Captive Lion and Tiger weights

[peter]

(04-07-2021, 05:05 AM)CatLover Wrote:

(04-17-2014, 12:07 AM)peter Wrote: Good information PC, but difficult to assess as most entries are healthy and well-fed adults. What about the others? Any population has young adults, prime, old, small, big as well as gorged and empty animals. In some averages, the 'normal' amount of variation is included, whereas it isn't in others.  

Captive big cats, like their wild counterparts, show a lot of variation. I saw healthy adult male Amur tigers of 350 pounds or thereabout in their prime. They are just as a-typical as 650-pound males. Same for Indian tigers, although they show less variation than Amurs (in wild animals, it's the other way round). There are no reliable averages for captive animals, but my take for now is captive male Amur tigers top the list in all departments with some male lions quite close. From what I saw and read, the differences between Indian tigers and Kruger lions are limited (captive animals).   

There are no captive Indian tigers in European zoos. Some trainers, however, have descendants of Indian tigers. It is to be expected these tigers will disappear in the near future, because they can't be used in the circus any longer.   

Panthera tigris americana (referring to Indian tigers in American zoos), to me, seem different from Panthera tigris tigris. My guess is most are a mix of Amur and Indian tigers. Big animals in most cases, but I wouldn't say they is Indian tigers until we know a bit more.

As a general rule, circus lions and tigers are healthier and bigger than big cats in zoos. Another general rule is lions adapt better to captivity than tigers. They lose less in character and often are a bit bigger than their wild relatives. In tigers, apart from captive Amurs, the opposite seems to be true.

Those who could know all agreed captive big cats are a mere shadow of their wild counterparts. This seems to be more true for tigers than for lions, because the essence of lions (defending a territory by living in family groups) is maintained in captivity to an extent, whereas the essence of tigers (solitary hunters) is completely lost in captivity.

Hello peter,

I somehow didnt get managed to quote you in a other site. It says it's not working because of some things.

I read your post about the difference between different measuring methods on tigers. Like curve and straight line measurements. Great post btw.

I would like to ask you.. how much is the difference(curve and straight line) on lions? I think there should be some differences.

I'm hopefully waiting for an answer.

Have a nice day.

Hi CatLover,

As a result of a bit of trouble in the past, we decided to restrict the movement of new members. In about a week, you'll be able to use all facilities and interact with all members. If you have questions, contact Sanjay or a mod. Our advice is to visit the rules section before you start posting. This in order to prevent problems. 

As to your question on the difference between measurements taken 'over curves' or 'between pegs' in lions and tigers. The answer is it depends on the size of the cat (a) and the way the method used is applied (b). 

As to the last remark. If different people measure a big cat 'between pegs', the results always are very similar. The main reason is it's easy to apply this method. If the same people measure a big cat 'over curves', however, the results are quite different. The reason is this method can be applied in different ways. It takes experience and skill to measure a big cat in this way. 

About 100-150 years ago, most hunters agreed the difference between both methods in an adult male African lion or an adult male Indian tiger of average size was about 6 inches (15,24 cm). In northeastern India, the average difference between both methods in 10 adult male tigers was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm). In northern India, the average difference between both methods was less than 5 inches: 

" ... I have found when the actual measurement of tigers is done by myself, or under my personal observation, ..., that the measurement by the two systems has differed from two to as much as five inches ... " ('Jungle trails in northern India', Sir John Hewett, 1938, pp. 68 of the reprint of Natraj Publishers)

Hewett was: 

" ... taught by Mr. Macdonald to measure the body round the curves from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail with a Fisherman's tape measure such as was always used in India in Public Works Department measurements. The measurement of the tiger was with him (Mr. Macdonald) a matter of some ceremony, and was carried out with extreme accuracy before the tiger was padded ... " (Jungle trails in northern India', Sir John Hewett, 1938, pp. 67 of the Natraj Publishers reprint).

And 'extreme accuracy', in northern India, resulted in an average difference of 2-3 inches ((5,08-7,62 cm) in adult male tigers:

" ... These measurements (Hewett referred to a number of measurements he considered reliable) were, I believe, all taken ober the curves, and correspond very closely to those taken by Dunbar-Brander and others, allowing for two or three inches of difference, between pegs ... " ('Jungle trails in northern India', Sir John Hewett, 1938, pp. 70 of the Natraj Publishers reprint). 

Biologists today do not measure tigers 'between pegs', but 'over curves'. Although there's a protocol, there's some doubt about the way this method is applied in different regions. Anyhow. 

Some years ago, I measured 3 captive adult male Amur tigers and 3 captive adult male lions in a Dutch facility. Two Amur tigers were measured both 'between pegs' (280,0 and 294,0 cm) and 'over curves' (287,0 and 306,5 cm). The difference between both methods was 2,75 and 5 inches (7,0-12,5 cm) respectively. We tried to measure one of the male lions in this way as well, but lacked the time to do it right (the lion was measured just before he woke up).  

Based on what I saw and felt (I quite often moved and carried sedated lions and tigers in the facility mentioned above), I'd say the difference between both methods in adult male lions could be a bit more pronounced. One reason is the mane. Another is the body of male lions usually has more undulations and, therefore, more curves. This means it takes quite a bit of time to measure a male lion 'over curves'.

It's perhaps not superfluous to add that captive male lions usually are quite robust animals. Those raised in a circus in particular often are very healthy and muscular. Based on what I have, I'd say they're a bit larger than (most of) their wild relatives. One could say lions, sizewise, are not severely affected by captivity and be close. 

This is not the case in tigers. 

Adult male tigers in Indian zoos (referring to Panthera tigris tigris) average 400-410 pounds. Reliable information about the size of their wild relatives suggests adult males today average over 440 pounds. A significant difference. Those who had the opportunity to see wild and captive Indian tigers agreed wild males are more muscular and robust as a general rule. A century ago, it wasn't very different. Nearly all big game hunters who saw captive Indian tigers in European zoos wrote they were mere shadows of their wild relatives. 

Captive Amur tigers, to a degree, still carry the genes of their ancestors captured in the fifties and sixties of the previous century. Most captive males I saw were long, tall and quite heavy. In spite of that, they often lacked the muscular development of their wild relatives. Although wild Amur tigers lost quite a bit of size after the population collapsed in the thirties and forties of the previous century, recent videos, photographs and observations suggest they're on their way back. Although a bit smaller, most wild male Amur tigers (seem to) have relatively larger skulls, bigger limbs and deeper chests than their captive relatives.   

As a result of the efforts of the Russians, the population recovered to a degree. Today, there are about 600 wild Amur tigers. It's one of the great achievements of the last century. 

If the population continues to increase, chances are we'll see some of the tigers Baikov, Arseniev, Dersu and Jankowski saw a century ago. One can only hope the Russians and the Chinese (I recently saw a German documentary about the new Chinese reserve close to the Russian border - a region of great beauty) are willing to offer them a decent chance. It won't be easy, as tigers, especially in northeastern Asia, need a lot of room.   

As to Sumatran tigers. The part of Amsterdam where I was raised had quite many people from Indonesia, a former Dutch colony. Some of them were from Sumatra. In those days, large parts of Sumatra were still covered by dense forest. Most people living close to the forest knew about tigers. One of those I met, although not that old, had seen dozens. He really knew about tigers. So much so, I considered him an authority. One day, we visited the Amsterdam Zoo ('Artis') to see the Sumatrans they had. We left after 10 minutes only. He had seen enough: " ... These animals (one of them a wildcaught tigress) are not tigers, Pete. They're lost souls. Ghosts. Forget about them ... ". 

I think this conclusion just about covers it. Wild tigers really are children of the wild. They start to develop their character and body when they become independent and continue to do so until the very end. According to those who know, adult wild tigers have outspoken characters. In contrast to their captive relatives, they're true adults. Without the forest, they quickly lose their strength, essence and meaning. 

Captive lions, however, remain lions. The reason is their world, to a degree, remains intact. Captive lions, like their wild relatives, live in groups of related individuals. For a lion, life is about the pride. When you observe captive lions for a long time, you'll notice males in particular seem to live in a different dimension. Wild lions interact with people sharing their habitat, but captive lions, as a general rule, don't. They're not interested in humans. If you enter their world, chances are they'll consider you an outsider. Outsiders are dangerous. It is possible to bond with them if you enter their life when they're still young, but adults only very seldom tolerate, let alone accept, humans. Lions develop their character in family groups or coalitions. Competition is a vital part of daily life. Based on what I saw and heard, I'd say captive lions are as aggressive as their wild relatives, if not more so. I'm not sure, but my guess is social interaction could be the reason lions, in contrast to many captive tigers, do not quickly deteriorate in captivity. 

But captivity has consequences for lions as well. Quite many captive lions, and males in particular, develop, and suffer from, deformities of the skull. When you see skulls of captive male lions, it almost seems like they carried an unseen weight on top of their skull for most of their life. Skulls of wild male lions often are elevated, muscular, functional and strong. Skulls of captive male lions, although often a bit larger and, in particular, wider, are (relatively) less elevated and not as muscular and dense. Not a few are asymmetrical. Superfluous growths are quite common and vital channels often are narrower. Skulls of captive tigers also are affected by captivity, but not to the same degree.          
 
If you want to know more about tigers and lions and the methods used to measure them, my advice is to visit the extinction threads.

And welcome to the forum. Reply