WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
|
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
|
 (03-13-2023, 01:46 PM)Bruceenzo Wrote: Om-7935 Body data of 272kg lion. (03-18-2023, 06:04 AM)Chainsawman2 Wrote:(03-16-2023, 06:33 PM)Bruceenzo Wrote: And Tom (Thomas Gnoske)is about right from my recollection! R Hmm, recognition from Richard Kock. Don't talk until you produce evidence. I recently obtained the contact information of the NMK administrator, who told me that the skeleton can be measured at any time, and perhaps some day I can obtain these data.In an email shared by guate, Thomas said that om7935' s limbs were the average level of a lion, and apparently he had measured them. In fact, there are many contradictions, which are so old that no one knows what the truth is. For example, ThomasGnoske said he had a lot of fat, but kock said no. But he didn't deny the 72-inch measurements. If you need this email, I can send it to you. Love you, girl.  (06-29-2021, 06:10 PM)Pckts Wrote:Looking back at this post. I wanted to ask if you ever got into contact with the vet who was present there?(06-29-2021, 02:41 PM)MotherNature Wrote:(06-29-2021, 12:12 AM)Pckts Wrote: In their newsletter, it was said that these young adult males each weighed 226 kg on an empty gut https://mabula.com/guides-newsletter-april-2021/ In the video too, the vet Dr. Andy Fraser, can be seen saying they took their weight. Look at the 1:03 mark 
All, the recent bannings of @
Here’s a recently published study by Donaldson et al (2023) on the effects of tranquillisation on free-roaming lions in Kruger National Park. The body mass of these lions was an important factor in the effectiveness of the chemical drugs.
https://jsava.co.za/index.php/jsava/article/download/544/495/3020 23 females and 13 males were involved in the study, with a range in body masses from 74kg to 225.5kg (mean 143.9kg, standard deviation 31.6kg). Their ages ranged from 10 months to 12 years. They were attracted to the capture site using zebra carcasses as bait, and tranquillised once they began feeding. Body condition was subjectively scored on a scale from 1 (severely underweight) to 9 (obese), and belly size from 1 (extremely distended) to 5 (empty). These lions were judged as ranging between 2-4.5 on body condition (averaging about 4) and their belly size between 1-3 (full to moderate). Edit: See also the below two posts, from earlier in this thread. The 247.5kg male below was apparently treated as an outlier and thus not included in the paper’s results. Thanks @ (02-03-2023, 02:52 PM)Jerricson Wrote: (02-05-2023, 07:41 PM)Bruceenzo Wrote:(02-03-2023, 02:52 PM)杰里森 Wrote:  (03-21-2023, 04:55 AM)Charger01 Wrote: Here are some lion weights from a PhD done in Kruger. It was quite a long list but here's a table for lions 3 years of age and above. CHARGER The info in your last two posts, to put it mildly, raises a number of questions: 1 - What study are you referring to? Authors? Date of publication? Aim of the study? 2 - What do the 'condition scores' mean? 3 - When and where were the lions captured? In what way? By who? Same people involved in every capture? 4 - How were they weighed? What device was used? Were they measured? Method used? What kind of tape? 5 - You said 10 males averaged 190,5 kg? Were they adult (a wild male big cat reaches adulthood at 5-6 years of age)? 6 - Why did you decide to post a table with info about 7 males, of which most were not adult? What's the use of this 'table'? 7 - What's the story about the table with females? Background info? What I'm saying is this. Fursan and Leo were recently banned for using videos they didn't produce. They didn't inform us about the source, but decided to use them. Their aim was views. They also didn't interact after they posted the videos. A result of a deliberate decision. Meaning they ignored just about every forum rule. Chainsaw and Bruce reproduced old info first posted by our former member WaveRiders (this forum, some years ago). They decided against crediting the one who did the hard work, that is. Their aim was to use a few parts to start a 'debate' about zilch that resulted in crap, confusion and animosity. Meaning they too ignored ignored most forum rules. You posted a few loose remarks about some study and added an unclear 'table' you made. You didn't inform our readers about the study, the authors and the year of publication. You also decided against background info, methods used and results. What was the aim of the study? What material was used? Where? When? Who were involved in capturing the lions? Wild animals? Healthy? I didn't see anything. Meaning both posts qualified for the crap department. Also meaning you're ignoring the rules of this forum. And qualified for a ban. This post is good advice. Before you post, read the forum rules. When you give it another try, make sure it meets the threshold. Your last 2 posts will be deleted. 
What is happening here? Why was LandSeaLion banned out of nowhere without giving any proper logical explanations for it?
(03-23-2023, 12:41 AM)AndresVida Wrote: What is happening here? Why was LandSeaLion banned out of nowhere without giving any proper logical explanations for it? VIDA It's quite likely you was aware of the last two posts of 'Charger' in this thread. The two posts that were deleted, I mean. Both posts were all but unreadable for members and readers visiting this thread. Members interested in new contributions about the weight and length of free ranging lions, that is. I was one of them. After reading the last two posts, I decided to respond. In post 626 of this thread, I told 'Charger' why his contributions were considered below par. You know 'Charger' reacted in a way that left no doubt as to his opinion. In his response, he used colours to underline the remarks in my post (post 626) and stripes to let me know the criticism had been dismissed. Your pal 'Land and Sea' immediately supported him. He told me they were just having a friendly conversation. As I apparently wasn't aware of that discussion, I had jumped to conclusions. So what do we have? We have one (former) member telling me to take a leak somewhere else and another telling me to follow a course in reading. It resulted in two permanent bans. As to your remark (" ... without giving any proper logical explanations for it ... "). There are so many reasons, I wouldn't know where to start, but I'll give it a try anyhow. Wildfact is a quality forum that offers reliable information about those making their home in the natural world. In order to get there, we decided for a few rules. Forumrulewise, the contributions of 'Charger' didn't qualify. Contentwise, they were below par as well. Interactionwise, it wasn't any different. Same for your pal. What both were saying is they were just having a friendly private discussion on a public forum. They used it, because it suited them. And the thousands visiting the thread because they're interested in 'Modern weights and measurements of wild lions'? Too bad. Maybe they could follow a course in reading? After we were done deciding, you popped up telling me your pal was " ... banned out of nowhere without ... proper ... reasons ... " (from your post). Well Mr. Vida, looking at the forum rules, the conclusion is he was banned for the proper reasons. All in all, I'd say we're quite done with members deliberately ignoring the forum rules, doing as they please, crying murder when addressed and insulting those applying the rules. This is not the first time you question a decision, is it? The first ban was lifted when you said you would never do it again. Unfortunately, you just couldn't resist the urge to do it one more time. Meaning the time has arrived to join another forum. In order to encourage you, we decided for another ban. This time, it's a permanent ban.
VIDA
I read your response to post 628. This was the post in which I explained why 'Charger' and 'Landand Sea' were banned and why you were banned as well. As you no longer have the opportunity to respond, I will discuss the points you made. In order to enable those interested to follow the proceedings, I'll do it in some detail. Before I do, I want to make it clear I consider you a good poster. I 'liked' your recent post about jaguar coalitions and read more interesting contributions. In the department of good information, you most certainly contributed. Participating on a forum, however, isn't about being able to contribute in that department only. In every organisation, quality in itself, although much appreciated by all, isn't decisive. It is about being able to interact in a way appreciated by all. I'm referring to respect in particular. Respect for the rules, good information, other members and, last but not least, respect for those applying the rules. Members who know about respect are seldom, if ever, seen in disputes. They offer their view, participate in a debate and know how to disagree in a respectful way. If a problem develops, they contact those hired to do so or leave. Experience suggests quite a few of those able to find good information lack in the department of interaction. Most problems we see are a result of the unability to deal with opposition. The most common result of this inability is animosity. Not what we want, because it results in a bad climate. It is a fact only few of those able to deliver in the department of information are still around. In contrast to what you suggested, we don't think it is a result of the way mods tend to address problems over here. They're often present, developed an 'eye' for members out for trouble, often discuss problems and usually quickly solve problems. But 'usually' isn't always. The main reason is this forum has developed into a large organisation with over 2200 members. Mods are not aware of all problems. Furthermore, some members decide against contacting those hired to apply the rules. Example. In your post, you referred to 'Balam'. I agree she, and 'Dark Jaguar', are the ones who developed the jaguar section. When you visit that section, you'll notice I often complimented and encouraged both. In spite of that, they left without a word one day. There was a reason, but they didn't tell me. 'Balam', for some reason, never contacted me about the one stalking and discrediting her at every opportunity. The one involved, 'Luipaard', knew I considered him to be a good poster. He knew he had " ... this guy Peter ... " (quote from one of his posts on another forum) in his pocket and used the credit to perfect his skills in the departments of stalking and discrediting. Years after the event, 'Balam' finally informed me. The reason was 'Luipaard' was still at it (...). That should tell you something about his character. I immediately banned him, but the damage was done. A great pity 'Balam' and Dark Jaguar' left for this reason, but I didn't know. I do, however, know class acts often attract stalkers and discrediters. This is why they in particular need to contact the mods when they're confronted with a problem. I don't know why 'Luipaard' decided for years of stalking, but I do know he's heavily involved in generalisations. I also don't doubt jealousy was a factor. It's one of the most powerful drives in humans. Meaning your conclusion about the reason 'Balam' left is incorrect. Same for your conclusion about the mods of Wildfact. You didn't have the information needed to get to a conclusion, but decided to jump to a verdict in spite of that. Much appreciated. My remark about the drives in humans, by the way, isn't typical for members of forums only. I saw it in just about everywhere and I saw a lot, including a top notch band and a professional football team. Arrogance, jealousy and all the rest of it are omnipresent. You just can't avoid it, meaning you have to learn how to deal with it in an effective way. Not easy at the best of times. Returning to your response to post 628, from the top down. You said there was no reason to ban both 'Land and Sea' and you. I disagree. I'll start with your companion. When I contacted 'Charger' about his last two contributions, he told me to move or else. Your pal added he and 'Charger' were doing a discussion about a study conducted in South Africa. It was a nice chat until it was interrupted by someone asking questions about something they considered to be private. Meaning they used our forum to discuss a private matter. Bad decision. You do private conversations at home. If you are a member of a public forum, you use a PM. Using a public forum to chat means you don't care about rules. When you, on top of that, dismiss one of the owners questioning your decision, you qualify for a permanent ban. Your pal disagreed. He was appalled and decided to inform the one interrupting their chat about the rules of conduct (...). When he was banned as well, he contacted the other owner. In his PM, he complained about the way Wildfact is moderated. Just imagine: a member involved in ignoring the rules of conduct telling one of the owners to get lost and advicing him to do a reading course. Case closed? No. You decided to step in. It wasn't the first time you decided to question the decision of a mod or one of the owners. The first time, it resulted in a ban. A ban that was lifted later, when you said you wouldn't do it again. A few months later, when another problem erupted, you couldn't resist the urge to question the decision again. This forum, Vida, is a project of people interested in the natural world. Members don't pay a fee and those running the forum earn just about enough to pay the bills. Meaning it isn't about money. Our aim is to create a place for those without a voice. Another aim is to provide reliable information. Last but not least, we want our members to respect both the rules and those applying them. The last thing we want is to ban a member. When we get wind of a problem, we first offer a bit of advice. As good advice usually is thrown overboard right away these days, we often have no other option but a warning or a ban. Every time a member is banned, the world is too small. Every time, the mods or owners are to blame. Every time, they're almost forced to explain the decision taken. Solving problems takes a lot of time, Vida. In the end, you're completely done with members questioning one decision after another. You read what has to be read, you apply the rules, accept the occasional mistake and move on. In between the personal insults, you referred to a discussion you had with 'Apex' about the size of white sharks and orcas. The discussion that resulted in a ban, that is. I'm not a specialist in orcas and sharks, but I did talk to a few I consider to be in the know in this department. Most of those who saw, or actually measured, white sharks told me adults range between 12-22 feet, possibly a bit more. Large females easily top 4,000 pounds. Big, but not even close to adult orcas. All of those in the know agree orcas are larger and bigger at the level of averages and absolutes. In Australia, people who had personal experience told me large female white sharks at times well exceed the accepted records. Fishermen are not the only ones who got to that conclusion. In Eden, Australia, I talked to someone in the know in a local museum. The museum has the skeleton of an adult male orca known as 'Tom'. He was the leader of a pod that cooperated with local fishermen about a century ago. I bought the book written by a local journalist. Interesting all the way. I read other articles written by journalists. Time and again, I noticed those with experience agree white sharks can occasionally grow to a very large size. There's, in fact, quite a bit of, direct and indirect, information about exceptional individuals in temperate waters all over the globe. Meaning a discussion about the size of large sharks could be of interest. The outcome of the discussion, as always, depends on the individuals involved. The attempt to get to an interesting discussion at Wildfact failed. I'm not blaming anyone, but I did notice those guided by accepted data only often torpedo discussions with an explorative character. A pity, I think. As to the discussions about tigers and brown bears. The only region where they coexist and interact is the Russian Far East. I've read everything available and noticed opinions changed over time. I'm, to be complete, not referring to members of forums, but to those who have information we do not. It is a fact 'Apex', whether you like it or not, contributed significantly in the department of tigers and bears when he was a member of 'Carnivora'. I invited him to join Wildfact, because I wanted him to offer the opportunity to take the credit he deserved. In your last post, you said he wasn't banned during the discussion about sharks and orcas because of his position, whereas you was. Meaning 'Apex' was protected by the one who banned you. Not so. I know 'Apex' at times entered discussions with his 9-pound hammer, but he never posted misinformation. What I saw, suggests he was, at worst, 'testing' a few boundaries in the department of (accepted) information during the discussion about sharks and orcas. Not quite true for you. The decision to play the mods and others turned against you. Meaning the ban wasn't a result of the info you posted, but of the way you responded to problems. As to 'Apex' and his position at Wildfact. In my last post in the tiger extinction thread, I clearly said interacting at a forum is about respect in the end. I also said a member doesn't need to cross a line to create animosity. Meaning I'm aware of the sources of the animosity that erupted during the discussion. All sources. Also meaning we, as you suggested, don't do privileges over here. As a result of the problems described in my post in the tiger extinction thread, it was decided to quit the discussion about tigers and bears. For now. Not quite to the liking of 'Apex', but he, in contrast to you, didn't decide to question me. We discussed the matter in private. You decided for a different approach and came up empty. In fact, the decision to go public, and the tendency to jump to conclusions and verdicts quite quickly, turned against you once again. Responsible people accept the results of their decisions, Vida. They don't start nagging. Something else. In your post, you referred to 'cat-fans'. Carnivora, you said, has 'lion-degenerates', whereas Wildfact is a refuge for 'tiger-degenerates'. Talking about respect. I assume you noticed Wildfact has very few 'tiger-degenerates'? Most members are, in fact, interested in lions. The reason so many interested in lions decide to join Wildfact is the lion section is both large and interesting. It generates more traffic than all others combined. In spite of the number of posts and threads, we only very seldom face problems in the department of interaction. The main reason is members interested in this big cat know about (the benefits of) teamwork. They also are aware of the rules. As the mods deliver quality as well, the result is a thriving section loaded with interesting information. Is 'Carnivora', to use your words, a refuge for 'lion-degenerates'? Not really. 'Tiger-degenerates' then? Negative as well. It is the place to be for those interested in versus-debates. Big cats, bears, reptiles, sharks, you mention it and it's there. It also has good info about species not discussed over here (for lack of specialists). Apart from all that, it has quite a few members out for my scalp. Another advantage is you'll be able to use the trusted old T-34 of 'Warsaw' and a few 16-inch guns left by 'WaveRiders', including a lot of shells. Scalpwise, 'Domain of the bears' more or less compares. Apart from dismissing yours truly and other 'tigerfans', and one in particular, at every possible opportunity, they do bears and tigers. You'll find plenty of info about miniature bears with 3 legs having big male tigers for breakfast every other day. Info of that nature, in fact, is considered a delicacy over there. It goes without saying the information they present is reliable. An extra attraction is they know all about jumping to conclusions. My guess is you could learn a thing or two over there. As to the insults and all the rest of it. You feel badly treated and don't want to leave unnoticed. I understand, but it resulted in a bit of disappointment. Insulting someone you don't like just for the sake of it is easy. Confronting an opponent with inconsistencies, double and triple standards and a few other results of, say, preference or a dislike is way more challenging. It will take you a bit of time, but your effort will not go unnoticed. More often than not, it will be appreciated, even by those targeted. You can think what you like about this one, but it's quite clear time was invested. There is a reason. I'll leave that one to you. As to the problem discussed. My advice is to digest it and to move on. Make sure you'll excel in another contest in the near future and try to learn a few things from the incidents that happened over here. Respect the rules of engagement, accept it's more productive to learn how to disagree in a respectful way than to do battle and avoid trouble with officers no matter what. The key words are interacting and respect. Learning how to deal with opposition is a challenge for the best of us. It will take you a lot of time, but it will produce significant results in the end. Last but not least is to beware of opponents trying to lure you into a back alley loaded with shady characters always prepared to bet on the outcome of a fight. Over here, a permanent ban, in most cases, is at least 6 months. Good behaviour can result in, say, a bonus of a month. I want to be lenient, Vida, but the countless incorrect conclusions and the insults were not appreciated. Meaning I doubt if rejoining Wildfact would be a good idea. I'll leave it up to you. If you rejoin, my advice is to contact a mod first. When you rejoin, focus on good info and interesting debates. Stay away from firm opinions, back alleys, premature conclusions and insults. Good luck. (03-24-2023, 03:29 AM)peter Wrote: VIDA Very good and informative post @peter , I hope everyone finds their way here and reads it.   (04-25-2023, 06:59 PM)AlexMercer Wrote: I'll explain to all of you later, maybe this Sunday. What I can tell you guys is that Dr. Thomas Gnoske estimated that om7935 was 176-182cm. He thinks it is 182cm. In short, the measurements of this lion may be shorter than the average, or equal to the average(straight line). Correct measurements measure is: the nose to the sacrum near(the caudal vertebra is behind the sacrum); And the straight bone length(including pelvis) of om7935 is almost the same as that of Amur Tiger with 161kg and 191cm curve(it seems to be about 1cm shorter). Also, bones are inclined in the body of big cats, such as cervical vertebrae and hip bones, so this also needs to be reduced in length. Much too short for a 272kg cat. Unless measurements are from the skeleton only and not from the carcass with muscle/flesh, then I'm not sure what the body dimensions would actually be. I remember Waveriders originally stated he had an extremely long body *estimated to be around 200cm" straight line but wasn't very tall, I believe 100cm or so if I remember correctly but his skull was massive. Generally speaking he's going to be an overweight cattle killer but still a good sized cat. Empty or not is irrelevent since his body condition should be considered to be closer to the over weight size for a wild cat. That being said, he's not in the tier of a Lion like Kirbys for the largest free ranging Lion but he's certainly a big cat. If all things are valid he's probably built a lot like Wagdoh in his prime with similar body dimensions, if you know about that cat? (04-25-2023, 06:59 PM)AlexMercer Wrote: I'll explain to all of you later, maybe this Sunday. What I can tell you guys is that Dr. Thomas Gnoske estimated that om7935 was 176-182cm. He thinks it is 182cm. In short, the measurements of this lion may be shorter than the average, or equal to the average(straight line). Correct measurements measure is: the nose to the sacrum near(the caudal vertebra is behind the sacrum); And the straight bone length(including pelvis) of om7935 is almost the same as that of Amur Tiger with 161kg and 191cm curve(it seems to be about 1cm shorter). Also, bones are inclined in the body of big cats, such as cervical vertebrae and hip bones, so this also needs to be reduced in length. I deleted your post, if you wish to upload photos, please follow these directions. How to upload an Image
ALEX
The aim of this thread is to collect information about the size and weight of wild lions. Recent information. Reliable information, meaning information collected by biologists or experienced hunters. When you post info about a specific lion, you have to inform our members and readers about the details of that particular individual. If you don't, they don't know what to make of it. Here's a few questions. 1 - When did you join our community? You read the rules section? Did you contact a mod before posting? 2 - Is the info you posted 'recent'? If not, where did you find it? Who first posted it? Where? On what forum? 3 - Why did you decide to post it in this thread? 4 - Why did you decide to leave vital information out? 5 - Why did you decide to include information posted at other forums if you know we don't want it in order to prevent problems? Before you continue, contact one of the lion mods. He'll explain the situation. If you don't, your posts will be deleted. (03-23-2023, 12:52 PM)peter Wrote:Sorry I know this is of topic but may you tell me the average timbavati,ocavongo,nogorongo and SA lions because from what I’ve gathered study’s I have only cover SA and East African lions. East African lions size at (189 kg) and South African (200-206kg) and crater and nogorongo I have yet to have a valid size chart but my estimates put them at (210-230kg). I know this isn’t in this topic but. My estimates put cape lion at (220-260kg) and Barbary (180-230kg). Sorry if I don’t know much first time getting on this app and I also apologise if my English is not the best. If you have the time may you correct my statemtms if they are wrong. Sorry for bothering you or wasting your time.(03-23-2023, 12:41 AM)AndresVida Wrote: What is happening here? Why was LandSeaLion banned out of nowhere without giving any proper logical explanations for it? (08-13-2023, 06:59 AM)Mohaned Wrote:(03-23-2023, 12:52 PM)peter Wrote:Sorry I know this is of topic but may you tell me the average timbavati,ocavongo,nogorongo and SA lions because from what I’ve gathered study’s I have only cover SA and East African lions. East African lions size at (189 kg) and South African (200-206kg) and crater and nogorongo I have yet to have a valid size chart but my estimates put them at (210-230kg). I know this isn’t in this topic but. My estimates put cape lion at (220-260kg) and Barbary (180-230kg). Sorry if I don’t know much first time getting on this app and I also apologise if my English is not the best. If you have the time may you correct my statemtms if they are wrong. Sorry for bothering you or wasting your time.(03-23-2023, 12:41 AM)AndresVida Wrote: What is happening here? Why was LandSeaLion banned out of nowhere without giving any proper logical explanations for it? Mohaned, Good information (referring to information published by biologists and books of experienced and reliable hunters) strongly suggest a mature wild male big cat exceeding 400 pounds (181,44 kg) on an empty stomach is big. Remember there's a big difference between a wild and a captive big cat. Same for a wild cat and one living in semi-wild conditions (referring to private reserves in the southern part of Africa in particular). If you want to know a bit more, read this thread or visit 'On the edge of extinction - The lion (Panthera leo)'. Another option is to contact our member 'Guategojira'. He's been collecting reliable information about the length and weight of wild lions and tigers for quite some time. Last but not least is to read a number of threads about wild lions. You could also contact a few members. There are quite a few that have access to good information. The lion section is a good one. As to lions, tigers and size. Experience says visitors of zoos and facilities tend to exaggerate the size (weight) of captive lions and underestimate that of tigers. The reason is they often use the size of the head to get to an estimate (lions, apart from Amur tigers, usually have larger heads than tigers). As a general rule, adult male lions are relatively tall, large-skulled, quite robust and stocky. If we add the mane and attitude of many captive male lions, chances are an average visitor will quickly get to 500 pounds (226,8 kg) for an average mature male lion. Also remember captive lions are a bit larger than their wild relatives. The reasons are more food, no competition, no sharing and less work. In tigers, sizewise, it's the other way round: most wild tigers are a bit bigger than their captive relatives (referring to tigers of the same subspecies). Tigers are solitary hunters. As it takes a lot of energy to hunt, they often select large prey animals. It takes time to develop in this department and it's risky. Not a few youngsters perish while learning. For a young adult male, it also takes a lot of time to conquer, and keep, a territory. In order to challenge a tiger with a territory, size is needed. Meaning young adults need to learn how to hunt large animals. They also need to learn to avoid dangerous competitors and scavengers. Wild tigers continue to put on weight until they're 7-9 years of age. Compared to a mature male, a young adult often is at a disadvantage. In the long run, this lifestyle can only result in a relatively high number of casualties and that's what we see. As the most able usually get most opportunities to reproduce, chances are this development will produce more able, and larger, individuals over time. Wild male lions also fight. A lot, in fact. The difference between both big cats is young male lions trying to conquer a pride live, and operate, in bachelor groups. Clashes between bachelor groups and established coalitions can be severe, but most of those involved will survive. In clashes, the winner takes all. If a bachelor group loses a battle, the winners will project their aggression. More often than not, only the one surrounded suffers. This means the others will survive to fight another day. Meaning the chance to get severely injured or killed in a clash, in most cases, is well below, say, 50%. When wild male tigers fight until a decision is reached, the loser, more often than not, will be seriously injured or killed. I'm not saying tiger fights are more intense. I'm also not saying tigers are better fighters. What I'm saying is a serious fight between male tigers often has more consequences for the simple reason only two animals are involved. For this reason, the survival percentage is lower. Pride males (referring to lions) could be great fighters, but it's as likely they could have been in the right coalition at the right time more than once. Maybe the best fighters perished during these clashes and maybe the survivors, because of their efforts (referring to the most able fighters), got a chance to take over as pride. We don't know. We do know this mechanism, to a degree, is present in captive lions as well. Not so in tigers. Their selection mechanism is deleted in captivity. The result is less able, and often smaller, individuals. There could be a difference between lions and tigers in a fight. When you see (a photograph of) a human killed by a tiger (referring to captive animals), chances are you'll only see four holes in the most vulnarable body part (the neck). A human killed by a male lion, on the other hand, often has many injuries. Is a tiger a more serious killer, or does a lion have a different intention? A male lion winning a one-on-one not always kills his opponent. More often than not, the loser will be (severely) damaged. Coincidence or a result of a deliberate decision? I talked to a few people involved in fights. They thought the difference between both species is in the method used to convey a message. More often than not, tigers get straight 'to the point'. They don't want to lose too much energy. Male lions are different. A human attacked by a male tiger will be quickly killed. A human attacked by a male lion will be tormented first. This is why those working with big cats are more afraid of male lions than of male tigers. Does this mean the male lion (referring to captive lions) is more sure of himself in a fight? I don't know. I do know lions are social mammals that live, hunt and fight in, and as, a group. They care about the territory and the pride and don't do details. Their aim is to show themselves and to convey messages to other lions and scavengers. Adult tigers are specialized hunters and loners. They want to limit the risk in order to hunt another day. But. Those 'in the know' agree wild male tigers at times enter serious fights with dangerous opponents for unknown reasons. Male lions and tigers both confront competitors and scavengers, but for slightly different reasons. In lions, a confrontation seems to be more related to territory and food. In tigers, a confrontation seems to be related to legal ownership if the intrudfer is, say, a bear, and territory is the intruder is another tiger. Lions often confront other lions and hyenas. As they also are social mammals, it's impossible to injure or kill all. This could be the reason male lions are involved in messages. Tigers are solitary animals. Same for (most of) their opponents. Meaning it isn't about messages, but about the direct outcome of a fight. Returning to lions and estimates. Lions have a slightly different 'Bauplan' than tigers. Captive males in particular tend to have relatively large heads, necks and chests. There is a quite strong correlation between chest girth and weight in wild big cats, but there are differences between species. The information I have (referring to wild big cats only) suggest a male tiger with a 120 cm chest often is a bit heavier than a male lion with a 120 cm chest. In captive male lions and tigers, it's no different. The three male lions I measured had bigger chests than the three male Amur tigers. In spite of that, the difference in weight seemed (we were only able to weigh one) limited. The Amurs (we transported all 6 big cats on the same stretcher) seemed to have the edge. Seemed. The most likely reason, we thought, was length (most adult male Amur tigers are a bit longer than adult male lions). Good information (at the level of averages) suggests southwestern Africa could have the largest wild lions today, closely followed by southern Africa. Lions in eastern Africa could be a bit bigger than many assume. There's not a lot of information about lions living in the Crater, but what we know suggests they're as big as those in Namibia, if not a bit bigger (referring to weight in particular). Lions living in the bend (western Africa) are a bit smaller. Same for those inhabiting the mountaineous and forested regions of Ethiopia. In general, the differences between regions are limited. The longest skull I measured belonged to a male lion captured in what used to be Abessynia. Not a region known for large lions. I also saw a few big skulls from lions shot in central parts of Africa (referring to what used to be Belgian Congo in particular). At the level of species, not too long ago, adult male lions averaged about 175 kg (387 pounds). Adult male tigers averaged about 160 kg (354 pounds), but that average is from the period tigers still inhabited central parts of China (P.t. amoyensis), the Caspian region (P.t. virgata), Bali (P.t. balica) and Java (P.t. sondaica). Today, only Sumatra (P.t. sumatrae), southern Asia (P.t. corbetti), India (P.t. tigris), Nepal (P.t. tigris), Bhutan (P.t. tigris), northeastern China (P.t. altaica) and southeastern Russia (P.t. altaica) have wild tigers. At the level of species today, wild adult males of both species could average 170-180 kg (375-397 pounds) on an empty stomach. Large males are 50-100 pounds heavier. Exceptional males can reach 550-590 pounds (249,48-267,62 kg), perhaps a bit more. At the level of subspecies (and averages), adult male tigers in northern and northeastern India (and Nepal) seem to top the list, but that's without the Crater lions (no data). Remember most samples used to get to this conclusion are quite small. Last year, I tried to find 'reliable' information about the size (length and weight) of captive Amur tgers. The results were posted in the tiger extinction thread. What I found, suggests they top the list. Adult males average 224,2 kg or 494 pounds (n=61) and 303,1 cm in total length measured 'between pegs' (n=14), but I've also seen quite different averages. Biologists are not that interested in the size of wild big cats. Their aim is conservation. A very sensible decision, as the natural world is severely threatened. Apex predators are the first to be affected. Tigers in particular face a lot of problems (referring to habitat destruction and poaching). The focus on conservation, however, resulted in a lack of data (referring to size). You could say there's not enough good information to get to sound conclusions and be close. We just don't know, meaning there's a lot of room for speculation. Hope you enjoy Wildfact. Before you start posting, read the rules section. Remember we take them seriously over here. Check the information you have and do it again. Remember our aim is good information, not hearsay and estimates. One thing we want to avoid at all costs is misinformation. Remember this is a public forum. Contact a lion mod if you have questions. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 7 Guest(s) |