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.
Quote:The Homob male in Pilannesberg for example weighed 237kgs (pers coms Gus Van
Dyk) but he had just eaten- so arguably you can take of at least 20-30kg
Quote:The lions were being held in a temporary holding camp of about a quarter of hectare prior to release and were fed whole carcasses while in the camp. I could thus say with confidence when they had last eaten.
Quote:The three lions were all immobilised together and had not eaten for four days (they were thus regarded as having “empty” stomachs).
So I´m a bit confused right now.
First email said they had eaten before weighing. And second email has two conflicting sentences regarding the food content.
It says he knows when they eat. But he isnt saying they were gorged. It seems Rob misunderstood something
can you confirm with him if the weights were taken after eating or not, for clarification, and if they were taken at the time of capture in etosha or at the time of release from temporary enclosure?
Quote:The Homob male in Pilannesberg for example weighed 237kgs (pers coms Gus Van
Dyk) but he had just eaten- so arguably you can take of at least 20-30kg
Quote:The lions were being held in a temporary holding camp of about a quarter of hectare prior to release and were fed whole carcasses while in the camp. I could thus say with confidence when they had last eaten.
Quote:The three lions were all immobilised together and had not eaten for four days (they were thus regarded as having “empty” stomachs).
So I´m a bit confused right now.
First email said they had eaten before weighing. And second email has two conflicting sentences regarding the food content.
It says he knows when they eat. But he isnt saying they were gorged. It seems Rob misunderstood something
can you confirm with him if the weights were taken after eating or not, for clarification, and if they were taken at the time of capture in etosha or at the time of release from temporary enclosure?
I asked him. The camps are there to ensure the translocation so its not needed for a reserve where the lion will live. Van dyk said that he knew when they ate becuase they ate only that what they got from park (so they couldnt eat other things except very small animals/snacks). And when immobilised they didnt eat for 4 days.
I asked him. (The camps are there to ensure the translocation process so its not needed for a reserve where the lion will live). Van dyk said that he knew when they ate because they ate only that what they got from the park (so they couldnt eat other things except very small animals/snacks). And when immobilised they didnt eat for 4 days before that. That isnt a contradiction and about Rob... well he probably misunderstood it or didnt get exact informations.
(02-05-2022, 09:53 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: In fact he just weighed 41 adult males in Kruger National park and the heaviest was 225 kg but had no stomach content. His sample generally lacked those big ones compared to the data provided by Roberts 1951 (132-251 kg, all ages n=17), MacFarlane and HuBerry
Smuts weighed animals with no stomach content, The lions of Roberts came from hunting records (is a second hand source) and there is no form to know if they were empty or not, Stevenson Hamilton provided weights adjusted for stomach content, and the lions from MacFarlane and Hu Berry were baited and included stomach content, the largest male of 260 kg probably weighed about 240 kg.
Interestingly, the average for the lions of Berry is of 190 kg including stomach content, while those from Smuts average 187.5 kg excluding stomach content. This may suggest that lions in South Africa were indeed heavier than those from Etosha.
(02-05-2022, 09:53 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: In fact he just weighed 41 adult males in Kruger National park and the heaviest was 225 kg but had no stomach content. His sample generally lacked those big ones compared to the data provided by Roberts 1951 (132-251 kg, all ages n=17), MacFarlane and HuBerry
Smuts weighed animals with no stomach content, The lions of Roberts came from hunting records (is a second hand source) and there is no form to know if they were empty or not, Stevenson Hamilton provided weights adjusted for stomach content, and the lions from MacFarlane and Hu Berry were baited and included stomach content, the largest male of 260 kg probably weighed about 240 kg.
Interestingly, the average for the lions of Berry is of 190 kg including stomach content, while those from Smuts average 187.5 kg excluding stomach content. This may suggest that lions in South Africa were indeed heavier than those from Etosha.
Hi,
I know that. I read the page and the data from W.Campbell is really reliable(fair weights and measurements) and it seems he had contact to roberts. I was pretty disappointet that they didnt give an average but ranges. I dont have the weight but the Etosha male was estimated to be at least 240 kg, which is really big and maybe he could have even add weight as he was 5.5 years old. Are the measurements over curve or between pegs?
Quote:Interestingly, the average for the lions of Berry is of 190 kg including stomach content, while those from Smuts average 187.5 kg excluding stomach content. This may suggest that lions in South Africa were indeed heavier than those from Etosha.
Yes thats true. But looking at the weight revealed by Africat, Van dyk and other measurements of wild lions the weight should be around 200 kg. They should be around the same weight unless the conditions or whatever are different. But the lions of smuts where definetely heavier than those of HuBerry as he included also unhealthy males and so on.
I personally dont believe in any significant differences between lions. Weights arent showing really the (genetical) size but more the condition of an animal. This is exactly what rob told me as well. The question would be are they genetically heavier (which i dont believe or the differences marginal). Asiatic lions from Jhala who were as long and tall as the Kalahari lions from MacFarlane. However the difference in weight was 50 kg with the 5 adult lions of Macfarlane averaging 211 kg. However im interested how heavy Chico would have been in his adulthood as he was at 2.5 yo 206cm long and 188 kg.
02-11-2022, 02:09 AM( This post was last modified: 02-11-2022, 02:13 AM by GuateGojira )
(02-11-2022, 01:42 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I know that. I read the page and the data from W.Campbell is really reliable(fair weights and measurements) and it seems he had contact to roberts. I was pretty disappointet that they didnt give an average but ranges. I dont have the weight but the Etosha male was estimated to be at least 240 kg, which is really big and maybe he could have even add weight as he was 5.5 years old. Are the measurements over curve or between pegs?
Quote:Interestingly, the average for the lions of Berry is of 190 kg including stomach content, while those from Smuts average 187.5 kg excluding stomach content. This may suggest that lions in South Africa were indeed heavier than those from Etosha.
Yes thats true. But looking at the weight revealed by Africat, Van dyk and other measurements of wild lions the weight should be around 200 kg. They should be around the same weight unless the conditions or whatever are different. But the lions of smuts where definetely heavier than those of HuBerry as he included also unhealthy males and so on.
I personally dont believe in any significant differences between lions. Weights arent showing really the (genetical) size but more the condition of an animal. This is exactly what rob told me as well. The question would be are they genetically heavier (which i dont believe or the differences marginal). Asiatic lions from Jhala who were as long and tall as the Kalahari lions from MacFarlane. However the difference in weight was 50 kg with the 5 adult lions of Macfarlane averaging 211 kg. However im interested how heavy Chico would have been in his adulthood as he was at 2.5 yo 206cm long and 188 kg.
I only saw the pciture from the book of Pitman. If you have the original page from Campbell, can you share it please?
As far I know, the measurements reported by the late Dr Hu Berry in his email were taken in straight line. He estimated that male at 240 kg empty.
About the new weights, they seems to be focused in the biggest males available, Smuts did better as he included all the males available and was unbiased on it. Certainly, the avearage for the adult males is around 190 kg in the best cases, but if they focus only in the territorial big ones, it could be 200 kg. The same with tigers, overall the average is 200 kg, including youngs and old ones, but if we focus only in territorial ones it will be no less than 210 kg.
Finally, I don't think that we can compare the lions from India and those from Kalahari (the new measurements, of course). We know that both were measured along the curves, but we don't know how they applied that method, did they hold it straight?, did they pressed the tape?, how much they press it? These are questions that we can't answer unless the specific persons can explain it. Asian lions are genetically different from lions in Kalahari, so genetic is always an strong force that drive the morphology, also all the animals darted, from both places, were is excelent conditions. Both old and modern records always shows that Asian/Barbary/West-Africa lions are smaller and lighter than those from East/South Africa. If you check the measurements "between pegs" you can see the real difference.
With the male "Chico", it is no clear when he was measured, in one table it says 2-3 years and in other it says 4 years (fully adult) so it is not clear. Evidence and other adult males in litterature confirm that based in its weight and size it was clearly an adult male, unless that included a good amount of food. So in this case there are 6 males (7 weights reported), not 5, and the average will be 209 kg, not 211 kg.
02-11-2022, 04:28 AM( This post was last modified: 02-11-2022, 04:33 AM by SpinoRex )
(02-11-2022, 02:09 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-11-2022, 01:42 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I know that. I read the page and the data from W.Campbell is really reliable(fair weights and measurements) and it seems he had contact to roberts. I was pretty disappointet that they didnt give an average but ranges. I dont have the weight but the Etosha male was estimated to be at least 240 kg, which is really big and maybe he could have even add weight as he was 5.5 years old. Are the measurements over curve or between pegs?
Quote:Interestingly, the average for the lions of Berry is of 190 kg including stomach content, while those from Smuts average 187.5 kg excluding stomach content. This may suggest that lions in South Africa were indeed heavier than those from Etosha.
Yes thats true. But looking at the weight revealed by Africat, Van dyk and other measurements of wild lions the weight should be around 200 kg. They should be around the same weight unless the conditions or whatever are different. But the lions of smuts where definetely heavier than those of HuBerry as he included also unhealthy males and so on.
I personally dont believe in any significant differences between lions. Weights arent showing really the (genetical) size but more the condition of an animal. This is exactly what rob told me as well. The question would be are they genetically heavier (which i dont believe or the differences marginal). Asiatic lions from Jhala who were as long and tall as the Kalahari lions from MacFarlane. However the difference in weight was 50 kg with the 5 adult lions of Macfarlane averaging 211 kg. However im interested how heavy Chico would have been in his adulthood as he was at 2.5 yo 206cm long and 188 kg.
I only saw the picture from the book of Pitman. If you have the original page from Campbell, can you share it please?
As far I know, the measurements reported by the late Dr Hu Berry in his email were taken in straight line. He estimated that male at 240 kg empty.
About the new weights, they seems to be focused in the biggest males available, Smuts did better as he included all the males available and was unbiased on it. Certainly, the avearage for the adult males is around 190 kg in the best cases, but if they focus only in the territorial big ones, it could be 200 kg. The same with tigers, overall the average is 200 kg, including youngs and old ones, but if we focus only in territorial ones it will be no less than 210 kg.
Finally, I don't think that we can compare the lions from India and those from Kalahari (the new measurements, of course). We know that both were measured along the curves, but we don't know how they applied that method, did they hold it straight?, did they pressed the tape?, how much they press it? These are questions that we can't answer unless the specific persons can explain it. Asian lions are genetically different from lions in Kalahari, so genetic is always an strong force that drive the morphology, also all the animals darted, from both places, were is excelent conditions. Both old and modern records always shows that Asian/Barbary/West-Africa lions are smaller and lighter than those from East/South Africa. If you check the measurements "between pegs" you can see the real difference.
With the male "Chico", it is no clear when he was measured, in one table it says 2-3 years and in other it says 4 years (fully adult) so it is not clear. Evidence and other adult males in litterature confirm that based in its weight and size it was clearly an adult male, unless that included a good amount of food. So in this case there are 6 males (7 weights reported), not 5, and the average will be 209 kg, not 211 kg.
Hi,
The Paper came from Roberts 1951 book, page 292. But he had contact with him apparently looking at the text. Exact measurements and the average weight should be around 200-205 kg for the adult males.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:About the new weights, they seems to be focused in the biggest males available, Smuts did better as he included all the males available and was unbiased on it. Certainly, the avearage for the adult males is around 190 kg in the best cases, but if they focus only in the territorial big ones, it could be 200 kg. The same with tigers, overall the average is 200 kg, including youngs and old ones, but if we focus only in territorial ones it will be no less than 210 kg.
Thats partly true yes but not for all measurements(focusing on large ones). First of all based on weights i have to know if you are talking about empty stomach. Yes the weight about the SanParks lions(220, 225 kg), Madikwe were focused on the biggest. Smuts data showed an average of 187.5 kg on an empty stomach, which supports a "normal" weight of around 195-200 kg without huge lions. Looking at the data from Dewalt Keet 16 male lions that didnt have tubercolosis weighed 200 kg. So a healthy male should be around 190 kg empty. Generally non-terretorial male lions will be lighter especially in such areas like africa. Combining the data from Smuts and D.Keet the average male in Kruger is around 190 kg empty and 200-205 kg with some content. My empty stomach estimate for Dewalt Keets lions is 193.3 kg (adding the infected lions) and the normal weight at least 200 kg. Looking at the southern Kruger lions and the conditions they were living in they were still impressive.
Btw thats the reason i use only large sampled datas to make claims about average weights. Collected datas are nice but may have significant differences. The ones of tigers and lions are very similar, which may be caused by the fact nonterretorial tigers were captured ig, which live in harsher conditions of course. The weights i have seen from those individuals most of the time are around 180 kg. My estimate for the whole bengal tiger population is 190-210 kg with the ones in the good areas averaging maybe 210 kg. (including both groups, terretorial and nonterretorial)
First of all i think tigers cant be compared to lions. In size definetely but the former one lives completely different and in a different habitat. Also again i believe its individually as they got nearly the same skeleton structure. And a more accurate comparison would be sucessfull/moderare nonterretorial males and maybe nomadic lions (Lions that live like Ximpoko and Mabande, Homob Coalition and so on).
That my opinion when people compare lion and tigers. I do believe bengal tigers are slightly heavier nowadays but depends on region of course. But all in all unsignificant
The question is are terretorial male lions really big or are they in a good condition? The answer is they are in a good shape and therefore not heavy most of the time after i spoke with Rob but more consistent i weight. A pride male has to share the prey with a whole pride. Non-Terretorial males or maybe nomadic ones are reported to have a MUCH higher or lower food intake than pride males looking at the study from Smuts. Those can be compared to tigers maybe. A sucessfull nonterretorial male lion (maybe also nomadic lions) will be definetely heavier than a pride male but thats rare. No matter how strong against a pride it has no chance and hyena & dog packs will be also dangerous. They have more meat available and therefore will consume more and they killed larger number of bufallos. But how many nonterretorial males manage to live like that? Very few. All mentioned in the study from Smuts: https://www.academia.edu/24385710/Huntin...plications
Also if you look at it. It isnt a coincidence that MOST big lions were indeed Nomadic or solitary ones. Examples are Ximpoko, Mabande, Old Birmingham male, The lion from Mount Kenya .... . Or those males who arent living directly in a pride like a 3 male coalition.
Quote:Finally, I don't think that we can compare the lions from India and those from Kalahari (the new measurements, of course). We know that both were measured along the curves, but we don't know how they applied that method, did they hold it straight?, did they pressed the tape?, how much they press it? These are questions that we can't answer unless the specific persons can explain it. Asian lions are genetically different from lions in Kalahari, so genetic is always an strong force that drive the morphology, also all the animals darted, from both places, were is excelent conditions. Both old and modern records always shows that Asian/Barbary/West-Africa lions are smaller and lighter than those from East/South Africa. If you check the measurements "between pegs" you can see the real difference.
Actually the Asiatic lions were longer as they werent measured with ALPRU. They should be around the same length thats for sure. Im pretty sure that those weight differences arent caused genetically. Observe a skeleton from both subspecies.... the difference in their robusticity will be as neglible as their difference in skeleton size = basically nothing. As i mentioned earlier look how humans change their weights.... a heavier human is nowadays by no means genetically heavier (potential). Im not saying there is no difference but even if there is a difference is neglible. Are crater lions genetically heavier than those from Kruger? I doubt it but they maximize their potential.
Quote:With the male "Chico", it is no clear when he was measured, in one table it says 2-3 years and in other it says 4 years (fully adult) so it is not clear. Evidence and other adult males in litterature confirm that based in its weight and size it was clearly an adult male, unless that included a good amount of food. So in this case there are 6 males (7 weights reported), not 5, and the average will be 209 kg, not 211 kg.
You made an error. The ages presented in your table were the ages AT THE END OF THE STUDY. The ages when they were collared are different. I remember Khan85 wrote to me something like that.
(02-11-2022, 04:28 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: The Paper came from Roberts 1951 book, page 292. But he had contact with him apparently looking at the text. Exact measurements and the average weight should be around 200-205 kg for the adult males.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:About the new weights, they seems to be focused in the biggest males available, Smuts did better as he included all the males available and was unbiased on it. Certainly, the avearage for the adult males is around 190 kg in the best cases, but if they focus only in the territorial big ones, it could be 200 kg. The same with tigers, overall the average is 200 kg, including youngs and old ones, but if we focus only in territorial ones it will be no less than 210 kg.
Thats partly true yes but not for all measurements(focusing on large ones). First of all based on weights i have to know if you are talking about empty stomach. Yes the weight about the SanParks lions(220, 225 kg), Madikwe were focused on the biggest. Smuts data showed an average of 187.5 kg on an empty stomach, which supports a "normal" weight of around 195-200 kg without huge lions. Looking at the data from Dewalt Keet 16 male lions that didnt have tubercolosis weighed 200 kg. So a healthy male should be around 190 kg empty. Generally non-terretorial male lions will be lighter especially in such areas like africa. Combining the data from Smuts and D.Keet the average male in Kruger is around 190 kg empty and 200-205 kg with some content. My empty stomach estimate for Dewalt Keets lions is 193.3 kg (adding the infected lions) and the normal weight at least 200 kg. Looking at the southern Kruger lions and the conditions they were living in they were still impressive.
Btw thats the reason i use only large sampled datas to make claims about average weights. Collected datas are nice but may have significant differences. The ones of tigers and lions are very similar, which may be caused by the fact nonterretorial tigers were captured ig, which live in harsher conditions of course. The weights i have seen from those individuals most of the time are around 180 kg. My estimate for the whole bengal tiger population is 190-210 kg with the ones in the good areas averaging maybe 210 kg. (including both groups, terretorial and nonterretorial)
First of all i think tigers cant be compared to lions. In size definetely but the former one lives completely different and in a different habitat. Also again i believe its individually as they got nearly the same skeleton structure. And a more accurate comparison would be sucessfull/moderare nonterretorial males and maybe nomadic lions (Lions that live like Ximpoko and Mabande, Homob Coalition and so on).
That my opinion when people compare lion and tigers. I do believe bengal tigers may be slightly heavier nowadays.
The question is are terretorial male lions really big or are they in a good condition? The answer is they are in a good shape and therefore not heavy most of the time after i spoke with Rob but more consistent i weight. A pride male has to share the prey with a whole pride. Non-Terretorial males or maybe nomadic ones are reported to have a MUCH higher or lower food intake than pride males looking at the study from Smuts. Those can be compared to tigers maybe. A sucessfull nonterretorial male lion (maybe also nomadic lions) will be definetely heavier than a pride male but thats rare. No matter how strong against a pride it has no chance and hyena & dog packs will be also dangerous. They have more meat available and therefore will consume more and they killed larger number of bufallos. But how many nonterretorial males manage to live like that? Very few. All mentioned in the study from Smuts: https://www.academia.edu/24385710/Huntin...plications
Also if you look at it. It isnt a coincidence that MOST big lions were indeed Nomadic or solitary ones. Examples are Ximpoko, Mabande, Old Birmingham male, The lion from Mount Kenya .... . Or those males who arent living directly in a pride like a 3 male coalition.
Quote:Finally, I don't think that we can compare the lions from India and those from Kalahari (the new measurements, of course). We know that both were measured along the curves, but we don't know how they applied that method, did they hold it straight?, did they pressed the tape?, how much they press it? These are questions that we can't answer unless the specific persons can explain it. Asian lions are genetically different from lions in Kalahari, so genetic is always an strong force that drive the morphology, also all the animals darted, from both places, were is excelent conditions. Both old and modern records always shows that Asian/Barbary/West-Africa lions are smaller and lighter than those from East/South Africa. If you check the measurements "between pegs" you can see the real difference.
Actually the Asiatic lions were longer as they werent measured with ALPRU. They should be around the same length thats for sure. Im pretty sure that those weight differences arent caused genetically. Observe a skeleton from both subspecies.... the difference in their robusticity will be as neglible as their difference in skeleton size = basically nothing. As i mentioned earlier look how humands change their weights.... a heavier human is nowadays by no means genetically heavier (potential). Im not saying there is no difference but even if there is a difference is neglible. Are crater lions genetically heavier than those from Kruger? I doubt it but they maximize their potential.
Quote:With the male "Chico", it is no clear when he was measured, in one table it says 2-3 years and in other it says 4 years (fully adult) so it is not clear. Evidence and other adult males in litterature confirm that based in its weight and size it was clearly an adult male, unless that included a good amount of food. So in this case there are 6 males (7 weights reported), not 5, and the average will be 209 kg, not 211 kg.
You made an error. The ages presented in your table were the ages AT THE END OF THE STUDY. The ages when they were collared are different. I remember Khan85 wrote to me something like that.
regards
I have that image too, conclution is that males average about 197 kg, not even near 200 kg and those were hunting records just provided to Roberts by Campbell, no information of the status of the animals and no information of the stomach content (maybe in table 36 we can see more details, but we need to check the book itself), so Robert's book is definitelly a second hand source from lions that were not reported by scientists, but a collection of hunting records that are usefull but with no details, as far we know.
I don't see the logic on the food intake of pride lions eating less than nomadic lions, but I will read the paper from Phil Richardson that you shared here. Other thing, in the paper of Dr Keet he do not adjusted his specimens for stomach content like Smuts done, so a comparison can't be done between samples. Those lions from Keet could be even lighter than those from Smuts, less than 190 kg taking in count the food in take of the lions that is about the same as tigers (c.15 kg in a day). So, I don't see any form how a male South African lion can average more than 200 kg if they do not include a fair amount of food and if they are not from a selected list of record males.
In the tiger side, the lower average that I ever calculated with the biggest and most reliable sample available, was of 200 kg, and this is including Sundarbans (98 - 150 kg) and all the probably young or ill males (150- 180 kg). Definitelly if we select the prime territorial males (180 - 272 kg), the average will increase up to 210 kg or even more if we follow the range of Dr Jhala (none less than 200 kg), using only modern records which we actually know that are adults (except for a male of 166 kg that I will like to confirm) the average is of 214 kg with some especimens empty belly.
In the document of Dr Jhala do not says that lions were measured following the ALPRU method, but lions in the Kalahari region yes. However, again, we are "assuming" that they were measured in the same form, but even if we say that they are of the same length "over curves", the other measurements, like the chest girth, shows a significan difference. Genetic is very important here, you can't discard this and I don't understand why this little group of people in other forums are using this new excuse, because is that, an excuse with no fundament, and there are several documents since the last decate showing this genetic differences between populations. There is no comparative study on the skeletons of these populations so I have no idea were you get those conclutions, but we can use skulls which are readible available in litterature and you can see that those from South Africa are massive in comparison with those from India in simple vew and in measurements too. These two subspecies are so different that they have specific morphological characteristis that has been presented in several documents and finally, genetic studies shows the difference between them, like I said before. Genetic is the base of morphology and its changes, and even if the Indian lions are of the same length, they are not as robust as those from East/South Africa and probaly this apply to its entire old range (India, Middle East, Greece, north Africa and west Africa).
Using humans as an example is not correct as we are not divided in subspecies, were are mixed populations with racial differences but that is all. And even in human populations there are genetic differences, if not, check the differences in size and weight from several populations, humans had this differences based in the populations too. As I said, we are not divided in subspecies but the races are different and the development in our bodies is different. A young man in Finland can be as tall or taller than an adult from China, for example.
About Chico, none of the tables and none of the document says what you say (I have it here right now), BUT in page 99 and 100 you can see that they refer to the weight of ADULT lions and they say that they sample is heavier than that of Smuts and the following table clearly shows that they used the 7 weights available from the 6 males, adult males. So no, the lion "Chico" was included as an adult and that invalidate any contradiction between the Appendix 4 (which has errors on it, by the way) and the Table 3.1 (also with errors that I tried to correct between the two tables). Now, if your group decide to start remouving weights in a random form just because they do not fit to they plan (Oh yes, I saw it in the other forums), then they are clearly showing that there are not playing the game in a fair form (interestingly they are the one that say that I am remouving weights, that is so stupid). I can also remouve weights too if I want and follow the strict range placed by Dr Jhala for adult males (none less than 200 kg) or at least the range of Mazák (none less than 180 kg), but I decided to include all of them (those between 150 - 180 kg), or at least all that we don't have contrary information about they age, to make a fair sample.
(02-11-2022, 04:28 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: The Paper came from Roberts 1951 book, page 292. But he had contact with him apparently looking at the text. Exact measurements and the average weight should be around 200-205 kg for the adult males.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:About the new weights, they seems to be focused in the biggest males available, Smuts did better as he included all the males available and was unbiased on it. Certainly, the avearage for the adult males is around 190 kg in the best cases, but if they focus only in the territorial big ones, it could be 200 kg. The same with tigers, overall the average is 200 kg, including youngs and old ones, but if we focus only in territorial ones it will be no less than 210 kg.
Thats partly true yes but not for all measurements(focusing on large ones). First of all based on weights i have to know if you are talking about empty stomach. Yes the weight about the SanParks lions(220, 225 kg), Madikwe were focused on the biggest. Smuts data showed an average of 187.5 kg on an empty stomach, which supports a "normal" weight of around 195-200 kg without huge lions. Looking at the data from Dewalt Keet 16 male lions that didnt have tubercolosis weighed 200 kg. So a healthy male should be around 190 kg empty. Generally non-terretorial male lions will be lighter especially in such areas like africa. Combining the data from Smuts and D.Keet the average male in Kruger is around 190 kg empty and 200-205 kg with some content. My empty stomach estimate for Dewalt Keets lions is 193.3 kg (adding the infected lions) and the normal weight at least 200 kg. Looking at the southern Kruger lions and the conditions they were living in they were still impressive.
Btw thats the reason i use only large sampled datas to make claims about average weights. Collected datas are nice but may have significant differences. The ones of tigers and lions are very similar, which may be caused by the fact nonterretorial tigers were captured ig, which live in harsher conditions of course. The weights i have seen from those individuals most of the time are around 180 kg. My estimate for the whole bengal tiger population is 190-210 kg with the ones in the good areas averaging maybe 210 kg. (including both groups, terretorial and nonterretorial)
First of all i think tigers cant be compared to lions. In size definetely but the former one lives completely different and in a different habitat. Also again i believe its individually as they got nearly the same skeleton structure. And a more accurate comparison would be sucessfull/moderare nonterretorial males and maybe nomadic lions (Lions that live like Ximpoko and Mabande, Homob Coalition and so on).
That my opinion when people compare lion and tigers. I do believe bengal tigers may be slightly heavier nowadays.
The question is are terretorial male lions really big or are they in a good condition? The answer is they are in a good shape and therefore not heavy most of the time after i spoke with Rob but more consistent i weight. A pride male has to share the prey with a whole pride. Non-Terretorial males or maybe nomadic ones are reported to have a MUCH higher or lower food intake than pride males looking at the study from Smuts. Those can be compared to tigers maybe. A sucessfull nonterretorial male lion (maybe also nomadic lions) will be definetely heavier than a pride male but thats rare. No matter how strong against a pride it has no chance and hyena & dog packs will be also dangerous. They have more meat available and therefore will consume more and they killed larger number of bufallos. But how many nonterretorial males manage to live like that? Very few. All mentioned in the study from Smuts: https://www.academia.edu/24385710/Huntin...plications
Also if you look at it. It isnt a coincidence that MOST big lions were indeed Nomadic or solitary ones. Examples are Ximpoko, Mabande, Old Birmingham male, The lion from Mount Kenya .... . Or those males who arent living directly in a pride like a 3 male coalition.
Quote:Finally, I don't think that we can compare the lions from India and those from Kalahari (the new measurements, of course). We know that both were measured along the curves, but we don't know how they applied that method, did they hold it straight?, did they pressed the tape?, how much they press it? These are questions that we can't answer unless the specific persons can explain it. Asian lions are genetically different from lions in Kalahari, so genetic is always an strong force that drive the morphology, also all the animals darted, from both places, were is excelent conditions. Both old and modern records always shows that Asian/Barbary/West-Africa lions are smaller and lighter than those from East/South Africa. If you check the measurements "between pegs" you can see the real difference.
Actually the Asiatic lions were longer as they werent measured with ALPRU. They should be around the same length thats for sure. Im pretty sure that those weight differences arent caused genetically. Observe a skeleton from both subspecies.... the difference in their robusticity will be as neglible as their difference in skeleton size = basically nothing. As i mentioned earlier look how humands change their weights.... a heavier human is nowadays by no means genetically heavier (potential). Im not saying there is no difference but even if there is a difference is neglible. Are crater lions genetically heavier than those from Kruger? I doubt it but they maximize their potential.
Quote:With the male "Chico", it is no clear when he was measured, in one table it says 2-3 years and in other it says 4 years (fully adult) so it is not clear. Evidence and other adult males in litterature confirm that based in its weight and size it was clearly an adult male, unless that included a good amount of food. So in this case there are 6 males (7 weights reported), not 5, and the average will be 209 kg, not 211 kg.
You made an error. The ages presented in your table were the ages AT THE END OF THE STUDY. The ages when they were collared are different. I remember Khan85 wrote to me something like that.
regards
I have that image too, conclution is that males average about 197 kg, not even near 200 kg and those were hunting records just provided to Roberts by Campbell, no information of the status of the animals and no information of the stomach content (maybe in table 36 we can see more details, but we need to check the book itself), so Robert's book is definitelly a second hand source from lions that were not reported by scientists, but a collection of hunting records that are usefull but with no details, as far we know.
I don't see the logic on the food intake of pride lions eating less than nomadic lions, but I will read the paper from Phil Richardson that you shared here. Other thing, in the paper of Dr Keet he do not adjusted his specimens for stomach content like Smuts done, so a comparison can't be done between samples. Those lions from Keet could be even lighter than those from Smuts, less than 190 kg taking in count the food in take of the lions that is about the same as tigers (c.15 kg in a day). So, I don't see any form how a male South African lion can average more than 200 kg if they do not include a fair amount of food and if they are not from a selected list of record males.
In the tiger side, the lower average that I ever calculated with the biggest and most reliable sample available, was of 200 kg, and this is including Sundarbans (98 - 150 kg) and all the probably young or ill males (150- 180 kg). Definitelly if we select the prime territorial males (180 - 272 kg), the average will increase up to 210 kg or even more if we follow the range of Dr Jhala (none less than 200 kg), using only modern records which we actually know that are adults (except for a male of 166 kg that I will like to confirm) the average is of 214 kg with some especimens empty belly.
In the document of Dr Jhala do not says that lions were measured following the ALPRU method, but lions in the Kalahari region yes. However, again, we are "assuming" that they were measured in the same form, but even if we say that they are of the same length "over curves", the other measurements, like the chest girth, shows a significan difference. Genetic is very important here, you can't discard this and I don't understand why this little group of people in other forums are using this new excuse, because is that, an excuse with no fundament, and there are several documents since the last decate showing this genetic differences between populations. There is no comparative study on the skeletons of these populations so I have no idea were you get those conclutions, but we can use skulls which are readible available in litterature and you can see that those from South Africa are massive in comparison with those from India in simple vew and in measurements too. These two subspecies are so different that they have specific morphological characteristis that has been presented in several documents and finally, genetic studies shows the difference between them, like I said before. Genetic is the base of morphology and its changes, and even if the Indian lions are of the same length, they are not as robust as those from East/South Africa and probaly this apply to its entire old range (India, Middle East, Greece, north Africa and west Africa).
Using humans as an example is not correct as we are not divided in subspecies, were are mixed populations with racial differences but that is all. And even in human populations there are genetic differences, if not, check the differences in size and weight from several populations, humans had this differences based in the populations too. As I said, we are not divided in subspecies but the races are different and the development in our bodies is different. A young man in Finland can be as tall or taller than an adult from China, for example.
About Chico, none of the tables and none of the document says what you say (I have it here right now), BUT in page 99 and 100 you can see that they refer to the weight of ADULT lions and they say that they sample is heavier than that of Smuts and the following table clearly shows that they used the 7 weights available from the 6 males, adult males. So no, the lion "Chico" was included as an adult and that invalidate any contradiction between the Appendix 4 (which has errors on it, by the way) and the Table 3.1 (also with errors that I tried to correct between the two tables). Now, if your group decide to start remouving weights in a random form just because they do not fit to they plan (Oh yes, I saw it in the other forums), then they are clearly showing that there are not playing the game in a fair form (interestingly they are the one that say that I am remouving weights, that is so stupid). I can also remouve weights too if I want and follow the strict range placed by Dr Jhala for adult males (none less than 200 kg) or at least the range of Mazák (none less than 180 kg), but I decided to include all of them (those between 150 - 180 kg), or at least all that we don't have contrary information about they age, to make a fair sample.
Hello Guate,
I think there were two sets of ages given for lions weighed by Dr. MacFarlane.
In the section of "Lion Measurements" you can see that before the measurements they mentioned the date of collaring and next to that, the age. I believe this was the estimated age at the time of collaring those lions.
And then in the section - "Chapter 3: Lions of Central Kalahari Game Reserve - General methods" there is another table with a column of age of lions and next to that a column of reason of death. I think this second column of age of lions is the estimated age at the time of their death.
I think there were two sets of ages given for lions weighed by Dr. MacFarlane.
In the section of "Lion Measurements" you can see that before the measurements they mentioned the date of collaring and next to that, the age. I believe this was the estimated age at the time of collaring those lions.
And then in the section - "Chapter 3: Lions of Central Kalahari Game Reserve - General methods" there is another table with a column of age of lions and next to that a column of reason of death. I think this second column of age of lions is the estimated age at the time of their death.
Do correct me if I am wrong!
Let me check the document again and I will share my findings with you.
I think there were two sets of ages given for lions weighed by Dr. MacFarlane.
In the section of "Lion Measurements" you can see that before the measurements they mentioned the date of collaring and next to that, the age. I believe this was the estimated age at the time of collaring those lions.
And then in the section - "Chapter 3: Lions of Central Kalahari Game Reserve - General methods" there is another table with a column of age of lions and next to that a column of reason of death. I think this second column of age of lions is the estimated age at the time of their death.
Do correct me if I am wrong!
I checked and in fact the appendix with the measurements suggest what you say. However there is no date for "Chico", which is interesting and again it leave us with doubth. The other table indeed mention the age when they died as the age is different, is older. So you have a point there.
However, all these ages are estimated and I found something that will fix the confusion, check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
As we can see, all male lions were adults over 3 years old including "Chico", and that is why in page 100 you can see that in the average they included the 7 weights, from the 6 weighed males, with a result of 209 kg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
End of the confusion.
Other case that I remember is from tigress T-03 (The Roaring tigress) from Chitwan NP, Nepal. Sunquist (1981) states that was an adult (over 3 years old) but Tamang (1982) was more specific and mention that when she was capture the third time, when she weighed 129 kg, she was 30 months old (2.5 years) and even then she was included in the samples of the adults females.
02-12-2022, 06:18 AM( This post was last modified: 02-12-2022, 06:34 AM by SpinoRex )
(02-11-2022, 05:28 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-11-2022, 04:28 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: The Paper came from Roberts 1951 book, page 292. But he had contact with him apparently looking at the text. Exact measurements and the average weight should be around 200-205 kg for the adult males.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:About the new weights, they seems to be focused in the biggest males available, Smuts did better as he included all the males available and was unbiased on it. Certainly, the avearage for the adult males is around 190 kg in the best cases, but if they focus only in the territorial big ones, it could be 200 kg. The same with tigers, overall the average is 200 kg, including youngs and old ones, but if we focus only in territorial ones it will be no less than 210 kg.
Thats partly true yes but not for all measurements(focusing on large ones). First of all based on weights i have to know if you are talking about empty stomach. Yes the weight about the SanParks lions(220, 225 kg), Madikwe were focused on the biggest. Smuts data showed an average of 187.5 kg on an empty stomach, which supports a "normal" weight of around 195-200 kg without huge lions. Looking at the data from Dewalt Keet 16 male lions that didnt have tubercolosis weighed 200 kg. So a healthy male should be around 190 kg empty. Generally non-terretorial male lions will be lighter especially in such areas like africa. Combining the data from Smuts and D.Keet the average male in Kruger is around 190 kg empty and 200-205 kg with some content. My empty stomach estimate for Dewalt Keets lions is 193.3 kg (adding the infected lions) and the normal weight at least 200 kg. Looking at the southern Kruger lions and the conditions they were living in they were still impressive.
Btw thats the reason i use only large sampled datas to make claims about average weights. Collected datas are nice but may have significant differences. The ones of tigers and lions are very similar, which may be caused by the fact nonterretorial tigers were captured ig, which live in harsher conditions of course. The weights i have seen from those individuals most of the time are around 180 kg. My estimate for the whole bengal tiger population is 190-210 kg with the ones in the good areas averaging maybe 210 kg. (including both groups, terretorial and nonterretorial)
First of all i think tigers cant be compared to lions. In size definetely but the former one lives completely different and in a different habitat. Also again i believe its individually as they got nearly the same skeleton structure. And a more accurate comparison would be sucessfull/moderare nonterretorial males and maybe nomadic lions (Lions that live like Ximpoko and Mabande, Homob Coalition and so on).
That my opinion when people compare lion and tigers. I do believe bengal tigers may be slightly heavier nowadays.
The question is are terretorial male lions really big or are they in a good condition? The answer is they are in a good shape and therefore not heavy most of the time after i spoke with Rob but more consistent i weight. A pride male has to share the prey with a whole pride. Non-Terretorial males or maybe nomadic ones are reported to have a MUCH higher or lower food intake than pride males looking at the study from Smuts. Those can be compared to tigers maybe. A sucessfull nonterretorial male lion (maybe also nomadic lions) will be definetely heavier than a pride male but thats rare. No matter how strong against a pride it has no chance and hyena & dog packs will be also dangerous. They have more meat available and therefore will consume more and they killed larger number of bufallos. But how many nonterretorial males manage to live like that? Very few. All mentioned in the study from Smuts: https://www.academia.edu/24385710/Huntin...plications
Also if you look at it. It isnt a coincidence that MOST big lions were indeed Nomadic or solitary ones. Examples are Ximpoko, Mabande, Old Birmingham male, The lion from Mount Kenya .... . Or those males who arent living directly in a pride like a 3 male coalition.
Quote:Finally, I don't think that we can compare the lions from India and those from Kalahari (the new measurements, of course). We know that both were measured along the curves, but we don't know how they applied that method, did they hold it straight?, did they pressed the tape?, how much they press it? These are questions that we can't answer unless the specific persons can explain it. Asian lions are genetically different from lions in Kalahari, so genetic is always an strong force that drive the morphology, also all the animals darted, from both places, were is excelent conditions. Both old and modern records always shows that Asian/Barbary/West-Africa lions are smaller and lighter than those from East/South Africa. If you check the measurements "between pegs" you can see the real difference.
Actually the Asiatic lions were longer as they werent measured with ALPRU. They should be around the same length thats for sure. Im pretty sure that those weight differences arent caused genetically. Observe a skeleton from both subspecies.... the difference in their robusticity will be as neglible as their difference in skeleton size = basically nothing. As i mentioned earlier look how humands change their weights.... a heavier human is nowadays by no means genetically heavier (potential). Im not saying there is no difference but even if there is a difference is neglible. Are crater lions genetically heavier than those from Kruger? I doubt it but they maximize their potential.
Quote:With the male "Chico", it is no clear when he was measured, in one table it says 2-3 years and in other it says 4 years (fully adult) so it is not clear. Evidence and other adult males in litterature confirm that based in its weight and size it was clearly an adult male, unless that included a good amount of food. So in this case there are 6 males (7 weights reported), not 5, and the average will be 209 kg, not 211 kg.
You made an error. The ages presented in your table were the ages AT THE END OF THE STUDY. The ages when they were collared are different. I remember Khan85 wrote to me something like that.
regards
I have that image too, conclution is that males average about 197 kg, not even near 200 kg and those were hunting records just provided to Roberts by Campbell, no information of the status of the animals and no information of the stomach content (maybe in table 36 we can see more details, but we need to check the book itself), so Robert's book is definitelly a second hand source from lions that were not reported by scientists, but a collection of hunting records that are usefull but with no details, as far we know.
I don't see the logic on the food intake of pride lions eating less than nomadic lions, but I will read the paper from Phil Richardson that you shared here. Other thing, in the paper of Dr Keet he do not adjusted his specimens for stomach content like Smuts done, so a comparison can't be done between samples. Those lions from Keet could be even lighter than those from Smuts, less than 190 kg taking in count the food in take of the lions that is about the same as tigers (c.15 kg in a day). So, I don't see any form how a male South African lion can average more than 200 kg if they do not include a fair amount of food and if they are not from a selected list of record males.
In the tiger side, the lower average that I ever calculated with the biggest and most reliable sample available, was of 200 kg, and this is including Sundarbans (98 - 150 kg) and all the probably young or ill males (150- 180 kg). Definitelly if we select the prime territorial males (180 - 272 kg), the average will increase up to 210 kg or even more if we follow the range of Dr Jhala (none less than 200 kg), using only modern records which we actually know that are adults (except for a male of 166 kg that I will like to confirm) the average is of 214 kg with some especimens empty belly.
In the document of Dr Jhala do not says that lions were measured following the ALPRU method, but lions in the Kalahari region yes. However, again, we are "assuming" that they were measured in the same form, but even if we say that they are of the same length "over curves", the other measurements, like the chest girth, shows a significan difference. Genetic is very important here, you can't discard this and I don't understand why this little group of people in other forums are using this new excuse, because is that, an excuse with no fundament, and there are several documents since the last decate showing this genetic differences between populations. There is no comparative study on the skeletons of these populations so I have no idea were you get those conclutions, but we can use skulls which are readible available in litterature and you can see that those from South Africa are massive in comparison with those from India in simple vew and in measurements too. These two subspecies are so different that they have specific morphological characteristis that has been presented in several documents and finally, genetic studies shows the difference between them, like I said before. Genetic is the base of morphology and its changes, and even if the Indian lions are of the same length, they are not as robust as those from East/South Africa and probaly this apply to its entire old range (India, Middle East, Greece, north Africa and west Africa).
Using humans as an example is not correct as we are not divided in subspecies, were are mixed populations with racial differences but that is all. And even in human populations there are genetic differences, if not, check the differences in size and weight from several populations, humans had this differences based in the populations too. As I said, we are not divided in subspecies but the races are different and the development in our bodies is different. A young man in Finland can be as tall or taller than an adult from China, for example.
About Chico, none of the tables and none of the document says what you say (I have it here right now), BUT in page 99 and 100 you can see that they refer to the weight of ADULT lions and they say that they sample is heavier than that of Smuts and the following table clearly shows that they used the 7 weights available from the 6 males, adult males. So no, the lion "Chico" was included as an adult and that invalidate any contradiction between the Appendix 4 (which has errors on it, by the way) and the Table 3.1 (also with errors that I tried to correct between the two tables). Now, if your group decide to start remouving weights in a random form just because they do not fit to they plan (Oh yes, I saw it in the other forums), then they are clearly showing that there are not playing the game in a fair form (interestingly they are the one that say that I am remouving weights, that is so stupid). I can also remouve weights too if I want and follow the strict range placed by Dr Jhala for adult males (none less than 200 kg) or at least the range of Mazák (none less than 180 kg), but I decided to include all of them (those between 150 - 180 kg), or at least all that we don't have contrary information about they age, to make a fair sample.
Quote:GuateGojira wrote:
I don't see the logic on the food intake of pride lions eating less than nomadic lions, but I will read the paper from Phil Richardson that you shared here. Other thing, in the paper of Dr Keet he do not adjusted his specimens for stomach content like Smuts done, so a comparison can't be done between samples. Those lions from Keet could be even lighter than those from Smuts, less than 190 kg taking in count the food in take of the lions that is about the same as tigers (c.15 kg in a day). So, I don't see any form how a male South African lion can average more than 200 kg if they do not include a fair amount of food and if they are not from a selected list of record males.
Its pretty simple. A nonterretorial males doesnt have to share his food with the other pride members and therefore has significantly more meat available. Also lions dont have the same food intake as tigers thats for sure especially when we are talking about males. Based on the numbers provided by Smuts the empty belly weight for Dealt Keets lions have to be c.192 kg empty. Also 15 kg is near to bulging as i know.
Quote:The MDR of adult lionesses ( X bodymass=124 kg, N =95; Smuts et al. 1980) was thus esti-mated to be 5.3 kg/day, with adult males ( X bodymass=188 kg, N =41; Smuts et al. 1980) requiring 8.1 kg/day. Based on direct observations, females and territorialmales did not consume significantly more or less than the estimated MDR(8.1 kg), whereas nonterritorial males did (Table 4).
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:GuateGojira wrote:
In the tiger side, the lower average that I ever calculated with the biggest and most reliable sample available, was of 200 kg, and this is including Sundarbans (98 - 150 kg) and all the probably young or ill males (150- 180 kg). Definitelly if we select the prime territorial males (180 - 272 kg), the average will increase up to 210 kg or even more if we follow the range of Dr Jhala (none less than 200 kg), using only modern records which we actually know that are adults (except for a male of 166 kg that I will like to confirm) the average is of 214 kg with some especimens empty belly.
In the document of Dr Jhala do not says that lions were measured following the ALPRU method, but lions in the Kalahari region yes. However, again, we are "assuming" that they were measured in the same form, but even if we say that they are of the same length "over curves", the other measurements, like the chest girth, shows a significan difference. Genetic is very important here, you can't discard this and I don't understand why this little group of people in other forums are using this new excuse, because is that, an excuse with no fundament, and there are several documents since the last decate showing this genetic differences between populations. There is no comparative study on the skeletons of these populations so I have no idea were you get those conclutions, but we can use skulls which are readible available in litterature and you can see that those from South Africa are massive in comparison with those from India in simple vew and in measurements too. These two subspecies are so different that they have specific morphological characteristis that has been presented in several documents and finally, genetic studies shows the difference between them, like I said before. Genetic is the base of morphology and its changes, and even if the Indian lions are of the same length, they are not as robust as those from East/South Africa and probaly this apply to its entire old range (India, Middle East, Greece, north Africa and west Africa).
Using humans as an example is not correct as we are not divided in subspecies, were are mixed populations with racial differences but that is all. And even in human populations there are genetic differences, if not, check the differences in size and weight from several populations, humans had this differences based in the populations too. As I said, we are not divided in subspecies but the races are different and the development in our bodies is different. A young man in Finland can be as tall or taller than an adult from China, for example.
Im making my conclusions mainly based on the large sampled datas and regarding the "modern" datas i have my pundits. The datas i am talking about are Brander(n=42), Behaar(n=44) and Hewett(n=20) which indicates a average weight of c.200 kg (190-210) kg.
Regarding the asiatic lions i think you get my point. First of all their skeleton size is proven to be identical compared to that from african lions. Skull isnt really important in this case. With the humans i wanted to show how unimportant weights are to determine the genetical size. Also i got that conclusion when i compared many african lions together (both sampled datas and individuals). Also when you compare again the lionesses with other population this claim is confirmed again. Just look at dewalt keets data what conditioning can do with an animal. The males were impressive by being just 7% lighter but the females were 21% lighter (118 kg vs 144 kg) comapring northern and southern Kruger population
The only option that african lions are genetically heavier is(extremely unlikely as i said): They are build significantly more robust in their structure. That means = heavier and stronger/robust bones.
Though again the chest girths are normal for a lion of that weight. Take a look at Tom (146 kg) and compare him just as an example to the asiatic lions from Jhala(Male 1 for example). Also i didnt say there isnt any difference.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Also i checked the PDF from MacFarlane. Chico was when immobilised 2-3 years old, 188 kg. But at the end of the study around 4 years old (The study went 108 days). So its a bit confusing but given on that information Chico was more of 3 old or slightly over it, whoch shows he could have been a big lion compared to Sm009. Include it or not it wont change the average really but i was pointing it out because of his really large size and potential.
(02-12-2022, 06:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Its pretty simple. A nonterretorial males doesnt have to share his food with the other pride members and therefore has significantly more meat available. Also lions dont have the same food intake as tigers thats for sure especially when we are talking about males. Based on the numbers provided by Smuts the empty belly weight for Dealt Keets lions have to be c.192 kg empty. Also 15 kg is near to bulging as i know.
Quote:The MDR of adult lionesses ( X bodymass=124 kg, N =95; Smuts et al. 1980) was thus esti-mated to be 5.3 kg/day, with adult males ( X bodymass=188 kg, N =41; Smuts et al. 1980) requiring 8.1 kg/day. Based on direct observations, females and territorialmales did not consume significantly more or less than the estimated MDR(8.1 kg), whereas nonterritorial males did (Table 4).
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Thats just my view ... feel free to disagree
Of course I disagree and is not because is your point of view, is because you are using incorrect information, and I know why you have these missconceptions.
First: Who told you that lions and tigers do not have the same food intake? We are talking about two animals of about the same size, the same metabolism and even then, there is still a person (Boldchamp of course...) in this world that believe that these two animals do not have the same food intake? What is the base of this?
Do you know that those amounts that you quote in the previous image about the daily requirements (5 to 8 kg) are just ESTIMATIONS? Those are just the estimated amount that an adult lion may need in a daily basis. Those are not real food intakes. Check the real food intakes of lions:
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is from George Schaller (1972):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
And this is from Sunqusit and Sunqusit (2002):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see there is a big difference between the estimated daily intake and the real intake that lions actually eat. Also, the other studies (focused entirely in females) shows the variation on in food intake from 4 to 14 kg and this is depending of the seasons. But this do not affect the large population of lions, like in Kenya-Tanzania-South Africa where most weight figures are available, as they prey base is regular. Take in count that lions hunt more in a regular basis than tigers, a tiger can kill 1 animal per 7-8 days while lions do it avery 4 days and that is why while the food intake may look lower in some populations, is because they eat more regularly. After all, the prey base of most of lion habitats is much bigger than even the biggest Indian parks.
Now, check the daily estimation for tiger food intake:
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, is even less than the estimated for lions (5 to 7 kg per day for tigers). Now, check the real food intake of tigers, but take in count that contrary to lions, we only have two studies, one from Kanha (with Schaller) and one from Chitwan (with Sunquist):
From Schaller (1967):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
From Sunquist (1981):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
And from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002):
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, there are basically the same values, on averages and maximum, and even then tigers are bigger. There are several studies of lion intake and its variations, while there are only two studies of tigers intake so the variations are unknown and definitelly exist.
Hope this point is clarified and stop following the ideas of Boldchamp. This is point clarified since many years ago but it seems than that crazy lion-fanatic still drag his lies and sadly persons like you belive in him. Check the data first, do not believe in third party interpretations.
(02-12-2022, 06:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Im making my conclusions mainly based on the large sampled datas and regarding the "modern" datas i have my pundits. The datas i am talking about are Brander(n=42), Behaar(n=44) and Hewett(n=20) which indicates a average weight of c.200 kg (190-210) kg.
Regarding the asiatic lions i think you get my point. First of all their skeleton size is proven to be identical compared to that from african lions. Skull isnt really important in this case. With the humans i wanted to show how unimportant weights are to determine the genetical size. Also i got that conclusion when i compared many african lions together (both sampled datas and individuals). Also when you compare again the lionesses with other population this claim is confirmed again. Just look at dewalt keets data what conditioning can do with an animal. The males were impressive by being just 7% lighter but the females were 21% lighter (118 kg vs 144 kg) comapring northern and southern Kruger population
The only option that african lions are genetically heavier is(extremely unlikely as i said): They are build significantly more robust in their structure. That means = heavier and stronger/robust bones.
Though again the chest girths are normal for a lion of that weight. Take a look at Tom (146 kg) and compare him just as an example to the asiatic lions from Jhala(Male 1 for example). Also i didnt say there isnt any difference.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Also i checked the PDF from MacFarlane. Chico was when immobilised 2-3 years old, 188 kg. But at the end of the study around 4 years old (The study went 108 days). So its a bit confusing but given on that information Chico was more of 3 old or slightly over it, whoch shows he could have been a big lion compared to Sm009. Include it or not it wont change the average really but i was pointing it out because of his really large size and potential.
Thats just my view ... feel free to disagree
Why you have "pundits" about the modern data on tigers? What do you mean with that?
I see a big contradiction here. First you say that skeleton is important and latter you diminish the importance of the skull? So, take a decision man, bones are or not important for you? Also you say that the equality in the skeleton size between the Asian races and the African races is "proven", well I will like to the see the bones measurements that proves that, femurs, ulnas, humerus, etc. Because I have a huge data on lion bones and there is 0 comparison between subspecies, except for skulls, a part of the body that prove my point but that now is irrelevant for you.
Again, humans are not a good example, we don't like lions, we don't have subspecies like lions. Human size is regulated by many other factors that include economy, education, location and of course genetic (none of them, except for genetic, applies to lions). So put humans as an example is completelly ilogical at this point. The case of Keet and the Kruger lions is just a focalize case under the same population, this can't explain the differences between Asian and African lions. Lions in Asia are differente in morphology and genetic than African lions, even in captivity the African lions are heavier, so that is not just looky or food intake, that is genetic and is basic to understand why the subspecies exist.
The example of the lion Tom is completelly unaplicable here. You are just using the chest girth because is equal, but there are many other factors, the health, status, food intake, that is important in the weight. None of these values are known, so just because they have the same chest girth do not means that they are going to have the same development. Check that the lions in India are full grow adults and Tom was a young one still in development.
Including or excluding "Chico" did change the average, and this is the point in all the discussion. You guys are trying the increase the body mass of lions by force and that is not how this works. If we are 100% strict with the values, we should exclude all the weights gatered by emails and personal comunications, news reports and take only those from publised books and per review documents. IF we do this, tigers are still the heaviest cat, but of course the people in Carnivora forum do not want that, they want to increse the weights even if they need to include UNREALIABLE weights of 700-800 lb lions that are unknown to any reliable Biologist.
My advise, if you want to make reliable calculations and statements, do not follow the people like Boldchamp and they fellows, that is not the correct way. That is all I need to say and years of useless debates with that kind of people is my backup.
(02-12-2022, 06:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Based on the numbers provided by Smuts the empty belly weight for Dealt Keets lions have to be c.192 kg empty. Also 15 kg is near to bulging as i know.
Just one final stament.
The lions of Keet, it they had stomach content, will be "at least" less than 10 kg, so the average of 193 kg will be about 183 kg "empty" in males.
15 kg is average for a full grow male lions, they are recorded to eat 33 kg (and that figure could be more and the male lion was not empty when arrived to the bait).
So the figure of 35 kg for male lions and tigers is the same, with a hypotetical maximum amount of 40-45 kg, but that was not been actually recorded yet.
(02-12-2022, 06:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Its pretty simple. A nonterretorial males doesnt have to share his food with the other pride members and therefore has significantly more meat available. Also lions dont have the same food intake as tigers thats for sure especially when we are talking about males. Based on the numbers provided by Smuts the empty belly weight for Dealt Keets lions have to be c.192 kg empty. Also 15 kg is near to bulging as i know.
Quote:The MDR of adult lionesses ( X bodymass=124 kg, N =95; Smuts et al. 1980) was thus esti-mated to be 5.3 kg/day, with adult males ( X bodymass=188 kg, N =41; Smuts et al. 1980) requiring 8.1 kg/day. Based on direct observations, females and territorialmales did not consume significantly more or less than the estimated MDR(8.1 kg), whereas nonterritorial males did (Table 4).
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Thats just my view ... feel free to disagree
Of course I disagree and is not because is your point of view, is because you are using incorrect information, and I know why you have these missconceptions.
First: Who told you that lions and tigers do not have the same food intake? We are talking about two animals of about the same size, the same metabolism and even then, there is still a person (Boldchamp of course...) in this world that believe that these two animals do not have the same food intake? What is the base of this?
Do you know that those amounts that you quote in the previous image about the daily requirements (5 to 8 kg) are just ESTIMATIONS? Those are just the estimated amount that an adult lion may need in a daily basis. Those are not real food intakes. Check the real food intakes of lions:
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is from George Schaller (1972):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
And this is from Sunqusit and Sunqusit (2002):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see there is a big difference between the estimated daily intake and the real intake that lions actually eat. Also, the other studies (focused entirely in females) shows the variation on in food intake from 4 to 14 kg and this is depending of the seasons. But this do not affect the large population of lions, like in Kenya-Tanzania-South Africa where most weight figures are available, as they prey base is regular. Take in count that lions hunt more in a regular basis than tigers, a tiger can kill 1 animal per 7-8 days while lions do it avery 4 days and that is why while the food intake may look lower in some populations, is because they eat more regularly. After all, the prey base of most of lion habitats is much bigger than even the biggest Indian parks.
Now, check the daily estimation for tiger food intake:
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, is even less than the estimated for lions (5 to 7 kg per day for tigers). Now, check the real food intake of tigers, but take in count that contrary to lions, we only have two studies, one from Kanha (with Schaller) and one from Chitwan (with Sunquist):
From Schaller (1967):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
From Sunquist (1981):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
And from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002):
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, there are basically the same values, on averages and maximum, and even then tigers are bigger. There are several studies of lion intake and its variations, while there are only two studies of tigers intake so the variations are unknown and definitelly exist.
Hope this point is clarified and stop following the ideas of Boldchamp. This is point clarified since many years ago but it seems than that crazy lion-fanatic still drag his lies and sadly persons like you belive in him. Check the data first, do not believe in third party interpretations.
You are pointing most of the time individual ones. So in terms of a average food intake on a daily basis thats pretty useless. Among all cats there is no consistence in energy intake. These estimates alone were mere estimations by Smuts and later observed, which made the data usable in the first place(not the estimate of the MDR alone). Even if these are estimates i doubt these are significantly different as they are based on observation to check the estimated MDR, which is alone not much of use. (There are countless estimated food intakes for both species)
A male lion as i said before has to share his food with a pride. Thus it has less meat available and therefore cant eat as much as a nonterretorial male when both have a dead carcass. Thats not a misconception but a clear cut fact and the fact that the difference was significant shows it. Alone that should a enlightment because basically its mentioning "pack" male lions and "solitary" lions. Tigers will represent those solitary lions if not even in a more advanced version. Not mentioning there are more annoying scavengers in africa and some animals like Hyenas and maybe Wild dogs are a proper threat to lone lions. Hyenas are able to steal the whole prey and could even kill a male lion. And how i can forget it.... a lion pride arrives... you have no chance. Also as i pointed out nearly every heavy lions were nomadic ones(small coalition) or solitary ones(Mount Kenya Lion). But fact is that most nonterretorial males didnt make it as reported by Rob to me, which is pretty understandable based on the infos he shared with me. (I know boldchamp from the name but i dont know what you discussed with him. I wasnt active in those old forums and i dont have acess to them.)
Also regarding that i found this study as well. Its more or less again confirming it.
Average digestible energy intakes (DEI) of individual cats are plotted against body mass in Figure 3. A large difference in energy intakes of lions and tigers was evident. For example, the DEI of large male lions was only about half that of the similarly sized male Bengal X Siberian tigers. The natural logarithm (In) of digestible energy intake was plotted against In body mass to examine the scaling of energy intake to body mass (Figure 4). All cats did not appear to follow the same scaling relationship. For example, lions and young clouded leopards appeared to fall on the predicted line that represents extrapolation of the maintenance energy requirements of domestic cats, but cheetahs, Sumatran tigers and Bengal X Siberian tigers had considerably higher energy intakes.
The comparison(which is based on a large sample) of solitary lions and pride lions is enough. Even more so when you compare africa and india, which are in terms of "action" pretty different (at least nowadays, idk how it was in the past).
The really good data comes from Sunquist. The female tigers alone consumed around 16 kg per day and the males 19 kg and that in several days and not in one day observation. Compare that to Smuts pride males (not the calculated MDR but the estimated food intake based on the observation) and it becomes clear. Even if there are some explanations here and there a difference of 9.4 kg vs 19 k shows it. A tiger is basically a solitary/nomadic lion with less difficulties.
For me the main study for this was the comparison between nonterretorial lions and terretorial lions. Also again beside thats nonterretorial ones killed larger preys which is beside the "pride factor" also important.
I dont have the time now to answer the other posts. Will do it later.
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
