|
Desert Lions
|
Mark Dumbleton: " One of my favourite places on Earth, the Kalahari, and in this photo more specifically the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in South Africa.
I was camping at Rooiputs during an amazing trip in February 2014 when we found a pride of Lions around the Kij Kij waterhole. I spent most of my time following the female with 2 cubs. Truly memorable! "  
One of the Nossob kings relaxing next to the road on a scorching day in the Kalahari. It was my very first trip to the Kgalagadi and I hope to be there sooner rather than later
Photo credit to: Rian Boshoff Wildlife Photography Kgalagadi,Posted: 14/09/2020
Beautiful Kalahari Lions
Credit to @sam.inhrt and @davidwilkins25  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
  (11-04-2020, 08:52 PM)Lycaon Wrote: Robust forearms. Yes, robust all the way. And he isn't the only one in that part of Africa. Everything I have says lions in the western part of southern Africa could be the largest (at the level of averages). Maybe deserts and their fringes are not as inproductive as many think. In 2015, I saw an interesting documentary about desert lions. This year, a follow-up was broadcasted on ARTE, a European channel that often broadcasts good documentaries about wild animals. The 5 young males seen in the first (2015) documentary also featured in the second documentary. The coalition did very well. That is, until they took a donkey. Only 1 of them survived the retaliation. A bloody shame. The second documentary is one of the best I saw on desert lions. See if you can find it. Here's the link to the 2015 documentary. No commercials. It's in German: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzfiHGzgBzI  (11-05-2020, 04:13 AM)peter Wrote:(11-04-2020, 08:52 PM)Lycaon Wrote: Robust forearms. I am unable to watch that video, unfortunately it appears it is blocked in my country. However, that is very interesting about the desert lions though. I have always been of the impression that the lions in the Ngorongoro Crater appear to be the largest, they always look very thick and powerful. Perhaps it is their very large manes that give this impression. Now I need to go out and actually look into the measured averages of these two groups. It is always incredibly sad when lions are killed by man for the crime of being lions. (11-05-2020, 08:46 PM)BA0701 Wrote:(11-05-2020, 04:13 AM)peter Wrote:(11-04-2020, 08:52 PM)Lycaon Wrote: Robust forearms. I agree Crater lions seem to be both large and thick-set, but reliable information about their size isn't there. This is not true for lions in the western part of southern Africa. As far as I can see, they could top the table. It's speculation all the way, but Crater lions could compare to Kaziranga tigers. Photographs, videos and descriptions of those who had the opportunity to compare them them to tigers living in other regions suggest Kaziranga tigers are both big and large-skulled. Many of those interested in tigers think they could top the table, but, like in Crater lions, there's no reliable information about the size of Kaziranga tigers. The only, indirect (Kaziranga is located further south), info we have was collected in the last 3 decades of the 19th century (referring to the book written by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar published in 1908). I read it and posted tables about the size of the tigers shot by the Maharajah and his guests in the tiger thread. The conclusion was tigers shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam, although about as long, were heavier (461 pounds as compared to 420) than tigers shot in Central India in about the same period. Kaziranga is located in a very productive alluvial floodplain. Furthermore, it's one of the best protected reserves. As there's a strong relation between weight and conditions in all wild big cats, chances are Kaziranga tigers are larger than those shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam over a century ago. Crater lions compare in that they too live in a productive, and isolated, district. Like Kaziranga tigers, they're not hunted. According to Packer, the only lion biologist able to change into a lion at will, Crater lions are bigger than the lions he studies. But how much bigger is anyone's guess. This means we, regarding wild big cats, have no other option but to watch videos and photographs in order to to get to estimates. In captive big cats, things are a bit different. That, however, doesn't mean it's easy to get to a decent estimate. Some years ago, I did an experiment in a Dutch facility. It had 3 male circus lions and 3 male Amur circus tigers. They lived next to each other, meaning it was easy to compare them. Those involved in the experiment were the director, a few keepers and 2 vets. All of them knew about big cats. I asked them to estimate the length and weight of the cats. Not one of them was even close. What I saw suggests opinions on size, even in 'professionals', seem to be a result of character, skull size and robustness. The lion who got most votes was not as long, tall and heavy as the other 5 males, but he was aggressive, big-skulled and robust. So much for opinions, I think. Unfortunately, we often have no choice but to do opinions. Anyhow. Here's my opinion on big cats living in deserts. What I saw, suggests big cats living in desert-like regions (referring to Ranthambore and Namibia in particular), apart from those (referring to tigers) living just south of the Himalayas, seem to be a bit longer and taller than their relatives living in other regions. My conclusion, I think, wasn't a result of angles and perception only. If anything, desert lions seemed as robust as their relatives in Kruger, if not more so. The table on Hobatere lions I posted, although the method used to measure them was a bit unclear, underlined Namibian lions, both males and females, are large animals. What I read about Ranthambore tigers also suggest they're among the largest actually measured. You could well be right about the Crater though. Male lions in Kruger and Namibia average about 190 kg. (Kruger) or a bit more (Namibia). If there's a region where males could exceed that mark, it would be the Crater. As to the size of big cats. Many of those interested in big cats seem to be fascinated by size. Not seldom, pictures of enormous lions and tigers are posted. I measured about 20 captive big cats and saw a lot more. Any adult male lion or tiger exceeding 400 pounds (181,44 kg.) in good shape is an impressive and very powerful animal. Individuals exceeding 442 pounds (200,49 kg.) are very large. Every now and then, you'll see a cat exceeding 550 pounds (249,48 kg.) or even 600 pounds (272,16 kg.). At close range, a cat of this size will completely overwhelm you.
A solemn look of a battle hardened warrior of the Kalahari, at eye level. So much respect for male lions that make it this far in the harsh Kgalagadi environment that they call home. This is 1 of the coalition of 2 males that rule the Nossob Camp area.
Image by: Dave Pusey  *This image is copyright of its original author
(11-06-2020, 04:03 PM)peter Wrote:(11-05-2020, 08:46 PM)BA0701 Wrote:(11-05-2020, 04:13 AM)peter Wrote:(11-04-2020, 08:52 PM)Lycaon Wrote: Robust forearms. Very interesting observations my friend. Do the Kaziranga tigers have anything that appears differently than other tigers, or is size the only discernable difference? Crater lions, for me, have a very distinct look to them, the closest thing I have seen to the images we see of Barbary lions. So, I can typically see an image of a Crater lion, and have a strong idea of where they come from, and I am far from a lion expert, much further than so many of our other members who have incredible knowledge on these animals. When it comes to the size debate, just as in the case of the age debate of particular individuals, we seem to lack much real data on them, just as you mentioned @peter , so we are left with opinions, and there is no lack of "professional" opinions supporting all sides of the debate. In instances like that, I try to rely on the comments of the professionals who are giving their opinions on subjects they have tremendous knowledge on. They are still opinions, but at least they are educated opinions. It is surprising that more studies haven't been done in these areas, but perhaps Ranthambore and the Crater presents difficulties, perhaps a lack of access, to perform proper studies. I am not sure that is the reason, however, given how much photo and film of these animals we see, somebody is getting close to them. The study you mentioned, is very interesting, but I do believe you are correct in that these animals that live in resource rich environments are going to tend to be more robust animals. Just as in the deer that I am familiar with, when deer are in an area that contains abundant amounts of particular food type and minerals, they grow larger, or in some cases grow larger racks. Not being familiar with the tigers in Kaziranga, I am unable to opine on that, or even the lions as well. But I do know for a fact that you can have an area that has a natural mineral source that an area just a few miles away doesn't have, and the deer near that resource can grown larger and have much larger racks.There is an area near where I live, called Cade's Cove. It is an 11 mile loop in the Great Smoky Mountains, that has been made part of the historical National Park, and thus there is zero hunting permitted there. The animals in that area, namely the deer that you see in so many photos due to their allowing humans to get very close to them a result of no hunting, and these animals all have very large developed racks. They can tend to be thin at times, however, as there are so many animals in the area that it creates a problem with food resources, but they certainly have larger bodies than deer just outside of the park, where hunting is allowed. There must be a genetic factor at play as well, in regards to the crater lions. I say this, because there is a show called Lion Gangland, about the Vumbi Pride. This show was my introduction to the crater lions C-Boy and Hildur, two incredibly massive specimens, with those huge beautiful crater manes. To this day, these two males remain, for me personally, some of the most gorgeous lions I have ever seen. The reason I mention this is that though they were crater lions, this pride resided in a literal desert, with very low food resources, so low in fact that during the dry season they appeared very thin and gaunt, especially the cubs. But yet, those two males were still enormous, and those massive crater manes still existed. There is also another point, for me, when I look at the face of a crater male, I can usually tell that it is a crater lion, they have a very distinct look, in the same way Asiatic lions have a different look with their typically smaller manes and triangular shaped head, they appear different than say lions of Sabi Sands, and most certainly very different from crater lions. You would never confuse the two. So I wonder, if the crater lions may be their own breed, in the same way Asiatic lions are. Crater lions faces appear the closest to what are called the Barbary lions that we see today, and the Barbary (Atlas) lions are their own breed of lions. Perhaps the same could be true about the tigers of Ranthambore. Clearly we need to study all of these animals so much more extensively. Of course this is not a scientific statement in regards to these lions, but their appearance is clearly different from other lions. One thing I find interesting is how, at least in my country, animals from colder climates tend to be much larger more robust creatures. Taking the deer for instance, since this is an animal I have spent many years trying to understand better. The deer in Wisconsin are truly massive animals, especially when compared to the deer down south. The state I grew up in, Florida, has some very small deer, even when compared to the deer in South Carolina, just 400 miles away. Perhaps some studies have been done that I am unaware of, but it can lead the layman to conclude that perhaps weather has an effect. What puzzles me most with that conclusion is that I have hunted in WI as well as Florida, the WI deer have a very difficult time in finding food during the winters, which up there can be very long with the ground remaining completely frozen for months, and the deer in Florida never have to adapt to such conditions. Different food sources may produce at different times of year, such as when acorns drop from the trees, but their food sources never dry up in the same way that they do in the northern states. So their lives in that regard are much more simple, and thus it could lead one to expect that the southern deer would be the larger animals, when it is the exact opposite of that which is the case. We do have deer species in my country that have a different appearance, like Whitetail and Mule Deer, and while similar in many aspects they are in fact different species of the deer family. I wonder if the same can be said of the animals we are discussing. I am not saying weather impacts the lions and tigers we are discussing, but that perhaps it may play a role. Certainly the coats of the colder climate animals become much thicker than their southern brethren, but how or if the weather plays any role in the larger bodies and racks of the northern deer is unknown to me. I think there is so much that can impact these animals, with the first obvious choice being the resource rich lands that these particular animals come from, and suggesting that there may possibly be some unknown factors as well.
Two beast on the move!
The Kalahari lion is a sub-species that behaves and looks different from other lions as a result of its adaptation to the Kalahari environment. Compared to other lions, it lives in smaller groups, covers larger home territories and hunts smaller prey. One of its favourite dishes is the gemsbok, but when they are not available lions also eat antelopes, porcupines and other small mammals. The Kalahari lion is lighter and males have black manes. Image by: Etienne Terblanche  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |