There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
'GuateGojira dateline='' Wrote: Guys, this is already annoying. Are we going to return to discuss the same thing? [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
That poor lion is already dead and the guys in Timbavati already accept the figure. So, if this weight was real or not, is now unknown, as the guys in the area now will simply use the figure as a "flag". So, I don't see any point in continuing discussing this anymore.
Returning to the topic:
I have noted that lions in dryer areas seems to be heavier than those in more wooden places. For example, the lions in the dry Etosha are much larger than those from Serengeti, despite the fact that the prey density in these areas are very veryvery different.
What do you think about this? If this is the case, prey density is not "so" related with lion size, I think. Are this just exceptional cases, or the simple rule?
Seriengeti is quite dry aswell, it's atleast not wooden, it's open plains, and it's almost semi-dessert in the dry season
@Pckts here is The biologist who actually weighed The animal. I can't understand why You think people like this should lie? They are just doing their job and what they love they don't what to make The lion massive and compare it to The tiger as it does seem You try to state, why do You try so hard to stand against this Lions weight, I know You would have exploded if I had done The same if this Lion was a tiger. No offence
08-31-2014, 01:01 PM( This post was last modified: 08-31-2014, 01:11 PM by Amnon242 )
(08-30-2014, 09:41 PM)chaos Wrote:
(08-30-2014, 01:23 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: According to me, prey density is important for increasing population. To attain bigger size they should prey on relatively large prey or inversely you can say those area where bigger size prey are available predators need more muscle power and big body dimension to take them down.
Intersting take. Larger prey combined with prey density/availability will produce
maximum size. A logical assessment, I do believe.
I would say it will produce big prides composed of relatively bigger lions.
But once again - variability in size among lions seems to be quite low. Some sub-populations are somewhat bigger than other, but the difference is probably not that big like it is among tigers (among bengals you have very small sundarban tigers in contrast to huge north-indian tigers, or among amurs you have quite small korean tigers in contrast to gigantic manchurian tigers). I do belive that it has something to do with the social/solitary lifestyle.
08-31-2014, 06:26 PM( This post was last modified: 08-31-2014, 06:42 PM by chaos )
(08-31-2014, 01:01 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:
(08-30-2014, 09:41 PM)'chaos' Wrote:
(08-30-2014, 01:23 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: According to me, prey density is important for increasing population. To attain bigger size they should prey on relatively large prey or inversely you can say those area where bigger size prey are available predators need more muscle power and big body dimension to take them down.
Intersting take. Larger prey combined with prey density/availability will produce
maximum size. A logical assessment, I do believe.
I would say it will produce big prides composed of relatively bigger lions.
But once again - variability in size among lions seems to be quite low. Some sub-populations are somewhat bigger than other, but the difference is probably not that big like it is among tigers (among bengals you have very small sundarban tigers in contrast to huge north-indian tigers, or among amurs you have quite small korean tigers in contrast to gigantic manchurian tigers). I do belive that it has something to do with the social/solitary lifestyle.
Guate or Peter are more informed on this...
Size variablity is less with lions than tigers, correct. But disparity in prey availability is clearly evident in
the drier regions of the African plains as opposed to areas of S Africa where the largest and most robust
lions reside. What I'm saying; there is a correlation there. Same with crater lions also. Let's simplify, lions
that eat more, will grow larger. I agree that hunting larger prey demands more - physically - and will result
in a more muscular cat. I've noted from observations, a distinct physical difference in appearance in lions
of different regions. Not talking height or length, but weight and musculature. The okovangos for example.
They've been quoted as "lions on steroids" due to their diet of buffalo, while African plains lions appear thin
and malnourished during the dry season, due to lack of prey. I'm no expert, but I use my eyesight and my
reasoning to reach a plausible answer.
08-31-2014, 07:21 PM( This post was last modified: 08-31-2014, 07:39 PM by Amnon242 )
(08-31-2014, 06:26 PM)chaos Wrote:
(08-31-2014, 01:01 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:
(08-30-2014, 09:41 PM)'chaos' Wrote:
(08-30-2014, 01:23 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: According to me, prey density is important for increasing population. To attain bigger size they should prey on relatively large prey or inversely you can say those area where bigger size prey are available predators need more muscle power and big body dimension to take them down.
Intersting take. Larger prey combined with prey density/availability will produce
maximum size. A logical assessment, I do believe.
I would say it will produce big prides composed of relatively bigger lions.
But once again - variability in size among lions seems to be quite low. Some sub-populations are somewhat bigger than other, but the difference is probably not that big like it is among tigers (among bengals you have very small sundarban tigers in contrast to huge north-indian tigers, or among amurs you have quite small korean tigers in contrast to gigantic manchurian tigers). I do belive that it has something to do with the social/solitary lifestyle.
Guate or Peter are more informed on this...
Size variablity is less with lions than tigers, correct. But disparity in prey availability is clearly evident in
the drier regions of the African plains as opposed to areas of S Africa where the largest and most robust
lions reside. What I'm saying; there is a correlation there. Same with crater lions also. Let's simplify, lions
that eat more, will grow larger. I agree that hunting larger prey demands more - physically - and will result
in a more muscular cat. I've noted from observations, a distinct physical difference in appearance in lions
of different regions. Not talking height or length, but weight and musculature. The okovangos for example.
They've been quoted as "lions on steroids" due to their diet of buffalo, while African plains lions appear thin
and malnourished during the dry season, due to lack of prey. I'm no expert, but I use my eyesight and my
reasoning to reach a plausible answer.
Disparity in prey availability is certainly a factor, but lions (probably due to their social life style) are not that much affected by this, the correlation is not so strong (when we talk about size). South african lions are on average heavier than east african, but the difference is like 190 kg vs 170 kg (I don´t know exact numbers).
If you compare it to bengal tigers...sundarbans are around 120 kg (???)...or even less(?), while northern bengals are twice as heavy...
anyway...I see no dispute between us, basically we agree with each other...perhaps according to you the size variability among lions is somewhat bigger than according to me...
Size variablity is less with lions than tigers, correct. But disparity in prey availability is clearly evident in
the drier regions of the African plains as opposed to areas of S Africa where the largest and most robust
lions reside. What I'm saying; there is a correlation there. Same with crater lions also. Let's simplify, lions
that eat more, will grow larger. I agree that hunting larger prey demands more - physically - and will result
in a more muscular cat. I've noted from observations, a distinct physical difference in appearance in lions
of different regions. Not talking height or length, but weight and musculature. The okovangos for example.
They've been quoted as "lions on steroids" due to their diet of buffalo, while African plains lions appear thin
and malnourished during the dry season, due to lack of prey. I'm no expert, but I use my eyesight and my
reasoning to reach a plausible answer.
I think you are correct Chaos. We are like the Myth Busters. At best, we look at hypotheses and try to determine their degree of plausability.
(08-30-2014, 01:23 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: According to me, prey density is important for increasing population. To attain bigger size they should prey on relatively large prey or inversely you can say those area where bigger size prey are available predators need more muscle power and big body dimension to take them down.
Intersting take. Larger prey combined with prey density/availability will produce
maximum size. A logical assessment, I do believe.
I would say it will produce big prides composed of relatively bigger lions.
But once again - variability in size among lions seems to be quite low. Some sub-populations are somewhat bigger than other, but the difference is probably not that big like it is among tigers (among bengals you have very small sundarban tigers in contrast to huge north-indian tigers, or among amurs you have quite small korean tigers in contrast to gigantic manchurian tigers). I do belive that it has something to do with the social/solitary lifestyle.
Guate or Peter are more informed on this...
Size variablity is less with lions than tigers, correct. But disparity in prey availability is clearly evident in
the drier regions of the African plains as opposed to areas of S Africa where the largest and most robust
lions reside. What I'm saying; there is a correlation there. Same with crater lions also. Let's simplify, lions
that eat more, will grow larger. I agree that hunting larger prey demands more - physically - and will result
in a more muscular cat. I've noted from observations, a distinct physical difference in appearance in lions
of different regions. Not talking height or length, but weight and musculature. The okovangos for example.
They've been quoted as "lions on steroids" due to their diet of buffalo, while African plains lions appear thin
and malnourished during the dry season, due to lack of prey. I'm no expert, but I use my eyesight and my
reasoning to reach a plausible answer.
Disparity in prey availability is certainly a factor, but lions (probably due to their social life style) are not that much affected by this, the correlation is not so strong (when we talk about size). South african lions are on average heavier than east african, but the difference is like 190 kg vs 170 kg (I don´t know exact numbers).
If you compare it to bengal tigers...sundarbans are around 120 kg (???)...or even less(?), while northern bengals are twice as heavy...
anyway...I see no dispute between us, basically we agree with each other...perhaps according to you the size variability among lions is somewhat bigger than according to me...
Guate?...
Your knowledge of tigers far surpasses my own, but I'm aware of the size disparity amongst
tiger subspecies. Its rooted in genetics and environment. Environment being a prime factor.
Anyhow, its been a pleasure to dicuss/debate these points of interest sans the whole LvT crap.
The following 1 user Likes chaos's post:1 user Likes chaos's post • Amnon242
(08-30-2014, 01:23 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: According to me, prey density is important for increasing population. To attain bigger size they should prey on relatively large prey or inversely you can say those area where bigger size prey are available predators need more muscle power and big body dimension to take them down.
Intersting take. Larger prey combined with prey density/availability will produce
maximum size. A logical assessment, I do believe.
I would say it will produce big prides composed of relatively bigger lions.
But once again - variability in size among lions seems to be quite low. Some sub-populations are somewhat bigger than other, but the difference is probably not that big like it is among tigers (among bengals you have very small sundarban tigers in contrast to huge north-indian tigers, or among amurs you have quite small korean tigers in contrast to gigantic manchurian tigers). I do belive that it has something to do with the social/solitary lifestyle.
Guate or Peter are more informed on this...
Size variablity is less with lions than tigers, correct. But disparity in prey availability is clearly evident in
the drier regions of the African plains as opposed to areas of S Africa where the largest and most robust
lions reside. What I'm saying; there is a correlation there. Same with crater lions also. Let's simplify, lions
that eat more, will grow larger. I agree that hunting larger prey demands more - physically - and will result
in a more muscular cat. I've noted from observations, a distinct physical difference in appearance in lions
of different regions. Not talking height or length, but weight and musculature. The okovangos for example.
They've been quoted as "lions on steroids" due to their diet of buffalo, while African plains lions appear thin
and malnourished during the dry season, due to lack of prey. I'm no expert, but I use my eyesight and my
reasoning to reach a plausible answer.
Disparity in prey availability is certainly a factor, but lions (probably due to their social life style) are not that much affected by this, the correlation is not so strong (when we talk about size). South african lions are on average heavier than east african, but the difference is like 190 kg vs 170 kg (I don´t know exact numbers).
If you compare it to bengal tigers...sundarbans are around 120 kg (???)...or even less(?), while northern bengals are twice as heavy...
anyway...I see no dispute between us, basically we agree with each other...perhaps according to you the size variability among lions is somewhat bigger than according to me...
Guate?...
Okovangos and craters, who dwell in their own micro-eco systems, due to their environs, would offer more insight
to the equation. Hopefully, in the near future, accurate data will surface.
09-01-2014, 12:26 AM( This post was last modified: 09-01-2014, 12:31 AM by Pckts )
(08-31-2014, 08:48 AM)'Pantherinae' Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Pckts here is The biologist who actually weighed The animal. I can't understand why You think people like this should lie? They are just doing their job and what they love they don't what to make The lion massive and compare it to The tiger as it does seem You try to state, why do You try so hard to stand against this Lions weight, I know You would have exploded if I had done The same if this Lion was a tiger. No offence
Can you point Almero out on the images I showed?
Can you show me which guy he was.
What date and lion is he talking about?
What is his membership with Timbavati?
Etc...
I can't understand why you think the one person who actually worked with them, is photoed with the exact lion of question and her qualifications are shown, would lie?
I stand against any claim that is not backed by data and fact. As should you!
09-01-2014, 12:34 AM( This post was last modified: 09-01-2014, 12:56 AM by Pckts )
(08-31-2014, 06:23 AM)'Siegfried' Wrote:
(08-30-2014, 11:12 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: This is a email to bold which is far more fishy than P Tigris would ever be.
If the forum justice served by Sanjay and Peter on this ptigris person is any indication of his credibility, ptigris seems to be one of the least trustworthy of the regular members embroiled in the animal debate forums. As experienced here, it seems he would do just about anything to further his personal agenda. Therefore, skepticism should applied to anything he might have offered regarding this and other topics.
PTigris is far more knowledgable than bold ever was.
We all know bolds agenda here (just look at his 600lb Tsavo lion claim), PTigris may have had issues with the mods (I don't know the facts behind it) but usually was providing actual data and reasonable responses. I respected his word over bolds.
But it doesn't matter either way. All that I look at is the email from Christina. She is the only one who was on hand, she is photographed with the exact lion and her qualifications are/were proven.
09-01-2014, 12:41 AM( This post was last modified: 09-01-2014, 12:54 AM by Pckts )
(08-31-2014, 05:56 AM)chaos Wrote:
(08-31-2014, 05:45 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Says the guy who insults me like a child and said that me and Tigerluver were the same person.
[img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
Nothing to do with L/T and everything to do with you and your "personality" and unneccassary acuisations and comments.
What are you talking about? Yes you are childish, that's a given. I never said you and tigerluver were one and the same.
You're interpretive skills leave little to be desired, that's also a given. You seem to single me out, and that's not very bright
on your behalf. I"m going to leave this alone out of respect for the forums proprietors. You should likewise do the same.
Do you ever get tired of being a liar?
TigerLuver wrote "What's the exact source of the 250 kg Private Nature Reserve specimen? Never heard of that one."
Your response
Kaos wrote "Ahhhh come on now Pockets. You and I have locked horns on this very topic many times. The 283 kg - stomach content included - lion
weighed - or estimated by your account - by the Timbervati leopard project. Remember? Thats the lion in question."
Tigerluver's reply "Thanks for the info, but I'm not Pckts. Just wondering where it's mentioned for my records."
This of course is on this very thread on page 2.
Im done with you are your BS.
Sorry mods, thats the last of the derailment.
Back to the topic at hand.
09-01-2014, 05:59 AM( This post was last modified: 09-01-2014, 06:14 AM by chaos )
(09-01-2014, 12:41 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(08-31-2014, 05:56 AM)'chaos' Wrote:
(08-31-2014, 05:45 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Says the guy who insults me like a child and said that me and Tigerluver were the same person.
[img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
Nothing to do with L/T and everything to do with you and your "personality" and unneccassary acuisations and comments.
What are you talking about? Yes you are childish, that's a given. I never said you and tigerluver were one and the same.
You're interpretive skills leave little to be desired, that's also a given. You seem to single me out, and that's not very bright
on your behalf. I"m going to leave this alone out of respect for the forums proprietors. You should likewise do the same.
Do you ever get tired of being a liar?
TigerLuver wrote "What's the exact source of the 250 kg Private Nature Reserve specimen? Never heard of that one."
Your response
Kaos wrote "Ahhhh come on now Pockets. You and I have locked horns on this very topic many times. The 283 kg - stomach content included - lion
weighed - or estimated by your account - by the Timbervati leopard project. Remember? Thats the lion in question."
Tigerluver's reply "Thanks for the info, but I'm not Pckts. Just wondering where it's mentioned for my records."
This of course is on this very thread on page 2.
Im done with you are your BS.
Sorry mods, thats the last of the derailment.
Back to the topic at hand.
Ahh boy, do I need this childish crap Pockets? You conveniently avoided posting my response to tigerluver
immediately afterwards. Its there if you care to look. Page three second post. Grow up, please. I mistakenly
attributed his post to you. Nowhere did I claim you were him. I'm gonna be polite. Back off, others see what's
going on. I'm smart enough, are you?
09-01-2014, 06:18 AM( This post was last modified: 09-01-2014, 06:20 AM by chaos )
(09-01-2014, 12:34 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(08-31-2014, 06:23 AM)'Siegfried' Wrote:
(08-30-2014, 11:12 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: This is a email to bold which is far more fishy than P Tigris would ever be.
If the forum justice served by Sanjay and Peter on this ptigris person is any indication of his credibility, ptigris seems to be one of the least trustworthy of the regular members embroiled in the animal debate forums. As experienced here, it seems he would do just about anything to further his personal agenda. Therefore, skepticism should applied to anything he might have offered regarding this and other topics.
PTigris is far more knowledgable than bold ever was.
We all know bolds agenda here (just look at his 600lb Tsavo lion claim), PTigris may have had issues with the mods (I don't know the facts behind it) but usually was providing actual data and reasonable responses. I respected his word over bolds.
But it doesn't matter either way. All that I look at is the email from Christina. She is the only one who was on hand, she is photographed with the exact lion and her qualifications are/were proven.
There is proof.. Almero said it, it's also said by others at The reserve that this woman You are reffering to was not on this project. Aswell as The Lion You had on The picture is a different lion. You can see that with ease, he's a 280 kg estimate, The one been weighed by Almero was 253 kg.. Also you said they obviously had a camera and did not show The weighing, why did they not film Madla beeing weighed they had cameras... Is that also not true now.
Again why should Almero Lie about The Lions weight?
Largest Living wild lions ?
