Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[GuateGojira]

(02-20-2022, 10:43 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: You took it too offensive regardless of the infos in your replies. I dont hate you and saw many great tables from your side but you get too much aggressive/offensive in these type of disagreements. Many things i mentioned are clear-cut basic things and not excuses(dont understand what excuses). I will not mention tigers next to lions as a comparison because the different lion population, subspecies do it even better when we want to show how unreliable weights are to determine the size of a species. (Or size potential)

Quote:I have no idea why you bring the bone structure. There is no clear information about bone weights on lions and tigers. The FEW information available in many cases do not separete males from females, even worst, there is no information about the subspecies, origin (captive or wild) and many other details. So if you are trying to use bones as a excuse to invalidate the weights it will be futile. Remember that I offer you to use skulls (which we can know the origiin and subspecies) but you ignore it. So I see a double standard here. Unless that you can know the origin, sex, physical details and subspecies of the bones, any analisys will be useless.

The question from your side was the bone structure right? A weight difference (except for individualism) between lions with similar skeleton size can be only explained by the bone structure (Robustness). Im involved in bodybuilding and thus i know exactly how weight is influenced. You can calculate the lean mass of a human by taking into account the bone structure and thus you will get the lean bodymass potential. Compare a human of a same height with a ankle of 22 cm and 19 cm wrist to a human with a 20cm ankle and 17 cm wrist. In terms of individualism thats not a wonder but if you get that for a whole population thats indeed a really significant difference in bone structure, which would be noticable directly in a depth study for bones (such as for lions and tigers). And you can guess even then the weight difference is 5% (85.5 kg , 90 kg for both humans).  Though again you can doubt the data. But the datas in terms of bone robusticity are there and they arent small in samples. The datas i mentioned for bone weights came from bengal tigers and lions with both having identical bone lengths. The factors you mentioned are more present for lions so thats not a good argument to ignore the datas. Especially when most bones are from bengal tigers.

I didnt ignore the skulls but what you want to proof with the skulls exactly? The lion populations have identical skeleton sizes. Kruger lions have different skulls but arent larger overall (skeleton).

Quote:Lion DO consume the same amount as tigers. Food intake is the same, specially in male lions. I have no idea why you are ignoring the REAL data from ACTUAL food consumption from the sources that I provided. You are saying that is not valid because it do not show the average intake, but you should know that the average intake of the largest populations, in females for example, is the same, 14 kg for Nepal and 14 from Etosha. Certainly males eat more, and that is a known fact, they gorge themselves in every oportunity. So, you think that a male lion is going to eat 9 kg and will stop to allow his females to eat? Male lions will eat as much as they can and they don't care for other pride members, that is the true, and that is what you can see in the reports of Schaller, Packer, Smuts, Bertram, etc. I can put the information of each one of them if you want.

You can't compare the food intake of Nepalese tigers with those of Kruger based in that single document. Nepal tigers intake is real data, those from Kruger are CALCULATIONS. Seriously, you should drop that paper and actually read the people that worked with lions in the wild and read how lions eat, how often they hunt, and the size of the prey that they take.

Again, anyone here, or in comparative papers, can tell you that Africa is a heaven compare with India, prey base is huge in comparison. Tigers will be lucky of they got a group of chital deers of 60 kg, while lions had entire groups of wildebest, zebras, antelopes, buffaloes (all of them over 200 kg) and all in relatively good densities. If you want to deny this FACT, then there is no point in continue the conversation.

I would like to see the evidences that they have the same food intake. Calculations aside are better than mere estimations and it wont change ANYTHING that the NT males consumed more *when* they killed a prey. A tiger when terretorial lives thus in much better conditions than a single lion (no matter terretory or not). Of course from your side it was even more worse to come up with single meal datas, which have no valuable information. About the etosha females you are certainly incorrect although i would say the food intake isnt significantly different as the ones in etosha weighed 141 kg and those nepal tigresses 139 kg.

You are considering the TOP group of lionesses and not the average. This data comes from the book written by Mel, Fiona sunquist on page 292. And in a more detailed study the food intake overall was 10 kg and not 14 kg. Also again look at the different food intakes. This document is interesting as well (about etosha female lions)

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author



Unlike in India.... Africa is a place with much more action, and has more factors. As well as more dangerous enemies and rivalities and generally the stress accuring there(Deseases as well). A small research in depth should clarify that easily, especially the paper from Dewalt Keet regarding the southern Kruger lions as well. You can see how the females differed in weight as well as the males.... and the lionesses were as heavy as the asiatic lionesses, which again shows its nearly all about conditioning. I have a question to you. Do you think those lions from Serengeti are lighter than the ones from Kruger at similar conditions? If Africa is a heaven according to you then tigers even in the present of lions should be heavier in africa than they are in india. That doesnt make any sense and that also because you came with 1 factor. 

The lions were heavier and such overlaps can not happen if a species has truly the better bone structure. I never denied the difference in blood. I am mentioning the differences in there bone structure. That means if you take any bone of a african lion and compare it to a asiatic lion i doubt there will be a difference in robusticity let alone a significant one i mentioned before. I have every right to claim this because of numerous studies and the weights i was able to analyze.

Quote:Tigers not only have an stroger structure, but they need to, they hunt alone and in some cases they hunt prey that lions do in groups. That is why tigers need bigger body masses and muscular mass too. They don't have the support of a pride at all. It is curious, you are saying that females have the same dimentions as males? Are you talking serious? Do you know that sexual dimosphism in lions and tigers is among the highest in cats?

And what is the point in put genetic again? I alredy explained to you. If you are going to compare lions from different subspecies there IS a difference in genetic and development of thousand of years. And if you are going to compare two different species that are separated from 2, maybe 3 millions years, then is OBVIOUS that genetic should be included in the equation. Dude, are you reading with I am writing?

There is no clearcut evidence in nothing that you have presented. Even other posters here already showed to you the flaws in the ONLY study that you presented in this discussion. You can't compare a calculated average intake with a real food intake. Check also the ocurrence of kills and how often they hunt. There is no comparison between a tigers that kill once every 8 days with a food intake of 14 kg and a lioness that hunt every 3 days and an intake of 7 kg, and leave out the lioness like those from Etosha that had an average intake of 14 kg too. Who do you think that eat more?

Again on what this idea is based? Its based on nothing and actually its even proven to be wrong. Lions hunt large animals and the fact that they do it in a group doesnt mean they have to evolve weaker when a male lion has to hunt ALONE when being Nonterretorial or living as a nomadic lion with a terretory or searching for it (with some other males most of the time). Yes they hunt sometimes animals lion hunt in groups. So nomadic male lions do it as well (kalamas for example, he killed bulls alone). You should read what i wrote. I meant that the dimensional size in females and males is the same when we talk about the differences. I didnt say they have the same dimensional size.

Why do lions hunt more often than tigers? Because they are a pride and therefore a buffalo may look in less than 12 hours like a skeleton. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

I cant find the study anymore. But in South Africa there were on average also 40-50 per lion (LFU). Around 250 kills per year with c.7 lions.... seems low but as some arent adults the LFU was used. Thats the result of a pride that was studied.

Quote:Again, read all the other documents and drop that single paper that is showing you that  information. We also have here documents that calculate that the food intake of male Amur tigers is about 4 kg, but no one use it as the same author explain that that type of calculations are not reliable, maybe the author of your single paper should have done that too.

I would like to see the datas and that wouldnt wonder me as amur tigers live in some places under horrible conditions. I think they get their basic diet (talking about the healthy ones) but not more than that actually (depends in some areas but generally speaking)

First, I am not angry or anything like that, that is just the form I wrote. So, no offense.

Second, as you continue with the bone issue, I will like to see those bones, especifically where it says that those are "Bengal", I mean, clearly saying that came from wild male and females specimens from India/Nepal/Buthan region. Rememer that if only says Bengal and came from captivity, those maybe not pure bread and even from Indochina and Malaysia (remember that before 1970 all tigers from Indochina and Malaysia were clasified as "Bengal" too). So, I want to see those bones first, I will like to see the study, because the ones that are normally used are from unidentified specimens, with no location, and samples are not even as big as you want to make it show.

I see your point in the comparison with humans, but your point is invalid if you can't provide a sample on wild lions and tigers and that is simple unavailable at this point. However, tigers (Bengal ones) had bigger girths (chest, wrist, arms, etc) than lions, so based in your assumption, that means that tigers are bigger also in body robusticity. And we do have girths data to prove this point. And about the skulls, thay are not quite the same, there are variations, even between populations. So if you want to use bones, you must include skulls in your analysis.

Again, like I said, lion intake is the same, but the page of Dr Sunquist book only shows the extreams in females populations. Check that what we can see is that there are variations int he food intake on lionesses, with depends of the season. Also, we should see the original source and see how often they hunt, that is CRITICAL as I told you before, is not the same a tigerss that kill one prey every 8 days and eat about 14 kg in three days, than a lioness that kill every 3-4 days with the same intake, even with an intake as low as 6 kg, still the lioness is eating about the same in a daily baisis if we take the total amount intaked and divided it in the 7 days of the week. That is my point, all those numbers are relative to how often they kill, how many pride animals are present and the huge factor, if the male lion is there. After all, even when the females eat 6 - 14 kg depending of the season and place, you can be 100% sure that the male lion will eat the entire kill alone (if small) or eat until gorge (if large) and then will live space to females. None of the studies quoted by Sunquist in his book (that you show here) focus in males. 

Please remember that the weight of 131 kg of tigress from Nepal is already adjusted while the figure of 141 kg for lionesses is not. Unadjusted, the weight of tigresses is of 145 kg. 

About your question: Do you think those lions from Serengeti are lighter than the ones from Kruger at similar conditions? If Africa is a heaven according to you then tigers even in the present of lions should be heavier in africa than they are in india. That doesnt make any sense and that also because you came with 1 factor.

Certainly lions in the Serengeti are the SAME subspecies as lions in Kruger, so they genetic is the same and will weight the same in similiar conditions. Check the lions from Crater are big and compared with the biggest lions from Southern Africa (Etosha for example). Tigers are not adapted to live in Africa, they do not have the morphological characteristics for that. You are talking about two species separeted by 2-3 million years ago so your attempt to compare tigers in Africa do not make sense at all. Other people already tried to do it, but is not even fair, is like to try to put lions in Ussuri, do you think that they will survive in that harsh climate, with such a low prey base and specially with the grupal stile of lions? Honestly your assumption is ilogical and do not prove anything. Any animal that is fully adapted to its enviroment like great cats will fail if is introduced in a harsh form. African lions failed in India even when the Indian lions trive in similar habitat. Coincidence? Obviously not.

About this: That means if you take any bone of a african lion and compare it to a asiatic lion i doubt there will be a difference in robusticity let alone a significant one i mentioned before. I have every right to claim this because of numerous studies and the weights i was able to analyze.

Did you have bones from Indian lions to compare with those from Africa? If not, lest use skulls and you will see the difference, not only in size but also in anatomy and morphology. Sorry, but those "numerous" studies are not about lions or cats over all, don't they?

And finally, you acepted the fact that lions hunt more often, and also you acept that is because they live in prides, this is exactly what I told you before. So now you only need to acept the fact that they eat the same or even more than a lone tiger because they eat more often, and thanks that they have a bigger prey base, they can do it much better than a tiger. Actually this is what Dr Sunquist theorized in 1981, that tigers do not live in groups because is uneconomical (few prey and small size) in comparison with lions (more prey and bigger size). Even when in Africa there is more competition (in the deceases is the same in any part of the world, so no big factor), this is covered by the pride size to protect they prey.

About this too: I cant find the study anymore. But in South Africa there were on average also 40-50 per lion (LFU). Around 250 kills per year with c.7 lions.... seems low but as some arent adults the LFU was used. Thats the result of a pride that was studied.

What pride, how many "real" lions per kill, which season, which area, what subspecies/population?? Details.

Amur tigers probably eat the same as any large tiger, it do not make sence that they will eat less. The factor here is the prey density, how often they need to kill and how much they eat in that timeframe. Prey in the cold last a little longer than in hot climates. Tigers in Nepal and Nagarahole rarely stay more than 3 days in a kill, independently of the size. I will search the paper for you. Reply