correct in the sense that is unable to produce sensible results. The Serengeti Plains adult male lion average body mass is very much sensible (182 kg) and consistent to results available from peer-reviewed scientific publications with proper homogeneous random sample size. These results range from ca. 175 kg (Meinertzhagen, 1938, for Kenya and Smuts et al., 1980 for East Africa) to 187 kg for the Serengeti (Bertram & King, 1976). It can be noticed the estimated average of 182 kg is within + 3,85% (+7 kg) and – 2,67%. (-5 kg) from averages calculated with actual body masses in the aforementioned samples. The average actual body mass figures of 175, 182 and 187 kg match very well the average from my homogeneous unpublished raw data of adult male lion body mass in the Serengeti. The consistency and accuracy appearing for the estimated average Serengeti Plains male lions body mass does not at all implicate the average suggested for Ngorongoro Crater male lion is similarly accurate. The true (unknown) average could be either lower or higher then 212 kg even by a significant margin perhaps -15 kg to + 15 kg (unlikely). What we do know is that the correct (in the sense of how it should have been printed and not in the accuracy of the prediction) regression equation predicts an average of 212 kg, that the equation shown in the paper has a typo and that Packer has provided in a personal communication a range of chest girth for lions in Ngorongoro Crater of 1270-1340 mm (supposedly referring to the adult age male class as highlighted above). MY ESTIMATES On the basis of the chest girth range of 1270-1340 mm provided for lions in Ngorongoro Crater by Packer and supposedly referring to the 6 male individuals of the adult age class in the paper from Brown et al. (1991) I computed the following estimates: Likely minimum body mass range for 1270-1340 mm range of chest girth : 195-213 kg Likely intermedium body mass range for 1270-1340 mm range of chest girth : 202-230 kg Likely maximum body mass range for 1270-1340 mm range of chest girth : 207-243 kg Assuming the average chest girth in the adult male sample from Ngorongoro Crater (N=6) has the same ratio to the median of the range then the average of the corresponding ratios calculated from data in Smuts et al. (1980), the average chest girth of Ngorongoro Crater adult male lions can be estimated at 101,42% of the median of the range, meaning 132,4 mm. At this chest girth I estimate the likely range of average body mass of Ngorongoro Crater adult male lions 208-223 kg. I highlight that on statistical basis, of the 95% Confidence Interval and allometric equations, in my opinion the upper value is conservative, but good sense suggests me to rule out that we could obtain a real average higher then that from actual body masses. I also conservative consider that the average chest girth may be below the median value of the range instead of above. I am therefore keen to modify my range of average body mass statistically obtained (208-223 kg) to the rounded range of 205-220 kg. MY CONCLUSION Based on the chest girth range of 1270-1340 mm provided by Packer for Ngorongoro Crater lions (unknown number of individuals, unknown sex and age classes and supposed males, adults and not including sub-adults) and all the bulk of the accurate and scientifically approved published and unpublished raw data of chest girth and body masses in my possession I estimate the average body mass of Ngorongoro Crater male lions to likely fall in the range 205-220 kg. I also estimate that a sample of adult male lions with chest girth in the range 1270-1340 mm have a likely body mass range falling within the range 195-243 kg or more conservatively 195-230 kg. The estimate provided by Brown et al (1991) of 212 kg as average body mass for the N=6 sample of Ngorongoro Crater adult male lions is therefore perfectly included in my estimated range 205-220 kg. I therefore believe this estimate of 212 kg from Brown et al. (1991) reflects with good level of accuracy the likely average actual body mass of those 6 individuals in that sample (that will never be known) in spite of the typo in the equation appearing in their paper. The estimate provided by Brown et al (1991) of 212 kg as average body mass for the N=6 sample of Ngorongoro Crater adult male lions cannot be discarded and, as an estimate, is very much valid. WaveRiders 
While I can appreciate all the work, it is only an estimate for an average. I suppose it's believable.
Not my data, but another poster from a couple of years ago on AVA. He showed 20 lion data sources and came up with this:
 *This image is copyright of its original author With the girths you have stated, the range is 188 kg - 211 kg with his equation. No log scaling so maybe increase the maximum 5 kg to 216 kg. I do not know your sources or sample size for your estimates, so maybe those would explain the discrepancy. There are more factors affecting weight than just chest girth as well, so if the Crater lions were longer or shorter proportionately, numbers change. With the original paper numbers, young adults (212 kg) and adults (200 kg) average 206 kg. Young adults will probably fill up more in time, so 212 kg or a bit higher is okay for the estimate based on that equation only. @GuateGojira could probably explain what error was found (besides the wrong equation) in personal communication of another poster. 
Just a quick replay guys.
The conservation was between Apollyon and Dr Packer. Packer told him that he DON'T participated in that formula and that he don't knew about it. There is a complete conversation in AVA, I don't have the time to put it right now, but I guess that maybe if you search it with the words "Packer", "Crater", "Apollyon" or "girth", maybe you will be able to found it. I most return to the work, but I will return the weekend, I need to clarify a lot of misconceptions created by Waveriders in the tiger topic. Greetings.
tigerluver
My database is different and significantly wider, but probably overlapping in part with that one. For the regressions I have used to get those estimates I have not included my hunting records dataset. Different database, perhaps different statistical methodology and therefore different results. Anyone should be confident in what he does. As a scientist and a professional I very much do, but I always know the limitations of what I am doing, accept the fact that I may do a mistake and always look to improve methodologies and results from my studies. Chest girth is one morphological parameter that under certain circumstances can be well correlated with body mass. I remind you that in statistics correlation and accuracy (high prediction ability and low bias) is not the same concept. You can have regression with a very high correlation and a poor accuracy in the prediction. It would be too easy if chest girth predicted body mass within 1-2% for any individual. With one degree of freedom it is not possible to cover the individuality of an animal morphology where different body length, as you remind, and other proportions affect results. But this does not implicate that you have to use many variables. Among the many carnivores I have studied in depth only morphometry of polar bears typically adopts two parameters to predict body mass (chest girth and total length). Yet results are often debatable because of several factors like the seasonal variable adipose tissue deposit, variable morphological features of different population, age, sex and so on. Among felids I can tell you that the main issue to get a well correlated regression with strong prediction ability for body mass from chest girth is get a database with weights adjusted for stomach contents. That makes a significant difference. Quite variable stomach contents is the primary reason why the guy who built the regression for lions and Amur tigers (and made a promising and good job) and that then did the same for Bengal tigers could not explain why the correlation for the latter from Cooch Behar Bengal tiger data was poorer. The lack of a good correlation and data spread across the regression is primarily, but not entirely, due to the variable stomach contents among the individuals of the dataset when using not-adjusted weights. WaveRiders 
Craters appear large, robust and quite healthy looking. Unlike the Indian lion, inbreeding hasn't been as much a debilitating factor. I Also attribute their larger size to prey availability. Irregardless of their
origin, there's no doubt they remain one of, if not the largest lions indigenous to any region. That seems to be accepted as common knowledge even with the lack of available info.
GuateGojira
Could you please read again my post where I wrote “The equation provided by U. S. Seal to Packer for males differs to the one provided for females.” It means the male and female equations have been provided to Packer and colleagues by U. S. Seal. So Packer “don’t participated” in the formula. And? Have you got an idea how a scientific paper is written when there are many contributors? Probably not. I do know it as I have written quite a number of them either with one or more contributors other then me and alone. I am not willing to explain it to you as it takes time I am not going to spend. Because of the typo in the male lion paper and because it was not Packer who extracted the equations, you therefore discard the estimate of 212 kg? I can of course accept that you reject any estimate in principle (any, even those fantasy estimates of 300 kg tigers based on pictures). In the case of Ngorongoro Crater lions there is not much to offer other then weight estimates. Why you should be so worried that Ngorongoro Crater adult male lions can actually average over 200 kg, perhaps even more then 212 kg, perhaps even at empty stomach, as suggested by the actual chest girth data range provided by Packer? By the way, do you know about any individual weight of lions from Ngorongoro Crater? WaveRiders
Pckts
As we know Ngorongoro Crater lions appear to have similar morphological characters of Serengeti lions while it has been suggested they both slightly differ from Manyara lions (proportionally longer facial bones and less developed mane in males in the latter population). What clearly makes the difference is the high prey density all-year around in the Ngorongoro Crater and the high level of kleptoparasitism of lions at the cost of spotted hyenas. At the end I believe Ngorongoro Crater are just very much well fed Serengeti-like lions that are on average significantly bigger and also likely slightly larger then Serengeti lions despite the inbreeding depression. Studies of effects of inbreeding in mammals from humans to carnivores (brown bears and others) mostly suggest a negative impact on body size. Food supply overcome this handicap in Ngorongoro Crater lions. Therefore in principle any or nearly any or at least most lion populations anywhere with a regular and abundant prey supply like in Ngorongoro Crater can produce lions on average as big, and likely as large, as those from Ngorongoro Crater if not bigger and larger (because of no inbreeding depression). Effects of increasing average body mass is perhaps what is happening in the well protected areas of most Indian/Nepal Parks where tigers might actually be somewhat bigger on average then those of the first half of the XX century because of higher prey density, regular food supply and no hunting pressure (poaching has a different kind of impact). Unfortunately it should be necessary to get samples of large size, homogeneous and randomly taken to have a more definitive answer, something that it is not possible in the very much fragmented current tiger range of the Indian sub-continent. Taking a few tigers here, a few there and so on mostly from the core areas of each NP is not the same thing then taking a similar number of individuals from an hypothetical contiguous very large area of the size at least comparable to the Serengeti Ecosystem or the Selous Game Reserve or the Okavango Delta or the Kalahari or Kruger NP and so on. At the end I would say: Give a wild lion cub plenty of food throughout all his life and it will become a very muscular Ngorongoro Crater lion-like wild lion. Give a wild Bengal/Amur tiger cub plenty of food throughout all his life and it will become the typical very stocky and massive wild tiger we are used to regularly see in the core areas of Indian/Nepal Parks. WaveRiders  (02-12-2015, 08:32 PM)'WaveRiders' Wrote: Pckts You are making assumptions to say they are more or less well fed than any other Serengeti Lion. You can also make the same assumption that since they have such a high amount of Coalition Size that they have to share food between to many mouth's so you can in the same breath say, they actually eat less than a coalition of 2-4 males with a large female pride. The Serengeti is a massive piece of land the same prey that goes through the Crater must trek through the Serengeti, most herbivores there are migratory so they must trek through there. They have every bit of opportunity to prey on tons of creatures, far more than any in the crater. The real determination on mass of a Lion or Tiger is Body length. That is the best correlation, especially in Tigers. There are exceptions obviously but that is the best. Now in regards to Crater size, there is nothing that I have seen or read that say they are any larger, if you have any weights or measurements, I would love to see them. They are genetically the same as any other Serengeti Lions so they will be the same measurements most likely. They are genetically inbred and that could affect size. I have seen no body weight of Crater lions to determine them to be larger, I have read no eye witnesses of Crater lions to compare them to others and say they are larger than other lions. In Kaziranga, not only do you notice images but you have eye witnesses all saying Kaziranga has larger tigers. Even Packer says this, If you can find the same proof for Crater Lions that would help the case. 
As far as I know lions show quite low variability in size. Weight differencies between various subspecies or local populacions (craters are just a local population...a small population) are limited. Serengeti lions are around 180 kg...so 212 kg as average for crater lions would make surprisingly big difference. But who knows...? Maybe crater lions are descendants of some huge male...
Are there any reliable weights of crater lions? I know only about one young male (3-4 yo) who was 146 kg (if Im not mistaken). (02-13-2015, 02:06 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote: As far as I know lions show quite low variability in size. Weight differencies between various subspecies or local populacions (craters are just a local population...a small population) are limited. Serengeti lions are around 180 kg...so 212 kg as average for crater lions would make surprisingly big difference. But who knows...? Maybe crater lions are descendants of some huge male... The thing is, the crater lions are all descendents of transiant lions most likely from Serengetti since its only a few miles west of the crater. They have already confirmed that the lions after the plague are lions from another location. Packer says since there are so many lions that made it to adult hood and not many come towards the Crater that they have formed 15 member coalitions and now when any new intruder lions make their way there they are not formidable to attempt to take it over and since usually only 2 lions of any coalition size will breed, these lions have become extremely inbred. All males have bred with their sisters or half sisters for the past 40+ years.
Not much of a mystery folks. Well fed lions grow bigger than less fed lions. That simple.
(02-13-2015, 04:06 AM)'chaos' Wrote: Not much of a mystery folks. Well fed lions grow bigger than less fed lions. That simple. Except for the stomach can only hold so much, and they can only eat so much, or they become obese. So, find their verified weights and body measurements, post them here, and then lets take a look. You would also be saying that all other lions are not well fed?
"Morphologically, the crater lions appear more similar to the Serengeti Lions, males in both populations have fuller manes than the Manyara males and both sexes have shorter faces. The morphological characteristics of the Manyara lions are more similar to the lions from the east of the Rift valley.
Although our sample size from the Manyara is very small, genetic data also suggest a greater affinity between the Crater and Serengeti populations. First, the allesl frequencies for two blood enzyme loci in Manyara are very different from either the Crater or Serengeti. All five Manyara lions were homozygous for the TF b allele and the four animals that could be tested for ADA carried the b allele at a frequency of .625 Note however that all five Manyara animals are from a single pride. Second, DNA fingerprinting analysis indicates greater genetic distance between the Crater and Manyara. Within each population, there is a strong positive relationship of kinship of any two individuals and their extent of variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR) "band-sharing" Band-sharing between any two individuals is the total number of DNA fragments showing similar molecular weight and intensisty carried by both individuals. On average, any two members of the Serengeti population that are unrelated to each other share 49% of their VNTR bands and most distantly related members of the Ngorongoro population share 47% Six lions from four different prides in the Ngorongoro Crater were compared with five animals from fiveprides in the Serengeti and two animals from one Manyara lions. Although the genetic, morphological, and demographic data clearly limite, they all consistently indicate that the Crater population is more closely allied to the Serengeti lions, and that immigrants entering the Crater after the Stomoxys' plague were also from the Serengeti." PACKER- http://www.cbs.umn.edu/sites/default/fil...ongoro.pdf 
WAVERIDERS
You recently started a few debates on lions and tigers. Three mods participated. Fate has it two of them are unable to continue as a result of obligations. As I thought it would be a pity to leave it at that, I decided to react to some of the posts you made. The intention of this post is to return to the facts. This, after all, is what the owners and mods promised regarding big cats and this is what they will get. So, if you don't mind. 1 - NGOROGORO LIONS I guess all of those interested in wild big cats heard about Ngorogoro lions and rumours about their alleged size. In this respect, they compare to Kazirangha tigers. Apart from rumours, both also compare in that they seem to be very suited to those interested in extra-large big cats, angles, pictures and a bit of mischief. Regarding Ngorogoro lions. This, I think, is the study you referred to earlier. At the bottom of the page, you'll find the averages for females from the Serengeti and the Crater:  *This image is copyright of its original author I see young adults and adults (a), chest girth (b), weight ©, regression equation (d) and estimates regarding weight (e). In the correct order, it says a regression equation was used to calculate the body weight from chest girth in 10 Serengeti adult males and 6 Crater adult males. The outcome was 182 kg. in the Serengeti sample and 212 kg. in the Crater sample. In the days of AVA and other forums, this was regarded as news. The reason was that adult wild male lions, depending on region, were supposed to average between 160-190 kg. roughly. After the page above was posted, negociations and debates started. They, as far as I know, were never quite concluded. As a result, politics took over. This, of course, resulted in countless wars in many forums. The intention is to prevent destruction over here and the best way to get there is to stick to the facts. Regarding Ngorogoro lions. In spite of many decades of research in many regions in Africa and in spite of countless tables with weights, only one Ngorogoro male was actually weighed. It was a young adult, who scaled 146 kg. Very different from the computed average for young adults in the page above (206 kg.). A disappointing result, but there you have it. Anything to add? Yes. The regression equation was debated on AVA. Apollyon contacted Packer. The conclusion they got to was the equation was inadequate. More? Yes. I saw a few documentaries in which lions were measured. I noticed that chest girths were not taken in the proper way. They only measured half of the girth, as this meant they didn't have to move the lion. I understand (a male lion is a heavy animal), but I wouldn't get to satisfactory. There's one more thing. Everything I have on wild lions suggests adult males outaverage adult females by about 60-70 kg. Let's assume the average for Ngorogoro females (127 kg.) was right and let's also assume that Ngorogoro lions are big animals. I propose to take 70 kg. as the average difference. That would result in 197 kg. at best. Different from 212 kg. Maybe the relation between chest girth and weight is different in lions, tigers and bears. Are Ngorogoro lions smallish animals then? No. One can't exclude they could be heavier than in other regions, but I have doubts. After everything I read, saw and heard, I think lions in South Africa are the largest at the level of averages. The Ngorogoro's could be as heavy, but this would be a result of a large prey base. Not body dimensions. And that's all there is to say about Ngorogoro lions for now, I think. 2 - LION WEIGHTS I've read a lot on lions and weight. My favorite still is Stevenson-Hamilton, as he was both accurate and exhausting. What he wrote was based on his experience and all lions measured in Kruger over the years (about 2000). He also talked to rangers in other parts of Africa. His conclusion regarding adult male Kruger lions was just under 9 feet straight in total length and close to 400 pounds. However. Others thought it could be 9 feet or even a bit over. I propose to take 9.1 to be sure (see Roberts, 1951). Bertrand and Smuts would tie for second place. In a much debated paper, Bertrand added very useful information on weight correction. The most discussed table, however, is this one from Smuts:  *This image is copyright of its original author It is about the parts underlined: Kruger lions were adjusted for stomach content. This addition, most probably, means the others were not. It also means Kruger lions would top the table. The different numbers on Rhodesian lions (I saw 175, 193 and 202 kg. for adult males in different papers and articles), I think, could be explained by adjusted or not. 3 - SKULLS Because of the lack of reliable information on body length and adjusted weights in lions, one has to use another tool. My proposal would be skulls. This recent table from J.H. Mazak is interesting:  *This image is copyright of its original author The table shows that the extinct lions in North Africa might have topped the list. The South Africans are similar in greatest total skull length (not condylobasal length), but they lacked considerably in robustness (rostrum width and zygomatic width). We know Kruger lions combine skull length, total body length and mass. Also true in North African lions? Unknown, but the photographs I saw suggested stocky animals with large skulls. A potential champ, that is. Anything else? It is widely accepted the Romans used lions from North Africa and tigers from the Caspian region to perform. The poster who wrote an interesting post in Carnivora on the outcome recently concluded the Caspians could have had the edge, but I wasn't quite convinced in that it isn't clear which lions were used. There is a difference between the eastern part (smallish) and the western part of North Africa (large). All in all, the conclusion is Kruger lions probably top the list today. In the recent past, however, it could have been different. Another conclusion Mazak got to was he didn't detect a cline like in tigers. This is confirmed in that large individuals can be seen in most regions. 4 - THE LARGEST WILD BIG CATS TODAY The largest captive lions almost compare to the largest captive tigers in head and body length, body dimensions and weight. Although they are a bit shorter, captive lions often are massive animals. That they do well in captivity, was confirmed by Yamaguchi in his table on skulls and brainsize ('Brain Size of the Lion ... and the Tiger ...', 2009): skulls of captive male lions were decidedly longer than those of wild male lions. I measured about 100 lion skulls and agree. Skulls of captive male lions also are much wider, but lower at the orbit. In body length and weight, there's not that much variation in captive lions. Some years ago, I measured three old male lions in a rescue centre. They were stocky, massive, dense and heavy. The shortest, although he lacked a bit in chest circumference, was the most muscular and the heaviest. Unfortunately, we couldn't weigh them:  *This image is copyright of its original author In wild animals, things are a bit different. Stevenson-Hamilton wrote a male lion over ten feet would be something out of the ordinary. The longest I know of was just over 9.10. Extra-long tigers can get to 10.7 in India, but in Manchuria and Russia some males might have reached 10.10 or a bit over. It is a fact that adult wild male Amur tigers top the list for head and body length and total length, whereas Indian tigers, and those just south of the Himalayas in particular, top the list for weight. The difference with adult male Kruger lions is roundabout 6 inches or a trifle over in total length (compared to Amur tigers) and about 50 pounds or just over in weight (compared to Nepal tigers). Limited, but distinct. I don't think male tigers average 500 pounds empty anywhere, but there's no question they are close in some regions. At the level of subspecies, tigers top the list. At the level of species, lions take first place. The reason is they don't have relatives on Bali and Sumatra. The attempt to question the information on total length and weight of some male tigers in north India and Nepal, I thought, was a bit below par. I mean, the tigers mentioned weren't weighed and measured by Ronaldo. I would, however, agree researchers do not seem that interested in measurements and methods. The result often is a lot of confusion. But that's another matter. 5 - TO FINISH Proceed by all means, but remember it would appreciated if you, when entering hypotheticals on Ngorogoro, would include other regions (like Kazirangha). There is, in fact, more on them. I will post a few measurements and weights in the tiger extinction thread shortly. Maybe the best way to continue, if I may say so, would be facts. As for researchers, methods, rumours and all the rest of it. I will post some information on a few researchers soon. It would be appreciated if you could participate. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |