Login

~~Charger01~~ · 02-24-2022, 05:17 AM

Kruger and surrounding areas, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and East African are one and same lions - Panthera leo melanochaita

Last research study on classification of Lions was in 2017 as far as I remember, and they classed all lions in south and east africa under P. l. melanochaita.

GuateGojira · 02-24-2022, 08:15 PM

(02-24-2022, 04:36 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: First of all if you talk about "large" then the table you made are considering kruger lions as the largest cats in the world but the table has few errors. Some lions you included are from East Africa. @GuateGojira if you can add something i would be interested as well. I would devide in into "large sampled datas and collections".

- Weights -

Large Sampled Datas

From Smuts we have a good data set with uncluding purely random males (no matter what condition). The average worked out at 187.5 kg on an empty stomach. How much these lions would weigh on general cirumstances? I think around 197 kg.

From Dewalt Keet in 1999 the average for 16 non-infected Kruger males was 200 kg. The other 16 were infected and lived under much different circumstances and still were 187 kg. So this data suggests a normal weight of 200 kg

The data given by Roberts includes 17 lions (with some subadults) but also falls in that range compared with the 2 previous datas

Collection

From the datas i was able to get i got an average of 195 kg (n=90) with at least more than half lions having an empty stomach. Looking at the general weights the empty weight is around 190 kg and the natural weight around 200 kg. The max weight is 253 kg on an empty stomach.

Sources: Smuts, Keet, Wenger, Pitman, Phinda, Timbavati, SanParks, Tintswalo, Hamilton, Selati, Roberts, Selati GR.

- Height (max) -

The average comes at 102 cm. The tallest wild lion was of 116.14 cm (+/- 1.8%), which means 114-118 cm(minimum-maximum) using an accurate method which just differed 1.8%(males) and 1.6%(females) from a standard measurement method.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ican_Lions

The tallest female in this study is a captive one of 110 cm, which is remarkable

- Length (max) -

The longest lion was 218.44 cm, which seems to be right. One can note that the longest asiatic female even surpassed the longest kruger female(192 cm streight) by measuring 208 cm over curves!

On the weights:
For readers they need to know that those values that you shared are your interpretation, not based in any document or any back up statement from other experts. The only real value is the figure of 187.5 kg for males from Smuts.

I checked the document of Keet and the sample of 16 doesn't say that is only males, but also includes females, so is 16 male and female lions from each population. Do you have the full document, or just the abstract? Also those weights are not adjusted for stomach contento, so normal weight is not even near the 200 kg, in fact, if we put those two samples together we get an average of 193.3 kg unadjusted, that means that the healty lions could be as low as 190 kg in the best case and the unhealthy even less. So, for the moment, the estimation of about 190 kg is the best case. The 18 lions from Roberts may include youngs (like Brander) but are also unadjusted for stomach content.

Finaly, the sample of known males (Keet is still not know the real number of males) is of 81 and the average that I got "weighted" is of 191.8 kg (if I include the 6 males that you shared with me and the lion of 264 kg that is labeled as "Cape lion", the average is of 192.6 kg). Empty weights may be about 187 kg overall and prime males, based in Smuts, is about 196 kg. The maximum (from the Timbavati record) is not 253 kg, that is an exact number and we don't know how much that gorged lion actually ate, in this case the correct estimation for that lion is about 250 kg emtpy (lions can eat over 33 kg in one meal) and that is from a reserve that bread lions llike turist atractions (Timbavati is a private reserve), but is still usefull. I prefer to use the male of Roberts of 251 kg, we don't know its stomach content but at least it was not from a hunting reserve (as far we know). Actually, I use both records, I want to be clear on this.

On height:
You know how tall is a cat of 116 cm? I am telling you this because is very easy to take the values published with no criticism, but we need to use logic and a size like that is too exceptional to be correct. The height of 114 cm recorded from Pitman is at some point suspicios as he did not measured it, he just got the records elseware. However, the figure of 114 cm from Selous came from an exceptionally large male and is more reliable. Now, the photogrametry is still not 100% exact, there is a range of error and we need to be carefull even if they say that the error is low. I will like to go deeper in that document to clarify some doubts because I remember when Dr Brady Barr use it in the wild with several mammals, and the results were normally larger than the taken ones, as far I remember.

About the tall lioness, captive animals may develop huge sizes. I still remember this captive Amur tigress as large an a full adult male lion of good size:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Check this other tigress:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So it doesn't matter how remarkable can be a captive specimen, it only reflect the form that it was raised and cared.

On the length:
The longest lioness, by far, is the female reported by Stevenson-Hamilton with 193 cm between pegs. That figure is reliable and I have saw lionesses of huge sizes.

Now, about the lioness from India, we need to be more critic and not only swalow the figures because are impresive or serve to an agenda. Check all the measurements first, here is the same info from the original document in this table that I created:

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you see, it doesn't make sense that a lioness is bigger than all full grow male lions in this list. That figure is certainly a typo, an error in the document. How do you think that it will look a lioness of 209 cm in head-body even if is "over curves", with a weight of only 110 kg and a chest girth of 105 cm??? It will look like this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

That is why we need to be carefull with the measurements published. There is another report of a lioness with a head-body of 2197 mm reported by Smithers (1971), but that is also an error and that was probably the total length and the tail was of 825, THAT size make more sense.

So, in conclution, we need to use logic with measurements too, just like I have done with the last paper published on the tigers of Panna. By the way, check the size of the larges lion recorded by Dr Loveridge, with 211 kg and probably a head-body over 200 cm over curves (biggest lion in his sample measured 209 cm over curves in head-body length, so it could be this specimen):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Do you still think that an "under the average" Indian lioness of 110 kg can be of this dimentions?

~~Charger01~~ · 02-25-2022, 03:56 AM

(02-23-2022, 07:44 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-23-2022, 03:18 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I personally think a chest of 130cm in generall isnt average especially talking about a whole population. Did Packer record a chest of 143cm? Or was it 134 cm? I remember reading both numbers. The average lion of around 200 kg has an average chest girth of around 125 cm.

Exactly because of those reasons tigers cant survive in africa. Alone a tiger has little to no chance and low survival ability and needs a lot of food. Unless they come "along" with lions a bit (some alliances or mating with lions). But that means bad news for male tigers most of the time.

Also i was checking some weights recently and found some infos about that 272 kg lion from Namibia(Etosha), he was at the stage of death before being killed. I thought it would be interesting for many here(Will post it on a different thread). This male lion was like Ximpoko the forefather of a huge male lion coalition (Probably even bigger than the birimingham boys).

He had a paw diameter of 23cm! And here the full stor of him explained! (Original language is dutch): http://peterjasie.co.za/wallie-els.html

You are right, average chest girths in male lions is between 116 to 126 cm. Only those from Namibia are of 132 cm but from an small sample.

Yes, he told me 143 cm in his new email. I remember the old email that said a range between 127 - 134 cm, but the new one that he send me is between 120 - 143 cm. Maybe is a typo, maybe this is the real range, I don't know honestly.

About the lion "Castor", is good to know that there is information about it, but I doubt about that weight of 272 kg. I mean, is not quoted by anyone, there is no record of him, we don't know if it was actually weighed. In fact, in the article that you posted do not mention anything about it. Lions in that area, as far I know, were not captured until the study of Dr Hu Berry and his heaviest male was of 260 kg (including stomach content). And finally, the only image that mention the weight is a random image with no source, so it is unreliable unless than someone can track the original document, study and the author of it.

People use to see an image in the internet and automatically accept it, but image can be fake too, so until the original source of that claim is not presented, we can't accept that this lion was actually weighed and not just estimated, IF that even happen.

I think 143 cm chest circumference is a typo. I had contacted him many months ago and he told me this -

Quote:¨...If you've set up the formula correctly, a heart girth of 134 cm should give you 265 kg. The formula is based on Bertram's weights and measures from the Serengeti, and most Serengeti females are around 95-107 cm (86-121 kg) while most Serengeti males are 118-125 cm (167-204 kg).

That unusually large male was from the Crater, and he struck us at the time as being abnormally squat, so he may have had an extra layer of fat, which would have meant he weighed less than predicted by the equation, as fat is lighter than muscle and bone.¨

Also -

Quote:¨I do think they (crater lions) are likely the largest, but we’d to weigh them properly to know for sure!¨

GuateGojira · 02-25-2022, 05:17 AM

(02-25-2022, 03:56 AM)Khan85 Wrote: I think 143 cm chest circumference is a typo. I had contacted him many months ago and he told me this -

Quote:¨...If you've set up the formula correctly, a heart girth of 134 cm should give you 265 kg. The formula is based on Bertram's weights and measures from the Serengeti, and most Serengeti females are around 95-107 cm (86-121 kg) while most Serengeti males are 118-125 cm (167-204 kg).

That unusually large male was from the Crater, and he struck us at the time as being abnormally squat, so he may have had an extra layer of fat, which would have meant he weighed less than predicted by the equation, as fat is lighter than muscle and bone.¨

Also -

Quote:¨I do think they (crater lions) are likely the largest, but we’d to weigh them properly to know for sure!¨

Very interesting, so Packer says that the formula is based in Serengeti lions, that could be the reason why a girth of only 134 cm gives a weight of 265 kg, is inflating the weights, as males from Southern region had larger chest girts and lower weights, about 240 - 250 kg at the most. But also the point of the fat is interesting, fat weight less than muscle.

They worked with those lions so many years, sad that they never managed to weight some of them at least.

~~SpinoRex~~ · 02-25-2022, 10:54 AM

(02-25-2022, 05:17 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-25-2022, 03:56 AM)Khan85 Wrote: I think 143 cm chest circumference is a typo. I had contacted him many months ago and he told me this -

Quote:¨...If you've set up the formula correctly, a heart girth of 134 cm should give you 265 kg. The formula is based on Bertram's weights and measures from the Serengeti, and most Serengeti females are around 95-107 cm (86-121 kg) while most Serengeti males are 118-125 cm (167-204 kg).

That unusually large male was from the Crater, and he struck us at the time as being abnormally squat, so he may have had an extra layer of fat, which would have meant he weighed less than predicted by the equation, as fat is lighter than muscle and bone.¨

Also -

Quote:¨I do think they (crater lions) are likely the largest, but we’d to weigh them properly to know for sure!¨

Very interesting, so Packer says that the formula is based in Serengeti lions, that could be the reason why a girth of only 134 cm gives a weight of 265 kg, is inflating the weights, as males from Southern region had larger chest girts and lower weights, about 240 - 250 kg at the most. But also the point of the fat is interesting, fat weight less than muscle.

They worked with those lions so many years, sad that they never managed to weight some of them at least.

When he wrote the email to you and could you quote his exact statements? I will ask him now to be sure

Also this are the specimens for the southern kruger lions from keets study (infected ones)

*This image is copyright of its original author

GuateGojira · 02-25-2022, 11:05 AM

(02-25-2022, 10:54 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: When he wrote the email to you and could you quote his exact statements?

Also this are the specimens for the southern kruger lions from keets study (infected ones)

*This image is copyright of its original author

I already saw those figures, thanks to "The Lioness", but the average figure for those 16 males result in about 170 kg, so is not the same as the one stated in the document. Now I am confuse about that document itself.

Like I asked before, do you have the original paper, or only the abstract, like me? It is interesting that there is no place where to get the original document, so I need to ask, is this abstract from a real published paper? Maybe Dr Keet could provide the weights from the norther region so we can compare it with these ones from the South.

About the email of Dr Packer, it was a communication from 2014 and his statement is this:

"We have never published anything on the sizes of the Crater lions, though someone named Yamaguchi once cited our data in a comparison of lions and tigers. The largest male was 143 cm; the smallest adult male was 120 cm."

That is what he told me, in March 17 2014.

~~AndresVida~~ · 02-25-2022, 03:03 PM

(02-24-2022, 04:36 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: From the datas i was able to get i got an average of 195 kg (n=90) with at least more than half lions having an empty stomach. Looking at the general weights the empty weight is around 190 kg and the natural weight around 200 kg. The max weight is 253 kg on an empty stomach.

Guate and Khan already explained this very well before I could, but still it should be remarked that no confirmed African Lion population averages at 200 kg.
The general range is like 187-193+ kg, prime males would be higher like at 196-197 kg

While I do estimate and believe Ngorongoro males to average likely in the range of 200-210 kg for their astonishing size, not too far from the general average of the Bengal tiger population of like 214 kg.

But as I said, Guategojira explained that very well already

~~SpinoRex~~ · 02-25-2022, 06:54 PM

(02-24-2022, 08:15 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-24-2022, 04:36 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: First of all if you talk about "large" then the table you made are considering kruger lions as the largest cats in the world but the table has few errors. Some lions you included are from East Africa. @GuateGojira if you can add something i would be interested as well. I would devide in into "large sampled datas and collections".

- Weights -

Large Sampled Datas

From Smuts we have a good data set with uncluding purely random males (no matter what condition). The average worked out at 187.5 kg on an empty stomach. How much these lions would weigh on general cirumstances? I think around 197 kg.

From Dewalt Keet in 1999 the average for 16 non-infected Kruger males was 200 kg. The other 16 were infected and lived under much different circumstances and still were 187 kg. So this data suggests a normal weight of 200 kg

The data given by Roberts includes 17 lions (with some subadults) but also falls in that range compared with the 2 previous datas

Collection

From the datas i was able to get i got an average of 195 kg (n=90) with at least more than half lions having an empty stomach. Looking at the general weights the empty weight is around 190 kg and the natural weight around 200 kg. The max weight is 253 kg on an empty stomach.

Sources: Smuts, Keet, Wenger, Pitman, Phinda, Timbavati, SanParks, Tintswalo, Hamilton, Selati, Roberts, Selati GR.

- Height (max) -

The average comes at 102 cm. The tallest wild lion was of 116.14 cm (+/- 1.8%), which means 114-118 cm(minimum-maximum) using an accurate method which just differed 1.8%(males) and 1.6%(females) from a standard measurement method.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ican_Lions

The tallest female in this study is a captive one of 110 cm, which is remarkable

- Length (max) -

The longest lion was 218.44 cm, which seems to be right. One can note that the longest asiatic female even surpassed the longest kruger female(192 cm streight) by measuring 208 cm over curves!

On the weights:
For readers they need to know that those values that you shared are your interpretation, not based in any document or any back up statement from other experts. The only real value is the figure of 187.5 kg for males from Smuts.

I checked the document of Keet and the sample of 16 doesn't say that is only males, but also includes females, so is 16 male and female lions from each population. Do you have the full document, or just the abstract? Also those weights are not adjusted for stomach contento, so normal weight is not even near the 200 kg, in fact, if we put those two samples together we get an average of 193.3 kg unadjusted, that means that the healty lions could be as low as 190 kg in the best case and the unhealthy even less. So, for the moment, the estimation of about 190 kg is the best case. The 18 lions from Roberts may include youngs (like Brander) but are also unadjusted for stomach content.

Finaly, the sample of known males (Keet is still not know the real number of males) is of 81 and the average that I got "weighted" is of 191.8 kg (if I include the 6 males that you shared with me and the lion of 264 kg that is labeled as "Cape lion", the average is of 192.6 kg). Empty weights may be about 187 kg overall and prime males, based in Smuts, is about 196 kg. The maximum (from the Timbavati record) is not 253 kg, that is an exact number and we don't know how much that gorged lion actually ate, in this case the correct estimation for that lion is about 250 kg emtpy (lions can eat over 33 kg in one meal) and that is from a reserve that bread lions llike turist atractions (Timbavati is a private reserve), but is still usefull. I prefer to use the male of Roberts of 251 kg, we don't know its stomach content but at least it was not from a hunting reserve (as far we know). Actually, I use both records, I want to be clear on this.

Quote:On height:
You know how tall is a cat of 116 cm? I am telling you this because is very easy to take the values published with no criticism, but we need to use logic and a size like that is too exceptional to be correct. The height of 114 cm recorded from Pitman is at some point suspicios as he did not measured it, he just got the records elseware. However, the figure of 114 cm from Selous came from an exceptionally large male and is more reliable. Now, the photogrametry is still not 100% exact, there is a range of error and we need to be carefull even if they say that the error is low. I will like to go deeper in that document to clarify some doubts because I remember when Dr Brady Barr use it in the wild with several mammals, and the results were normally larger than the taken ones, as far I remember.

About the tall lioness, captive animals may develop huge sizes. I still remember this captive Amur tigress as large an a full adult male lion of good size:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Check this other tigress:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So it doesn't matter how remarkable can be a captive specimen, it only reflect the form that it was raised and cared.

On the length:
The longest lioness, by far, is the female reported by Stevenson-Hamilton with 193 cm between pegs. That figure is reliable and I have saw lionesses of huge sizes.

Now, about the lioness from India, we need to be more critic and not only swalow the figures because are impresive or serve to an agenda. Check all the measurements first, here is the same info from the original document in this table that I created:

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you see, it doesn't make sense that a lioness is bigger than all full grow male lions in this list. That figure is certainly a typo, an error in the document. How do you think that it will look a lioness of 209 cm in head-body even if is "over curves", with a weight of only 110 kg and a chest girth of 105 cm??? It will look like this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

That is why we need to be carefull with the measurements published. There is another report of a lioness with a head-body of 2197 mm reported by Smithers (1971), but that is also an error and that was probably the total length and the tail was of 825, THAT size make more sense.

So, in conclution, we need to use logic with measurements too, just like I have done with the last paper published on the tigers of Panna. By the way, check the size of the larges lion recorded by Dr Loveridge, with 211 kg and probably a head-body over 200 cm over curves (biggest lion in his sample measured 209 cm over curves in head-body length, so it could be this specimen):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Do you still think that an "under the average" Indian lioness of 110 kg can be of this dimentions?

Quote:For readers they need to know that those values that you shared are your interpretation, not based in any document or any back up statement from other experts. The only real value is the figure of 187.5 kg for males from Smuts.

These arent interpretations really. Quoting this weight it should be always remembered that the lions were ADJUSTED for stomach content which puts them therefore at around 197 kg unadjusted (looking at the calculations and the protocol by bertram). Therefore i am not a fan of empty stomach weights especially in such datas as they tend to underestimate the weight automatically.

Quote:I checked the document of Keet and the sample of 16 doesn't say that is only males, but also includes females, so is 16 male and female lions from each population. Do you have the full document, or just the abstract? Also those weights are not adjusted for stomach contento, so normal weight is not even near the 200 kg, in fact, if we put those two samples together we get an average of 193.3 kg unadjusted, that means that the healty lions could be as low as 190 kg in the best case and the unhealthy even less. So, for the moment, the estimation of about 190 kg is the best case. The 18 lions from Roberts may include youngs (like Brander) but are also unadjusted for stomach content.

Its like the Southern Kruger Lions that around 16 lions were collared for both sexes. The Paper is a abstract but from SANPARKS itself (couldnt be more accurate). Under "normal" i dont consider the empty stomach weight but the unadjusted weight of an large sample as most arent adjusted. Suggested by Roberts and from Smuts the average male lion (including all sorts of individuals) average at 187.5 kg on an empty stomach and therefore as i said previously a "normal" weight of c.197 kg. The Data from Roberts is probably slightly above that including the study from Keet pointing also torwards that number with 200 kg. The data from Roberts defientely include some subadults (at least 1).

About the southern population im really strict although im someone who tends to include all sorts of lions up to a certain degree. You should think about it to include them by just looking at the infection they had (let alone the conditions, which are horrible because of tubercolosis).

Quote:https://www.jstor.org/stable/20095595

Abstract

Pulmonary tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium bovis was diagnosed in an adult male African lion (Panthera leo) by culture of tracheobronchial lymph node at necropsy. The main clinical signs included weight loss and dyspnea. Clinical pathology showed an inflammatory hemogram, mild anemia, persistent hypercalcemia, and mild azotemia. Sera from the affected animal, conspecifics at risk, and nine clinically normal lions were analyzed retrospectively for antimycobacterial antibody using a protein A-linked immunosorbent assay. The affected lion and one clinically normal long-term cage mate had relatively high titers compared with those of two other animals at risk and nine clinically normal lions. These results indicate that serology was useful in identifying lions with active tuberculosis caused by M. bovis, and/or lions that have been exposed to M. bovis.

When i read Branders book about the Rhinos and some tigers he clearly mentioned that these were adult males and went a bit more in detail. Also the measurements are showing that there werent immature animals really (Or in a unsignificant degree)

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Finaly, the sample of known males (Keet is still not know the real number of males) is of 81 and the average that I got "weighted" is of 191.8 kg (if I include the 6 males that you shared with me and the lion of 264 kg that is labeled as "Cape lion", the average is of 192.6 kg). Empty weights may be about 187 kg overall and prime males, based in Smuts, is about 196 kg. The maximum (from the Timbavati record) is not 253 kg, that is an exact number and we don't know how much that gorged lion actually ate, in this case the correct estimation for that lion is about 250 kg emtpy (lions can eat over 33 kg in one meal) and that is from a reserve that bread lions llike turist atractions (Timbavati is a private reserve), but is still usefull. I prefer to use the male of Roberts of 251 kg, we don't know its stomach content but at least it was not from a hunting reserve (as far we know). Actually, I use both records, I want to be clear on this.

The new weights are 220,225,205(empty),248(empty),163 kg. The Male lion Kwande was later said to be an estimate by the reserve management/HQ but instead the heaviest male weighed 248 kg on an empty stomach. In 2001 that weight wouldnt wonder me.... they were really really bulky (you saw the pics i guess). Also i included the weights from Pitmans book of 217 kg n=5 (189 kg - 251 kg, unadjusted) and the other 2 males of 179 kg(unadjusted) and 216.3 kg(empty stomach) from Kruger. I didnt inlcude the 264 kg lion. Instead of this lion i included the weight of ximpokos partner Mabande. Yes with pixel scaling i got 197 kg on an empty stomach for the best age group, which shows they are easily above 205 kg(unadjusted) by following smuts strict method.

Though the weight of 253 kg came probably after the adjustement of c.30 kg. So also a more rounded number. The exact number of the total weight isnt revealed (280, 281 and 283) and thus the estimate for this lion would be more or less a minimum empty weight as he could have been well at the 260 kg mark. I used the number of 253 kg as its exact and wanted it to be over the weight of 251 kg (as ximpoko was obviously heavier than that unadjusted lions).

Timbavati is hosting normal wild lions with some of their lions preserved in special areas with fences (i.e white lions). Its connected to Kruger and basically a 100% wildlife area especially talking about these two males who were weighed at COLLARING and not after these **** hunters got their license to kill them. These two males were the forefathers of the current birmingham coalition btw, so you know their origin. So these lions have nothing to do with that kind of stuff. Mabande somehow managed to survive after both of his big partners were killed. He left timbavati years ago because of the pressure and isnt at his best condition rn.

Quote:On height:

You know how tall is a cat of 116 cm? I am telling you this because is very easy to take the values published with no criticism, but we need to use logic and a size like that is too exceptional to be correct. The height of 114 cm recorded from Pitman is at some point suspicios as he did not measured it, he just got the records elseware. However, the figure of 114 cm from Selous came from an exceptionally large male and is more reliable. Now, the photogrametry is still not 100% exact, there is a range of error and we need to be carefull even if they say that the error is low. I will like to go deeper in that document to clarify some doubts because I remember when Dr Brady Barr use it in the wild with several mammals, and the results were normally larger than the taken ones, as far I remember.

I know how tall a lion of 116 cm is but some managed to surpass 110cm evidently with 2 being 114 cm and. So that male would be just 2 cm taller and looking at the other graph the numbers are really realistic. How much the method differs... well it depends on the scientists or the method in the method. But i understand you of course. But regardless even then this in the worst case confirms the number of 114 cm. As these are percentages the general height doesnt matter really. Also i remember this tigress but the male was still a bit larger. But even then one may notice the thickness.

Quote:On the length:
The longest lioness, by far, is the female reported by Stevenson-Hamilton with 193 cm between pegs. That figure is reliable and I have saw lionesses of huge sizes.

Now, about the lioness from India, we need to be more critic and not only swalow the figures because are impresive or serve to an agenda. Check all the measurements first, here is the same info from the original document in this table that I created:

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you see, it doesn't make sense that a lioness is bigger than all full grow male lions in this list. That figure is certainly a typo, an error in the document. How do you think that it will look a lioness of 209 cm in head-body even if is "over curves", with a weight of only 110 kg and a chest girth of 105 cm??? It will look like this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

That is why we need to be carefull with the measurements published. There is another report of a lioness with a head-body of 2197 mm reported by Smithers (1971), but that is also an error and that was probably the total length and the tail was of 825, THAT size make more sense.

Weights at these lengths can accur especially talking about asiatic lions in general. Note 209 cm over curves isnt noticably more than 193 cm between pegs. But some needs to ask jhala about it. Also it not comparable to the dimensions of the smither lioness. The one is legendary-impossible and the other one is possible.

~~SpinoRex~~ · 02-25-2022, 07:25 PM

(02-25-2022, 03:03 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:
(02-24-2022, 04:36 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: From the datas i was able to get i got an average of 195 kg (n=90) with at least more than half lions having an empty stomach. Looking at the general weights the empty weight is around 190 kg and the natural weight around 200 kg. The max weight is 253 kg on an empty stomach.
Guate and Khan already explained this very well before I could, but still it should be remarked that no confirmed African Lion population averages at 200 kg.
The general range is like 187-193+ kg, prime males would be higher like at 196-197 kg

While I do estimate and believe Ngorongoro males to average likely in the range of 200-210 kg for their astonishing size, not too far from the general average of the Bengal tiger population of like 214 kg.

But as I said, Guategojira explained that very well already

First of all some obviously did. Especially the data from Dewalt Keet, Roberts and from Smuts pointing towards that weight. In Zimbabwe 18 males averaged 202 kg including one 138 kg lion.Again you have to consider that these weights of 187.5 kg are based on a empty stomach as well as the "prime males of 197 kg", which is a big difference than just a normal weight. So i estimate crater males at around 220 kg unadjusted based on the pictures and the chest girths.

You have to remember that this average of 214 kg isnt like the data of Smuts or other Scientists, Naturalists. You have some of these like Brander(C.India), C.Behaar(Assam, C.Behaar and Duars) and Hewett(terai). Those males in MP(C.India) averaged at a adult age 190.5 kg (n=42) and those form the larger areas like C.Behaar(n=44) and Terai(n=19) at 205 kg and 202 kg respectively. Also i would maybe accept the collection from guate excluding the smaller males which then perfectly fits in the average weight given by Dr Eric Dinerstein (around 460 pounds =208.8 kg) for nonadjusted males of terai

~~SpinoRex~~ · 02-25-2022, 07:40 PM

Recent Information about the male lion from Richard Kock

On Discord i was honored with some emails about the stomach intake AND body condition of the male lion, as some suggested he would be really really bulky with a good reason.

In all of his mails he mentions the mail lion to have an empty stomach, which makes sense based on the story as well. Also he replied to the one question regarding his email where he mentioned "little stomach content". Credits @Epic

*This image is copyright of its original author

Body Condition

Based on the fact he was so heavy obviously i was interested in his body conditioned and asked the user to ask R.Kock about the condition of the lion based on a study. These estimation was able to do thanks to a study with stages. LION (Panthera leo) CARE MANUAL

The estimate was done with these pictures:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here is the answer by Dr. Richard Kock:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Pckts · 02-25-2022, 08:29 PM

6 would be high for a wild lion, notorious cattle killers will generally show more fat though.
-Less work and easy prey

~~AndresVida~~ · 02-25-2022, 09:43 PM

(02-25-2022, 07:25 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: Again you have to consider that these weights of 187.5 kg are based on a empty stomach as well as the "prime males of 197 kg", which is a big difference than just a normal weight.

What do you mean by this statement?
What do you mean "normal weight"?
Weights adjusted for stomach content must always be considered as the normal weights of an animal because that is the real weight or on an empty stomach precisely for the reason that the stomach weight is based 100% on the body mass of that animal without that external corpses such as food interfere or influence the whole.

~~SpinoRex~~ · 02-25-2022, 09:47 PM

(02-25-2022, 08:29 PM)Pckts Wrote: 6 would be high for a wild lion, notorious cattle killers will generally show more fat though.
-Less work and easy prey

I think many thought it to be 7-8. At the end it was in the moderate range(in the upper moderate range), which means he wasnt really fat but massive in terms of muscle mass. This lion regardless of other lions was a robust one (his skull says enoughfor a E.Lion). This shows how rare such weights are.....

~~AndresVida~~ · 02-25-2022, 09:51 PM

(02-25-2022, 07:25 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: First of all some obviously did. Especially the data from Dewalt Keet, Roberts and from Smuts pointing towards that weight. In Zimbabwe 18 males averaged 202 kg including one 138 kg lion.

My original statement regarded South African lions as a whole, not isolated populations of some specific areas.
That's why I also recalled a 210-215 kg average for Bengal tigers, specifying clearly I was clearly referring to subspecies as a whole because if I was referring to populations only I could have pointed out that there are some isolated populations of Bengal tigers that on average push close to 225-230 kg.
Nepalese males in guate's sample being an example (excluding the 320 kg tiger that was likely 285-306 kg empty)

~~SpinoRex~~ · 02-25-2022, 10:44 PM

(02-25-2022, 09:43 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:
(02-25-2022, 07:25 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: Again you have to consider that these weights of 187.5 kg are based on a empty stomach as well as the "prime males of 197 kg", which is a big difference than just a normal weight.
What do you mean by this statement?
What do you mean "normal weight"?
Weights adjusted for stomach content must always be considered as the normal weights of an animal because that is the real weight or on an empty stomach precisely for the reason that the stomach weight is based 100% on the body mass of that animal without that external corpses such as food interfere or influence the whole.

Yeah but sadly "empty stomach" isnt normal in weight datas. The 42 adult males from C.India werent adjusted and weighed 190.5 kg. Just like the 44 males shot by C.Behaar and the males killed in terai. Thats the reason why you have to seperate it. The only datas that adjusted their specimens in large samples were Bertram and Smuts

About the crater males i said about. Though i dont know if any cat population can reach 220 kg if unsucessfull males are included (Even those in Pillibhit and Corbett are of 170-180 even though the corbett male was a large one). Maybe in some areas but not on an empty stomach thats for sure.

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?