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.
Guate, I noticed that in the conclusive tables you made for lions and tigers at species levels, the HB-length of tigers is listed as 190cm vs 191cm for P. leo krugeri. So it means that kruger lions are actually slighly longer on average than bengal tigers in HB-length?
The following 1 user Likes Scout's post:1 user Likes Scout's post • BA0701
(09-09-2020, 08:58 PM)Scout Wrote: Guate, I noticed that in the conclusive tables you made for lions and tigers at species levels, the HB-length of tigers is listed as 190cm vs 191cm for P. leo krugeri. So it means that kruger lions are actually slighly longer on average than bengal tigers in HB-length?
Actually the conclution will be that Bengal tiger and South African lions are about the same body length and height, but Bengal tigers are still more robust with larger chest girths and are heavier overall.
Also we most remember that the head of the lion is also longer than the head of the tiger, so that means that overall the body of the tiger is still longer than the body of the lion, if you take in count that from the same body length (c.190 cm), the head of the lion occupy 38.0 cm while the head of the tiger is of 35.3 cm.
(08-21-2020, 08:26 PM)Yusuf Wrote: Hello guys. I'm new in this forum.
I have a data about a 158 kg serengeti male Lion who had a chest Grith of 122cm. Pound for pound this is even more than the 172 kg Tuger with a chest girth of 130cm from Brander.
Source comes from craig Packer. Its reliable though....
The weight is an estimate based off of Chest girth and im not sure how you came to a conclusion that it somehow has a larger girth "lb for lb" when they are 14kg apart in weight and 8cm apart in chest girth.
You'd have to first correlate chest girth to weight then figure out how much additional chest girth needs to be added to increase the weight and by what %.
Lastly is that you'd need to find a large enough sample size to compare.
I simply did weight / girth. I think it's better than nothing. But for sure not conclusive.
(01-18-2018, 03:48 PM)peter Wrote: B - EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS
Two individuals deserve special attention. The first is ♂ 10, known as 'Leo'. This young adult has a shoulder height of 145 cm. (...), a head and body length of 247 cm. (...) and a total length of 335 cm. (11 feet exactly). Exceptional, as he still has a bit of growing to do.
Lioness 'Spots' is even more exceptional, as she is 317 cm. in total length. I never heard of a female cat exceeding 10 feet in total length measured 'over curves'. The average of the Namibian females (just over 9 feet in total length measured 'over curves') is even more impressive than that of the males. A pity only 5 females were measured.
C - ON THE METHOD USED TO MEASURE A BIG CAT
A big cat, just like a human, should be measured 'between pegs' (in a straight line). For some reason, this method seems to be out of date. Most biologists now measure wild big cats 'over curves'. This method can be applied in different ways, resulting in confusion. For this reason, it was severely discussed in the thread 'On The Edge Of Extinction - A - The Tiger' about a year ago.
Poster 'WaveRiders' in particular had severe doubts about the way this method was applied in Nepal a century ago. The tables I posted had a number of male tigers ranging between 10.6 - 10.9 in total length 'over curves'. One wonders about his opinion on the 11 feet Namibian lion. Anyhow.
About the lions from Hobatere, I can't belive in those measurements, there are many errors. Check this summary, from the tables of 2015 and those from @peter:
*This image is copyright of its original author
They are measuring the lions following the protocol of the ALPRU, which to use a tape and take the length from the tip of the incisors (not the nose) following all the contuours/ondulations of the back (not a straight line). This is not the form used by Dr Sunquist in Nepal, and certainly not the one used by other scientists in Africa like Dr Packer or Dr Loveridge, which biggest lions do not surpass the 209 cm in head-body. Even the Amur tigers measured by the Siberian Tiger Project, which apparently were measured pressing the tape on the curves, did not produced such an exagerated sizes.
Certainly, while all the other specimens seems to match with moder/old measurements, the problematic ones are the males HPL-2 (Volkel) and HPL-10 (Leo) and the female HPL-11 (Mee), especifically in the total length and shoulder height. I see that the errors are mainly in the head-body length, excluding the head and the neck length.
In the past I was quite sure that the length of the neck was already included in the head-body, based also in pictures, but now that all the posters agree that the neck should be taken appart, the measurements of those 3 particular specimens are certainly incorrect in some form. Also the shoulder heights, which apparently are not those of the entire length of the from limb, still shows a high degree of magnitud diferent from other lions measured in straight line, which suggest that there do not represent the real standing height of those lions.
This is also why is not good to measure an animal in "pieces", they should use a large tape and measure the animal in just one row. I am disapointed of these "new" methods that only mimic the old unreliable ones from the hunters. It is also incredible how this sizes are in included in litterature and nobody actually take a time to analyze if those measurements are realistic. It seems that the analytic critics of Sterndale, Pocock, Brander and others, are just forgoten.
These lions from Namibia are big ones, there is no question about that, but certainly a length of 335 cm and shoulder height so up to 145 cm are just in the realm of imagination and old hunting stories.
Hello Guate,
I saw some photos of the Alpru Protocol. It seems not really bad. If you look at volkel he has a solid height and he is not 20cm away from 118cm. The problem is you cant really know how big lion no matter if 13 ft with one picture where the lion stands alone.
So... Skin measurements. Are they accurate? No but we know how much they differ from "between pegs" lengths. About 1ft (30cm) ... the datas I have seen suggest this. EDUAD FOA shot for example a 3.57m and 3.81m Lion. These were Skin measurements. Mean the Lion could be 3.51m between pegs.
Here is the most reliable Account were they measured the STRAIGHT LINE LENGTH and THE SKIN LENGTH.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The following 1 user Likes Yusuf's post:1 user Likes Yusuf's post • Potato
This vid is a clip from BBC Natural History TV's 'Fierce' program. Note the tall, lean, male desert lion (visible ribs showing) in this brief clip, yet he still weighed in at 217.5kg (after being tranq-darted/examined, as seen in the full program).
The following 1 user Likes Yusuf's post:1 user Likes Yusuf's post • Potato
09-21-2020, 02:58 PM( This post was last modified: 09-21-2020, 02:59 PM by Shadow )
Looks like there has been some delay in this thread before postings visible. I write this message just to pop this up so, that people who are interested notice better.
The following 1 user Likes Shadow's post:1 user Likes Shadow's post • Yusuf
(09-21-2020, 01:07 AM)Yusuf Wrote: New Weight on Namibian Lions
This vid is a clip from BBC Natural History TV's 'Fierce' program. Note the tall, lean, male desert lion (visible ribs showing) in this brief clip, yet he still weighed in at 217.5kg (after being tranq-darted/examined, as seen in the full program).
that lion honestly doesn't look that big..seen quite a few large lions,that isn't one..wanna see the full doc
(09-21-2020, 01:07 AM)Yusuf Wrote: New Weight on Namibian Lions
This vid is a clip from BBC Natural History TV's 'Fierce' program. Note the tall, lean, male desert lion (visible ribs showing) in this brief clip, yet he still weighed in at 217.5kg (after being tranq-darted/examined, as seen in the full program).
that lion honestly doesn't look that big..seen quite a few large lions,that isn't one..wanna see the full doc
It´s 217,5 kg. Here full documentary and when watching at least 31:00-34:30 there is weighing and interesting to watch overall when comparing size to people.
(01-18-2018, 03:48 PM)peter Wrote: B - EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS
Two individuals deserve special attention. The first is ♂ 10, known as 'Leo'. This young adult has a shoulder height of 145 cm. (...), a head and body length of 247 cm. (...) and a total length of 335 cm. (11 feet exactly). Exceptional, as he still has a bit of growing to do.
Lioness 'Spots' is even more exceptional, as she is 317 cm. in total length. I never heard of a female cat exceeding 10 feet in total length measured 'over curves'. The average of the Namibian females (just over 9 feet in total length measured 'over curves') is even more impressive than that of the males. A pity only 5 females were measured.
C - ON THE METHOD USED TO MEASURE A BIG CAT
A big cat, just like a human, should be measured 'between pegs' (in a straight line). For some reason, this method seems to be out of date. Most biologists now measure wild big cats 'over curves'. This method can be applied in different ways, resulting in confusion. For this reason, it was severely discussed in the thread 'On The Edge Of Extinction - A - The Tiger' about a year ago.
Poster 'WaveRiders' in particular had severe doubts about the way this method was applied in Nepal a century ago. The tables I posted had a number of male tigers ranging between 10.6 - 10.9 in total length 'over curves'. One wonders about his opinion on the 11 feet Namibian lion. Anyhow.
About the lions from Hobatere, I can't belive in those measurements, there are many errors. Check this summary, from the tables of 2015 and those from @peter:
*This image is copyright of its original author
They are measuring the lions following the protocol of the ALPRU, which to use a tape and take the length from the tip of the incisors (not the nose) following all the contuours/ondulations of the back (not a straight line). This is not the form used by Dr Sunquist in Nepal, and certainly not the one used by other scientists in Africa like Dr Packer or Dr Loveridge, which biggest lions do not surpass the 209 cm in head-body. Even the Amur tigers measured by the Siberian Tiger Project, which apparently were measured pressing the tape on the curves, did not produced such an exagerated sizes.
Certainly, while all the other specimens seems to match with moder/old measurements, the problematic ones are the males HPL-2 (Volkel) and HPL-10 (Leo) and the female HPL-11 (Mee), especifically in the total length and shoulder height. I see that the errors are mainly in the head-body length, excluding the head and the neck length.
In the past I was quite sure that the length of the neck was already included in the head-body, based also in pictures, but now that all the posters agree that the neck should be taken appart, the measurements of those 3 particular specimens are certainly incorrect in some form. Also the shoulder heights, which apparently are not those of the entire length of the from limb, still shows a high degree of magnitud diferent from other lions measured in straight line, which suggest that there do not represent the real standing height of those lions.
This is also why is not good to measure an animal in "pieces", they should use a large tape and measure the animal in just one row. I am disapointed of these "new" methods that only mimic the old unreliable ones from the hunters. It is also incredible how this sizes are in included in litterature and nobody actually take a time to analyze if those measurements are realistic. It seems that the analytic critics of Sterndale, Pocock, Brander and others, are just forgoten.
These lions from Namibia are big ones, there is no question about that, but certainly a length of 335 cm and shoulder height so up to 145 cm are just in the realm of imagination and old hunting stories.
Hello Guate,
I saw some photos of the Alpru Protocol. It seems not really bad. If you look at volkel he has a solid height and he is not 20cm away from 118cm. The problem is you cant really know how big lion no matter if 13 ft with one picture where the lion stands alone.
So... Skin measurements. Are they accurate? No but we know how much they differ from "between pegs" lengths. About 1ft (30cm) ... the datas I have seen suggest this. EDUAD FOA shot for example a 3.57m and 3.81m Lion. These were Skin measurements. Mean the Lion could be 3.51m between pegs.
Here is the most reliable Account were they measured the STRAIGHT LINE LENGTH and THE SKIN LENGTH.
*This image is copyright of its original author
(09-21-2020, 04:31 PM)Rage2277 Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 01:07 AM)Yusuf Wrote: New Weight on Namibian Lions
This vid is a clip from BBC Natural History TV's 'Fierce' program. Note the tall, lean, male desert lion (visible ribs showing) in this brief clip, yet he still weighed in at 217.5kg (after being tranq-darted/examined, as seen in the full program).
that lion honestly doesn't look that big..seen quite a few large lions,that isn't one..wanna see the full doc
You are right. But larger means generally more Slender. Larger Animals need more food and more muscles to look bulky like a average tiger or lion. Therefore his dimensions must be the factor.
(09-21-2020, 07:53 PM)Pckts Wrote: Claiming to break bones of prey with a paw swipe is vague.
-what prey?
-which bones?
That source shadow posted isn't verified and nor specific. There is no way to know if a bone is broke from a paw strike, during the grappling or during the chase.
The only way for two equal sized animals to break limbs with a paw strike would be if the animal is bearing all its weight on that limb and a freak the attacking animal hits it in a lucky spot. But even then its certainly not a clean break, its a fracture.
In regards to skin measurements:
That is probably the least accurate source of measuring an animal. Skins can be stretched and depending on where its cleaned, the skin from the underside of the animal is included in its total length. You cannot make a rule like "subtract a foot" and call it a day the way you do with over the curves to between the pegs and even then its far from reliable as there are many ways to measure over the curves as well.
The claim of a Tiger having "fake increase" from its tail and long fur" is baseless
Tigers and Lions both have 36" tails on average and if we're going by your claim, the tuft of the Lions tail would add false length.
The fur claim is easily disproven as the largest Tiger chest girth belongs to Bengals and they have a much shorter coat. In fact, their coats in C. India are almost Identical to Lions.
If anything, the Lions mane could easily be taken into account for chest and shoulder measurements and we could just as easily vlaim a deduction because of it.
Also the claim of their belly fold contributing to a larger chest girth again is baseless, if that were the case, Asiatic Lions would have larger chests than Africans at equal weights, not to mention many tigers have different degrees of belly flaps. Usually its an inch of rock solid fat.
*This image is copyright of its original author
This isn't a valid source, no of the references here measured the cats claimed and no way did either of the alleged young Lions weigh 550lbs.
Where are the actual measurements and who did them?
First, these males have fathered over 12 cubs so no way are they 3-4 years old.
Next is that those weights are just an estimate for the article, there not from the capture. Its no different than an all encompassing weight during Amur captures, etc.
You need to vet sources better before claiming them as "legit,"
Many writers use wiki info when writing their piece.
Now this is back here, but paw swipe discussion for other parts is moved to big cat strength thread, which is more suitable, while focusing here to weights and measurements.
So people who want to see more about paw swipes, that is the place to continue if still willing to say something.
(09-21-2020, 07:53 PM)Pckts Wrote: Claiming to break bones of prey with a paw swipe is vague.
-what prey?
-which bones?
That source shadow posted isn't verified and nor specific. There is no way to know if a bone is broke from a paw strike, during the grappling or during the chase.
The only way for two equal sized animals to break limbs with a paw strike would be if the animal is bearing all its weight on that limb and a freak the attacking animal hits it in a lucky spot. But even then its certainly not a clean break, its a fracture.
In regards to skin measurements:
That is probably the least accurate source of measuring an animal. Skins can be stretched and depending on where its cleaned, the skin from the underside of the animal is included in its total length. You cannot make a rule like "subtract a foot" and call it a day the way you do with over the curves to between the pegs and even then its far from reliable as there are many ways to measure over the curves as well.
The claim of a Tiger having "fake increase" from its tail and long fur" is baseless
Tigers and Lions both have 36" tails on average and if we're going by your claim, the tuft of the Lions tail would add false length.
The fur claim is easily disproven as the largest Tiger chest girth belongs to Bengals and they have a much shorter coat. In fact, their coats in C. India are almost Identical to Lions.
If anything, the Lions mane could easily be taken into account for chest and shoulder measurements and we could just as easily vlaim a deduction because of it.
Also the claim of their belly fold contributing to a larger chest girth again is baseless, if that were the case, Asiatic Lions would have larger chests than Africans at equal weights, not to mention many tigers have different degrees of belly flaps. Usually its an inch of rock solid fat.
*This image is copyright of its original author
This isn't a valid source, no of the references here measured the cats claimed and no way did either of the alleged young Lions weigh 550lbs.
Where are the actual measurements and who did them?
First, these males have fathered over 12 cubs so no way are they 3-4 years old.
Next is that those weights are just an estimate for the article, there not from the capture. Its no different than an all encompassing weight during Amur captures, etc.
You need to vet sources better before claiming them as "legit,"
Many writers use wiki info when writing their piece.
Pckts it's a fact that tigers have fur unlike lions. Lions don't even have fur. They have only hairs. And no the mane does not influence the chest girth. Note the bengals that were measured for the Chest girth were often bigger than the lions. Belly is near to the chest and pictures shows that tigers store their more skin and more fat in the belly and also in the chest area from the pictures that I saw. Note a... really a bit more fat and a bit more fur and skin would give more than a 1inch to the chest girth.
Peter said himself that similar or equal sized lion and tiger.... the lion would have more chest girth. And the weights are very similar. The difference is about 10 kg mean around 5% in the wild which is not much or nearly nothing in the weight range were the tiger and lions are. PCTS I told it to you. 10 kg is not always the same.
You won't believe anything on lions but everything on tigers. On Carnivora.net we can saw how biased you are.
Now I can claim.. so substract 10-15cm and call it a day on curve measurements. I only try to say that the Alpru Protocol is definetely not so inaccurate. They should be like skin measurements(10-20 cm).
I also do not understand why Guate gave the lions(south africa) a max. total length of 307cm. The 218.5cm HB Lion had a Total Length between pegs of 315 cm.
Lions seem to be .ore Robust overall. The skeleton etc. Tigers have in some areas advantage but that was it. Only forearms(only ulna Bone)
4.5 years is adult in my Opinion. 3.5 is not adult but near to adult.
Even in Shoulderstudies were Tigers had a weight advantage of over 10% they were significantly weaker and smaller in the shoulders.
So with your brain I can claim all datas as fake.
Also tigers have on average a tail of about 1m and lions are more close to 90cm.
Of course Lions have fur, what are you talking about?
And no, pictures don't show that.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
And at equal size we have Lions and Tigers chest girths already, you don't need to speculate. Tigers and Lions overlap significantly, both have specimens that are larger than the other at equal lengths or weights.
And the claim of the belly flap some how changing the chest girth but not the mane, doesn't make sense. Especially since both have a belly flap
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:Note a... really a bit more fat and a bit more fur and skin would give more than a 1inch to the chest girth.
That's not based on fact
Quote:The difference is about 10 kg mean around 5% in the wild which is not much or nearly nothing in the weight range were the tiger and lions are. PCTS I told it to you. 10 kg is not always the same.
Once again, where are you getting this?
Quote:Even in Shoulderstudies were Tigers had a weight advantage of over 10% they were significantly weaker and smaller in the shoulders.
More made up claims?
Quote:You won't believe anything on lions but everything on tigers. On Carnivora.net we can saw how biased you are.
Look at all the nonsense you just posted, don't call me bias then present absurd claims not based in fact.
@Yusuf You mention study, which would say that tigers get more fractures in fights than lions. But you linked no study and no quotes. If you make such claims, back it up too in some way. What study, by whom and when or the link.
And if you start to bring in carnivora discussions here in negative way, then this is wrong forum. Disagreements happen here too, but when you make strong statements, back it up with something else than talking about other forums.
The following 1 user Likes Shadow's post:1 user Likes Shadow's post • Yusuf
09-22-2020, 03:14 AM( This post was last modified: 09-22-2020, 03:15 AM by Dennis )
(09-22-2020, 01:46 AM)Yusuf Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 05:27 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 04:31 PM)Rage2277 Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 01:07 AM)Yusuf Wrote: New Weight on Namibian Lions
This vid is a clip from BBC Natural History TV's 'Fierce' program. Note the tall, lean, male desert lion (visible ribs showing) in this brief clip, yet he still weighed in at 217.5kg (after being tranq-darted/examined, as seen in the full program).
that lion honestly doesn't look that big..seen quite a few large lions,that isn't one..wanna see the full doc
It´s 217,5 kg. Here full documentary and when watching at least 31:00-34:30 there is weighing and interesting to watch overall when comparing size to people.
(09-22-2020, 01:35 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-22-2020, 01:25 AM)Yusuf Wrote:
(09-22-2020, 12:35 AM)Shadow Wrote: @Yusuf You mention study, which would say that tigers get more fractures in fights than lions. But you linked no study and no quotes. If you make such claims, back it up too in some way. What study, by whom and when or the link.
And if you start to bring in carnivora discussions here in negative way, then this is wrong forum. Disagreements happen here too, but when you make strong statements, back it up with something else than talking about other forums.
Hello Shadow,
Eyes
So I think the claim that lions are more robust also agreed by Peter. The skeleton and overall body looks more robust.
Datas
I remember in studies only one Bone were the tiger has the advantage. It was the Ulna bone. The legs were very similar. But the lion had the advantage in the upper arms and shoulders. The back and skull of the lion looks also more Robust for me.
A detailed post about the Shoulders is on my answer to PCKTS.
Fights
Here a recent fight. At 0:05 it starts. Also here again the tiger stores more fat in the belly and chest and has the bit thicker skin and more fat.
And Tiger vs Lion fight accounts can be seen on Wildanimalwarfare. You can see how much often tigers got fractures.
Here a another Account.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Personally I don't like this topic about fights. Ok but I think I showed why this claim is true. And that aren't nearly all datas. Feel like a fanboy now...
Best regards
So you have no study then?
I showed the studies about the bones. And also previous fights. And told you were you can find them.
There is overlap among lion and tiger humerus proportions and robusticity:
Doesn’t matter the averages which are already very close - it depends upon the individual. Cased closed, they are almost the same. Only difference in bones is that tigers have longer back legs to front legs and longer humerus to radius, but robusticity is the same.
09-22-2020, 04:59 AM( This post was last modified: 09-22-2020, 05:01 AM by Yusuf )
(09-22-2020, 03:14 AM)Dennis Wrote:
(09-22-2020, 01:46 AM)Yusuf Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 05:27 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 04:31 PM)Rage2277 Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 01:07 AM)Yusuf Wrote: New Weight on Namibian Lions
This vid is a clip from BBC Natural History TV's 'Fierce' program. Note the tall, lean, male desert lion (visible ribs showing) in this brief clip, yet he still weighed in at 217.5kg (after being tranq-darted/examined, as seen in the full program).
that lion honestly doesn't look that big..seen quite a few large lions,that isn't one..wanna see the full doc
It´s 217,5 kg. Here full documentary and when watching at least 31:00-34:30 there is weighing and interesting to watch overall when comparing size to people.
(09-22-2020, 01:35 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-22-2020, 01:25 AM)Yusuf Wrote:
(09-22-2020, 12:35 AM)Shadow Wrote: @Yusuf You mention study, which would say that tigers get more fractures in fights than lions. But you linked no study and no quotes. If you make such claims, back it up too in some way. What study, by whom and when or the link.
And if you start to bring in carnivora discussions here in negative way, then this is wrong forum. Disagreements happen here too, but when you make strong statements, back it up with something else than talking about other forums.
Hello Shadow,
Eyes
So I think the claim that lions are more robust also agreed by Peter. The skeleton and overall body looks more robust.
Datas
I remember in studies only one Bone were the tiger has the advantage. It was the Ulna bone. The legs were very similar. But the lion had the advantage in the upper arms and shoulders. The back and skull of the lion looks also more Robust for me.
A detailed post about the Shoulders is on my answer to PCKTS.
Fights
Here a recent fight. At 0:05 it starts. Also here again the tiger stores more fat in the belly and chest and has the bit thicker skin and more fat.
And Tiger vs Lion fight accounts can be seen on Wildanimalwarfare. You can see how much often tigers got fractures.
Here a another Account.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Personally I don't like this topic about fights. Ok but I think I showed why this claim is true. And that aren't nearly all datas. Feel like a fanboy now...
Best regards
So you have no study then?
I showed the studies about the bones. And also previous fights. And told you were you can find them.
There is overlap among lion and tiger humerus proportions and robusticity:
Doesn’t matter the averages which are already very close - it depends upon the individual. Cased closed, they are almost the same. Only difference in bones is that tigers have longer back legs to front legs and longer humerus to radius, but robusticity is the same.
Good stuff but I saw it already. Also with stronger I mean every time slightly stronger or more robust. Between lion and tigers there don't exist a MUCH STRONGER.
But even from that data the lion has a slight advantage in my opinion. And if we look at the other datas than the lion has again a slight advantage but not much for sure. Mean they are similar.
I have even a study were a 170 kg lion had the same TIBIA strength with a 230 kg Sibirian Tiger. But I was upon one individual's but anyways it's interesting but not conclusive.
I think the biggest strength and size differences on lion and tigers are on the SHOULDERS. Lions seem to have bigger shoulders. Tigers are about 230mm and Lions 255mm. With other datas they have 20-30 mm size advantage. Also the Shoudler strength is more on the lion. The advantage is not big but a bit noticable.
So here are weights that can be included to the south Africa lions. These lions were shot in this area.
477 lbs (216.3 kg, Empty Stomach) male lion September, 1935, The field, Durban. Another weighed 395 lbs (179.1 kg) Another South African lion of 272 kg (600 lbs, White 1912) Kruger lions, Umfolozi game reserve lions/south Africa (n=1): 193 kg,
Personally 272 kg should be a fair max weight for lions. Many are reported. Also some reached even 280 kg with 100% confirmation but with stomach content.
With Guates Table the Average is for 93 S. Lions 193 kg. Excluding the 120 kg lion then its 194 kg. So a weight of 190-195 kg on average for a Kruger Lion should be fair.
Are these sources in Guates Table included? Because I didnt saw them.
09-22-2020, 10:34 AM( This post was last modified: 09-22-2020, 10:44 AM by GuateGojira )
Ok, let's go straight to the point on these posts of @Yusuf:
Quote:Personally I disagree a bit. Especially at the claim that tigers are more robust which is nonsense in my opinion if you look at studies were the bones are analysed or fights were tigers bones got often destroyed by lions.
Where do you got this nonesense? There is no study about this, no one had analized and disected the corpses of the dead lions of tigers that had died in intraspecific fights and had reported that the bones of the tigers were broken by the lions. There is not a single scientific study reporting this, not even a "popular" one. Honestly, this is one of the worst lies that I had ever saw in this endless and idiotic "tiger vs lion" debate.
Quote:First of all I want to share a reliable account. In would include them to the southern lions because they came from there.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Do you know that this is not a valid source, correct? @Pckts made an excelent work traking this page and showing that it is not reliable at all. In fact, the quoted weights are definitelly not real, they are only estimations made by the news papers like many weights reported in the web. I had several reportes of lions of 250 or tigers of 260 and even 280 kg from news papers, but none of them are corroborated. Unless than the weights were published in a scientific paper or at least corroborated by the primary source, we can't trust the news reports.
Quote:You did in your tables miscalculations(which is normal therefore I dont want to attack you with that). The weight difference between lion and tigers is about 10 kg. 10kg is about 5% in the weight range were the lion and tigers are. That is nearly nothing. Like you comparing a 60kg to a 63 kg guy. Lions are therefore 2% taller.
Again, where you got that? Where is the "miscalculation"? Honestly, were do you got those percentages? How do you know that the diference between lions and tigers is about 10 kg? Are you taking in count all the subspecies, or just some subspecies?
The differences between lions and tigers in "species level" is about 15 kg in favor of the lion and the difference at "subspecies level" of lion and tigers is about 14 to 23 kg in favor of the tiger, depending of the sample, population and the inclution or not of subadults.
The tallest lions and tallest tigers measured the same (114 cm between pegs) and the diference in average is less than 2 cm. In this case is correct to say that the largest lion subspecies is 2% taller than the largest tiger subspecies.
Quote:Tigers have not more girth in the chest department. They overlap if you take a closer look. But I'm sure that lions have a more solid chest than tigers on average. Note tigers have a thicker skin and more fat than lions in the belly and chest area and this will surely add 1 inch or more. (I practice myself bodybuilding and I know how much girth I loose in cuts). About 3% of girth i loose from my biceps and that only because of FAT!
Evidence shows that tigesr had bigger chest girth, on average and in maximum figures. This of course apply to the Bengal tigers compared to any lion population. The tick of the skin had nothing to do with increasing the girth, specially in Bengal tigers which had a short coat like any lion in Africa. Other thing, belly fat has nothing to do with chest girth, so why you mention that? Both lions and tigers had about the same fat percentage, so if you going to the old fat comparison from AVA/Carnivora/other weird lion-fanatic-forums that used just two or three Amur tigers against other few of captive lions, you are just wasting your time.
Quote:I saw some photos of the Alpru Protocol. It seems not really bad. If you look at volkel he has a solid height and he is not 20cm away from 118cm. The problem is you cant really know how big lion no matter if 13 ft with one picture where the lion stands alone.
Are you serious? Did you saw the true size of those male lions?
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Do you still think that these lions are over 330 cm in total length? Obviously you are not been objective at all if you think that these short lions actually measured that. From a sample of 134 males from South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania and India (only places where lions were measured "between pegs"), the longest lion measured 307 cm.
Quote:So... Skin measurements. Are they accurate? No but we know how much they differ from "between pegs" lengths. About 1ft (30cm) ... the datas I have seen suggest this. EDUAD FOA shot for example a 3.57m and 3.81m Lion. These were Skin measurements. Mean the Lion could be 3.51m between pegs.
Honestly, did you belive this nonesense? This shows how little expecience you have on these things. The skin of a cat can be streached much more than just 30 cm. In fact, those lions could be as low as only 3 meters between pegs! The skin can be streached to huge sizes, if not check the figures in Rowland Ward Records of Big Game with lion and tiger skins measuring up to 4 meters. So, under your logic, those tigers could measured 370 cm "between pegs". The skin measurements is the most UNRELIABLE method the measure an animal. I guess that you also believe in the records of 10 meters long Anacondas based in the skin.
Quote:Skin is not fur PCKTS. Tigers have FUR and lions have some Hairs. Also in the picture you can see that the mane not influence the girth of the Chest really.
No at similar Size they don't overlap. Lions have definetely more solid chests at similar size. Tigers have normally a bit thicker skin.
Note the tigers for the Chest datas were bigger and larger than the lions.
The weight difference is about 10 kg because datas agree with it. Bengals overall are 200 kg and Kruger Lion 193 kg(with new datas I got). The Zimbabwe Lions are on average 195 kg and the Namibian lions 198 kg(with the 217,5 kg Lion). So ok let us say without Sundarbans it would be 202 kg. The difference is still extremely low... nearly nothing.
Especially in Capitivity tigers aren't heavier really than lions in same conditions.
Now you can argue with Guate... and not with me. He collected the pictures.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Ok, this is simply stupid. Where do you got that "Tigers have FUR and lions have some Hairs"? Both animals have fur, not just "hairs" as you say. I don't know where you got your average figures but you must know that all the lions from Zimbabwe and Namibia are not adjusted for stomach content, so the real values are lower than those. In fact, you should check the table and not only the image:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Finally, Are you criticizing the images I used? You should know that when I choose those images I done it because they are among the best images showing the animals in its side view position. Again, the belly fold is NOT related with chest girths, so the fact that the belly fold is common in Bengal tigers, rare in African lions and a mandatory characteristic in Indian lions, is irrelevant in the chest girths. Now, you SHOULD know that the skin fold in the chest is a characteristic of ALL the great cats, tigers-lions-jaguars-leopards. Check these few African lions for example:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I had many more image showing this, in fact the lion that I choose you can see the skin fold in the chest too. All the lions had a skin fold in the chest. So, your claim that the skin fold in the chest increase the chest girth can be discarted as lions DO have the skin fold in the chest, even when they do not have it in the belly in most of the cases.
Quote:Personally I don't like this topic about fights. Ok but I think I showed why this claim is true. And that aren't nearly all datas. Feel like a fanboy now...
I don't buy this at all. Now we can see that you are just a hard-core lion fanatic from the same school of Catlion/BoldChamp/Starfox/Assad, a group of people that did not produced anything good, except for a lot of lies against the tiger, an animal that had done nothing against them but that they constantly attack and that they hate with no reason. So like @Shadow said, if you are starting to polute this forum with crap from "Carnivora" or "Wildanimalwarfare" you need to stop this.
Quote:Personally 272 kg should be a fair max weight for lions. Many are reported. Also some reached even 280 kg with 100% confirmation but with stomach content.
With Guates Table the Average is for 93 S. Lions 193 kg. Excluding the 120 kg lion then its 194 kg. So a weight of 190-195 kg on average for a Kruger Lion should be fair.
Are these sources in Guates Table included? Because I didnt saw them.
The lions of Dr Wenger are already included, also the lions of 477 lb and the one of 395 lb. The lion of 272 kg was not confirmed by first hand sources, so while we can take in count like an "exceptional specimen", especially by the fact that is the only lion in the Southern African lion reported with that body mass, we can't include it. The same happened with other big tigers over 272 kg that were not included as they are also excepcional animals, and that will create a bias in the final averages. Finally it is important to remember that the lion of 280 kg was NOT 100% confirmed, we only had a "confimation" email (that could be fake, by the way) and the figure is not published in any scientific document or any news paper and the original webpage don't even exist anymore. So, that figure is just managed by us and is more like a "courtesy" to take it in count (I included it, by the way, together with the lion of 251 kg reported by Roberts that by the way, was not adjusted for stomach content). If you ask to lion experts like Dr Yamaguchi they will tell you that the heaviest lion 100% corroborated weighed 260 kg included stomach content and that the lion of 272 kg from Kenya is reliable BUT it was a cattle killer and consequently very bulky; take in count that the next heaviest lion in the entire East African region was of 235 kg, that says a lot about the lions in that region.
Quote:The 260 kg Tiger had a cheat girth of 140cm and a 240kg lion from Namibia 139cm. Tells everything in my opinion.
Btw I don't believe that tigers are heavier than lions. The best thing is not believe datas 100%. Note there aren't many big same sized weight datas of tigers. Only two... from Bander and Behar.
I remember the old times were many laughed about Boldchamp were he said tigers and lions are similar in weight and size.... at the end he was true... quite a bit funny.
No. 1. The male M-105 (Sauraha) from Nepal had a chest girth of 140 cm and a weight of over 272 kg, the figure of 261 kg is the result of a chest girth/weight equation.
No. 2. If you say that the "best" is not believe in the data", then there is no point in correcting you as you will continue denying the facts even if you show it to you.
No. 3. Who says that tigers and lions are of the "same size"? They are not, they are closer in several aspects specially in the averages, but at the end of the day the tiger is still the biggest cat in modern times with Bengal tigers reaching the edge.
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
