WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)
|
I can't understand after reading this. What is the biggest lion? The Cape lion and Barbary lion were not the biggest lions? Why so many information in internet and book are still saying those 2 lions were the biggest lions?
 (10-03-2019, 09:16 AM)lionjaguar Wrote: I can't understand after reading this. What is the biggest lion? The Cape lion and Barbary lion were not the biggest lions? Why so many information in internet and book are still saying those 2 lions were the biggest lions? Common misconception.. Barbary were often too short to be biggest Whatever reliable data is available for these two extinct long ago, puts their weights more or less nearby other larger subspecies like eastern & southwestern African lions. (10-03-2019, 09:16 AM)lionjaguar Wrote: I can't understand after reading this. What is the biggest lion? The Cape lion and Barbary lion were not the biggest lions? Why so many information in internet and book are still saying those 2 lions were the biggest lions? By reliable measurements, the biggest lion is the Southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita) present in Eastern and Southern Africa, with lions in Southern Africa (e.g. South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia) having higher average weights than their relatives in Eastern Africa (see the work of Smuts et al.), and members of the Northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo) in Asia and northern parts of Africa at least looking smaller than the former subspecies. As for the Barbary and Cape lions, which are now treated as populations within the Northern and Southern subspecies respectively, rather than as subspecies of their own, a reason why people considered them to have been bigger than other lions is similar to why people may think that Siberian tigers are bigger than Bengal tigers in the wild (when in fact it's in captivity that Amur tigers tend to be the biggest tigers, with Bengal tigers outweighing Siberian tigers on average in the wilderness, see the work of Slaght et al.), that is thick hair, the fur in the case of the tiger, and the mane in the case of the lion. Just as an Amur tiger has a thick winter fur which may make it look bigger than a Bengal tiger, the manes of the Barbary and Cape lions were so thick or extensive that they may have made them look bigger than other lions. Otherwise, considering how large contemporary Southern lions can get, it is plausible that the Cape lion was at least one of the biggest lions, see more details in these threads: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-the-siz...8#pid59978, https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-lions-i...2#pid89772 Heptner and Sludskiy on the lions: https://archive.org/stream/mammalsofsov2...4/mode/2up *This image is copyright of its original author Siberian tiger with its thick fur during winter: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...-wild.html  *This image is copyright of its original author Amur tiger with less thick fur, outside winter: https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/amur-tiger  *This image is copyright of its original author The Siberian tigers above aren't necessarily bigger than this huge Bengal tiger at Kaziranga National Park, northeast India, but the first tiger may look big because of its thick winter fur: http://tigerworld-parvez.blogspot.com/20...engal.html  *This image is copyright of its original author As someone remarked in this forum for hunters (after someone suggested that this was the biggest African lion), it looks like a "black-maned" Cape lion: Just as the Amur tigers above aren't necessarily bigger than that Bengal tiger, the lion above doesn't have to be bigger than this Southwest African lion in Etosha National Park, Namibia, but it may look bigger than this lion because of its thick, belly-covering mane: http://www.africaphotography.co.za/etosha-august-2014/ These so-called "Barbary lions" look bigger than other lions because of their manes and muscular physiques:  (10-03-2019, 10:59 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:(10-03-2019, 09:16 AM)lionjaguar Wrote: I can't understand after reading this. What is the biggest lion? The Cape lion and Barbary lion were not the biggest lions? Why so many information in internet and book are still saying those 2 lions were the biggest lions? I've always assumed the Southern African lions are the largest lions. (10-03-2019, 10:59 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:(10-03-2019, 09:16 AM)lionjaguar Wrote: I can't understand after reading this. What is the biggest lion? The Cape lion and Barbary lion were not the biggest lions? Why so many information in internet and book are still saying those 2 lions were the biggest lions? I didn't talked about other cats. I only talked about lion. Anyway, I am talking about population or location of lions. Which lions are the largest? Some people are saying that lions in the Ngorongoro Crater are the biggest. Some people are saying lions in the Okavango are the biggest. Some people are saying lions in the southern Africa, my belief is they are referring areas like Kruger, are the biggest  (10-04-2019, 06:12 AM)johnny rex Wrote: I've always assumed the Southern African lions are the largest lions. You are right, the Southern African lions are the biggest of all, with the largest body measurements, the longest skulls and the higher weights. Those from the Crater may be able to compete with them, but at this moment, there is not enough evidence. Interestingly, there is little evidence about the size of the Cape lion, however there is one skull that may suggest that those lions were somewhat larger than those from the norther region of South Africa. I will show the information in other oportunity. Greetings. (10-05-2019, 10:19 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(10-04-2019, 06:12 AM)johnny rex Wrote: I've always assumed the Southern African lions are the largest lions. According to Edmund Heller, who in 1914 described the Abyssinian or Ethiopian lion (formerly Panthera leo roosevelti) and the Ugandan lion (formerly Panthera leo nyanzæ), the extinct Cape lion of South Africa was 'distinctly' the biggest, and the skulls of Cape lions were at least 1.0 in (25 mm) longer than those of equatorial lions, on average. At the same time however, they tended to be narrower than skulls of Abyssinian, Sudanese and West African lions: https://archive.org/stream/smithsonianmi...3/mode/2up *This image is copyright of its original author According to tiger experts Nyhus and Tilson, using the work of Yamaguchi et al., the mean greatest lengths of skulls of male and female Kruger lions respectively were 380 ± 3.9 mm (14.96 ± 0.15 inches; n = 15) and 314 ± 3.2 mm (12.36 ± 0.13 inches; n = 14): https://books.google.com/books?id=XFIbjB...&q&f=false (10-05-2019, 09:37 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: According to tiger experts Nyhus and Tilson, using the work of Yamaguchi et al., the mean greatest lengths of skulls of male and female Kruger lions respectively were 380 ± 3.9 mm (14.96 ± 0.15; n = 15) and 314 ± 3.2 mm (12.36 ± 0.13; n = 14): https://books.google.com/books?id=XFIbjB...&q&f=false Actually Tilson and Nyhus are just the editors of the book, the chapter 4 was writen by Kitchner and Yamaguchi. By the way, the first part is obviously from the work of Yamaguchi, while the rest is like a copy-past from the chapter 2 of Kitchener in the book "Riding the tiger" of 1999, with just a few updated. About the skull lenghts, I am not surprised (not the first time that I see these figures) as lion skulls are longer than tiger skulls as they have longer muzzles. The observation of Edmund Heller is interesting, but as he don't provide any evidence or measurements must be taked carefully. However, Vratislav Mazák did measured 2 skulls from that region (and now a third one was published), and while one was average for the southern lions (just like the new skull published), the other was a big specimen, in fact, he says that it was the biggest he ever measured! I will put the data in just one moment. Edit: For lack of time it was not posible for me to make the post about the Cape lions, so I will do it the next week. My apologies people. 
Where is the conclusion?
There are many lion populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lions already disappeared in many areas too. I think it is very difficult to tell which lion population is the biggest. I heard that lions in Ngorongoro Crater, Okavango Delta, unknown areas of the southern African lions are the biggest. It seems to be that many people are still believing barbary lions were the biggest. (10-11-2019, 12:46 AM)lionjaguar Wrote: There are many lion populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lions already disappeared in many areas too. I think it is very difficult to tell which lion population is the biggest. Yup.. That's most accurately spoken. (10-16-2019, 03:08 AM)lionjaguar Wrote: How about lions of Tsavo? I also heard Tsavo lions are very big too Good question. In fact, this is a myth based in the measurements of the two man-eater lions published by Patterson. However Dr Bruce Patterson (not related with the british guy) made an study of these lions and presented his results in his book "The Lions of Tsavo". He shows that based on skulls the lions of that area are of the same size than the other lions from East Africa, in fact the largest skull was about 375 mm in total length (figure 9 in page 114) and in page 115 he says that he saw a skull of only 13.5 inches long (34.3 cm) that apparently belonged to the largest lion that William Mukabane (a KWS ranger in Voi) ever encounter, a man that shot more than 220 lions in his career, most in the greater Tsavo ecosystem. Also, in page 32 Patterson got to the conclution that those huge measurements for the two man-eaters (295 cm long x 114 cm tall for the first male and 290 cm long x 121 cm tall for the second one) were taken "along the curves", as a comparison of the skulls of these animals with those of other lions do not support the claim of they large size. In the Figure 9 in page 114, the two skulls from the Tsavo Maneaters, plus the skull of the "huge" Mfuwe maneater were included. However if we see, the three skulls measure c.364 mm, c.358 mm and c.354 mm respectivelly. So none of them is a big specimen, and this shows that the length of 320 cm published for the big Mfuwe lion was also taked along the curves and probably pressing the tape in the back a lot; if this last lion looks huge in the museum, we must remember that the skin and mounts of animals normally do not show the real size of the specimens, as the skin can be stretched, shrinked and most of the time need to be modified at some degree for the mount. It seems that the idea presented that those lions, the "buffalo" lions as Mr Caputo stated in his book "Ghosts of Tsavo", is just an ilusion propagated by the legent of the maneaters of the region. (10-11-2019, 12:46 AM)lionjaguar Wrote: Where is the conclusion? Sadly, there is no final conclusion. We work with the few information available and that do not cover the entire area where lions (or tigers) live. Many parts have report of "big" lions, but we must be careful with that as even an expert apreciation may be incorrect. Lions from the Ngorongoro are reputable as the largest in East Africa and based in chest girths this seems correct, but sadly Dr Packer never weighed (or measured, in length terms) any lion in that area, I asked him that but he told me that he only have chest girths and believe me, those are big! In the Okavango delta there are also reports of big lions from the Joubert, but again we must be carefull because they are talking of the lionesses of the area, the males that lived there do not seems exceptionaly big and can be compared with the males from Kruger NP. The desert lions are a good surprise, as the body masses in those areas are very big, but the problem is that they contain stomach content, so a fair comparison with other lion population (like those from Kruger, as they are correct for stomach content) is not posible. However, the chest girths suggest that those lions from Kalahari and Etosha are among the biggest on record. So, like a broad conclusion (for the moment...) we can say that lions in Southern Africa region had higher body masses than those from East Africa but those from the Crater may match they southern brothers. Finally, about the Barbary lions, there is no real evidence that they were larger than any other population, in fact now that we know that there were in the same subspecies group with the Indian and the west African lions, probably they were of the same body mass or maybe slightly greater. The reports of Gerard that those lions weighed between 270 to 300 kg were just exagerations and can't be confirmed, just like many old reports of Amur tigers reaching figures of 350 kg or more. (10-17-2019, 07:50 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(10-11-2019, 12:46 AM)lionjaguar Wrote: Where is the conclusion? I can't understand after lion and jaguar debate. Why are we only using weight to conclude which populations are the largest? Why are we ignoring other measurements? (10-17-2019, 08:05 PM)lionjaguar Wrote: I can't understand after lion and jaguar debate. Why are we only using weight to conclude which populations are the largest? Why are we ignoring other measurements? Very good question. I also had the same question many years ago, but it seems that in Biology (and incredible also in Paleontology) the body mass is the best indicator of "size". For example, a giraffe will have bigger measurements than an elephant, but in fact the elephant is by far the biggest land mammal of the Holocene thanks to it huge weight. Some guy ones made an explanation between a little car and a boat, the boat was of 5 meters long while the car was only 3, but the car weighed 1.5 tons, while the boat (which was an inflated one) weighed only 500 kg! So, that is why the body mass is the most used method to estimate size in animals. However, for me, measurements are also valid and usefull BUT, we have a problem. The methods to measure the animals are not standarized. Some people may tell you that there are only two methods: between pegs and over curves. That is partially correct, but in fact there is a large gray area between these two methods. For example, some people measured the animals between pegs, but they stretch them a lot, even beyond the normal animal size, or they were measured in depresed areas with not a straigh ground, so incorrect measuremenst could be reported. In the along the curves method, some people put the tape on the back of the animal, let's say a tiger or a lion, and hold it straight imitating the "between pegs" method, so they results can be comparable, other leave the tape a littler more loose but do not press the tape, while others did presed the tape with different degrees taking some curves or others following every single curve of the body, like the old records. And now the ALPRU method stated a method to measure African predators that starts in the incisors (not in the nose like every single record in the past and present) and following all the curves, providing an even more exagerated figures. So, that is the problem comparing measurements, we need to be very sure of what method the investigator/hunter used to got the measurements. If not, you may end comparing large animals "between pegs" with small animals "over curves" and pressing the tape, and we will see that they are "equal" in size, when actually is not the case. One good example are lions. Checking all the measurements of the largest 50 lions (for a list of about 150) hunted by Stevenson-Hamilton in South Africa, a very reliable source byt he way, his largest lion was of 206 cm in head body and had a skull of about 406 mm, this is a real giant amoug lions. However now we see a lion in the Hobatere region that measure about 240 cm in head and body only! And this came from a sample of less than 10 males measured over the curves with the ALPRU method. So without knowing these facts we could conclude that the lion from Hobatere is the largest, while in fact the one from South Africa is the bigger one. So, measurements are reliable if we know the method used, if not, they need to be discarted. And also, knowing the method, we can compare them only with the other measurements that used the same method, if not it will be an unfair and unreliable comparison. Based on measurements, I can tell you that the lions from South Africa are the bigger ones, measured between pegs, but now we have populations from Serengeti and Namibia that match they sizes, but just because these animals are been measured "over the curves" and pressing the tape (like the case of the Kalahari lions). |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |