WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
Lions in Central and East Africa
Lions in Central and East Africa
|
Lions in Central and East Africa
|
 
Tables about the overall size of this large lion population:
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author In next tables, I will separate them by countries, just to show the specific variations. By the way, according with Dubach et al. (2013) and taking in count also the other genetic studies, the East African lions are a single subspecies with the Southern African lion (Panthera leo melanochaita), but represent a different clade, although the last studies show that this "difference" is not very clear, most probably because of human intervention rather than a natural "intermix".
Guate, although the effort is much appreciated, the tables are, as you wrote, to an extent misleading in that the averages do not represent the average at the level of subspecies.
I wonder if it is possible to get to a table that has all information on body dimensions and weight collected by others in one new table. You could perhaps add the average you found in that table as well. Another way to get to some insight is to start a few tables on regional differences. If there are differences, we could try to find explanations. I would also be interested in size and weight differences between, say, a century ago and today. This in order to see the effect of humans and habitat change over the years.
The objective of my tables is to show the overall size of the East African lions, using all, I mean ALL the records available from my part and other posters.
The table follow the phylogeny of Dubach et al. (2013) which states that all East and Southern African lions are one single subspecies, although they represent they one clade respectively, in this case, the clade of East Africa. The average follows the same premise of Yamaguchi, which is to gather all the data and make a simple average of all the population. Interestingly, the average figures match perfectly with the ones proposed by Schaller in his book "The Serengeti lion". Are intraspecific variations? Surely, but this will be reflected in my new tables (3 and 4) on this population. Even then, you must take in count that all possible variations is again, just clinal and like Selous say, there is a great variation between lions, even in a same population, so this size-weight changes that we can found are not evidence of subspecies existence. So, overall, my result stands, although I will make separated average too, like I mentioned in my first post here. in order to give a wider view of this population.
YOUR TABLES
In order to prevent a misunderstanding, I first want to say both tables are unique, very informative and much appreciated, Guate. They are a major contribution to the discussion about the general size of lions in Central and East Africa. This is the main thing to remember. DE ALMEIDA If you read the tables, the conclusion is lions in this part of Africa average 179,5 kg. (males) and 128,1 kg. (females). The real averages, as you added at the bottom of both tables, are a bit lower (174 kg. for males and 121 kg. for females). In order to prevent problems, I propose to construct a table that has everything on size. This table could be an overview of averages and should be as reliable as possible. I would go for peer-reviewed publications first. We could add a table with information on lion size from hunters later. The lower average for males (see above), as you wrote below your table, is a result of information on lion size in De Almeida's book. I read his book. Although I take his word, one would like to see a bit more than what he offered. SUBSPECIES As for Dubach's conclusion regarding lions in Central, East and South Africa. I do not doubt the conclusion he got to, but it is a fact there are significant differences between regional populations in Africa. We could consider these as a result of a cline or decide to dig a little deeper. Before we do, we have to consider the debate on tigers and subspecies as well. In the last 15 years, different biologists, based on good information, got to very different conclusions regarding tigers and subspecies. In spite of the quality of the information they offered, the questions on subspecies and taxonomy still haven't been answered. Could happen in lions and subspecies as well. CLINES We could say a lion is a lion anywhere. We could also decide to offer a cline for all questions regarding size differences in different regions. Although we would be right, we also have to remember concepts do not offer a lot of information. My take for now is to try to find out a bit more regarding local differences. If we find (unknown) factors behind a cline, chances are this concept will become more defined. Maybe a cline could work out differently in different regions. Maybe there is no real cline in some animals or some regions. Maybe humans are way more important than a cline. PROPOSAL Knowledge always is a result of good questions, hard work and details. In order to find answers, one could start at the top (deduction) or at the bottom (induction). I wouldn't know how to approach evolution, but I do think we, fossilwise, only saw the top of the iceberg. Genetics, in my opinion, also is just only starting. General ideas based on research in both fields, although interesting, are just that. We can't dismiss attempts to collect more information as superfluous, because we just don't know what we'll find below the surface. I definitely like everything I read on evolution, clines and related and I also think lions are lions and humans are humans anywhere, but that doesn't mean I'll leave it at that. The more I know about the past, the better the chance I'll understand today and act, evolutionwise, in a responsible way. Not superfluous if we take what we see today into account. I mean, if we continue this way, the big cats won't be the first to disappear. Maybe Kitchener is right regarding clines, but a cline doesn't do a lot for understanding and it also doesn't explain why exceptions seem to be the general rule. Same for the idea regarding uniformity often seen in many species. There's always a bit more to it and I propose to test what can be tested, especially in a forum like this one. 
Found some more lion weights for your chart, I didn't see them in there so I figured I'd post them and see if you have the records already.
Campbell and Harthoorn(1963) male lion 180kg. and another male 191kg. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...9YIr0WaUcQ And here a 210kg. lion, there was 10 males ages 15 months to 10 years, so I wouldn't put the 88 kg lion in your chart. And a lioness of 165kg. ages were 2-9 years of age, both largest weights are going to be older animals while the smallest number is probably the youngest in the data. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...8261,d.cWc 211kg lion http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...8261,d.cWc (05-04-2014, 04:10 AM)'TheLioness' Wrote: Found some more lion weights for your chart, I didn't see them in there so I figured I'd post them and see if you have the records already.Thank you very much. They will be added in the new tables, with the new form. 
I only skimmed most of this one so I could of missed it, but it looks like they only really give two weights of the 10 lions that where male between the ages of 6-8.5 and it was 163kg-210kg and if they include 15 months till the oldest lion, then it is 88kg - 210kg. Did they show al 10 of the mature lions weights there?
Quote:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...8261,d.cWc (05-04-2014, 04:10 AM)'TheLioness' Wrote: Found some more lion weights for your chart, I didn't see them in there so I figured I'd post them and see if you have the records already.A little side note. The second and third documents correspond to South African lions, not East African ones, so they must be discarded for this region and included in the southern clade. The first link doesn’t work for me, can you fix it please? Greetings.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...8261,d.cWc
Try that and for the other lions okay cool, no problem, have you made charts for south african lions? (05-05-2014, 06:41 PM)'TheLioness' Wrote: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...8261,d.cWcSorry, but the link still doesn’t work. I don’t know why, but it opens a window that redirects me to third page but it is blank. [img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img] About the tables, I have only the tables of the records of Stevenson-Hamilton. I have not worked other records of the southern area, for the moment.
Hi Guate, I have another male for you, the same people who weighed young tom also weighed another male, 237kg. I have asked if this is including stomach content, until then here is the email I recieved. I double checked young toms weight, wondering if his wound caused his low weight and got this reply.
Actually it seems you know of this male already, the 235kg on the website could be a little off, or this could be a re-weighing.  *This image is copyright of its original author This male is also from the crater. 
TheLioness, thanks for this new info but your image is so tiny that it can't possibly be read. Could you edit and give us a much bigger version? Appreciated
Interesting information. In fact, both males were already included in my table, and the difference between 235 and 237 is practically irrelevant.
What is interesting is how straightforward are her comments. She accept the fact that they scales are not reliable and that in the best case, the resulting figures are educated guesses. Even then, both weights are in the range of the adult males and the only two from the Crater, so I don't see any problem is including them in the list. On the chest girths, that of Tom is really small, while that of Puyol is no larger than those from Kenya, for example. We could say that those Crater lions with chests of up to 132 cm are much heavier, but we most take in count that the figure of 235-237 kg contain stomach content, and a large one, according with the original source. American scientists seems to have not a good eye for scales, in Nepal they were too small, in the Crater they are to old. Only Russians (The Amur tiger Programme) get the thing right, they use digital scales which are far more accurate than any spring scale used by western scientists. Again, thanks for your data TheLioness, you are a great help. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] (05-24-2014, 09:45 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Interesting information. In fact, both males were already included in my table, and the difference between 235 and 237 is practically irrelevant. Even the lion weights in Kenya vary from the largest weight, to mostly under 190kg. It seems there is huge weight differnces between lions of the same location. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |