ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)

[return 80]

Hi Peter,

Thank you very much for your reply, very interesting information!

Here are a total of 37 wild male Southern African lion skulls with original location obtained from literature, personal communication, and Museum database.Along with measurements of the Greatest Skull length(It only contains the complete skull)

*This image is copyright of its original author

I grouped them according to the historical descriptions of lion populations by zoologists.And attached the source information of most specimens.

T.M.=SAM, That is today's South African Museum, but for the convenience of readers, I used the catalog number used in Roberts' description.

2.V.-L.K.E specimen and no.244 Skull

In Roberts' description, he used V- L. K.E's specimen. But in reality, this is not a strict institutional number, it is an abbreviation for VERNAY-LANG KALAHARI EXPEDITION.

The Vernay Lang Kalahari Expedition refers to a scientific expedition to the Kalahari Desert led by Arthur S. Vernay and James P. Lang from 1930 to 1931. This expedition is funded by the Field Museum with the aim of collecting large mammal, bird, and other biological specimens from the Kalahari region. The expedition team conducted extensive explorations in Angola and the Kalahari region, collecting a large number of precious animal specimens, which were later donated to the Natural History Museum.

So, the catalog number of V-L. K.E was only a temporary record for the specimens collected by the scientific investigation team at that time. Unfortunately, Roberts did not provide the natural history museum and zoological institution where these specimens were housed when describing them. Due to time constraints, I have not yet found the last two V-L. K.E specimens described by Roberts. I plan to search for them later or hand them over to other interested lion fans.

The largest specimen among them, No.244, is worth mentioning. I have a scale image of the largest level wild tiger lion and Smilodon populator made by GuateGojira(Guate Gojira is also very famous among animal fans on the Chinese Internet because of his superb knowledge) that my friend sent me. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

He also seems to believe that this is one of the largest skulls of a wild lion and has set its Greatest Skull length as the largest record of a wild lion.

I didn't mean to criticize him, but it seems that he simply recorded Roberts' descriptive data and catalog, without indicating the true information of this specimen.(But as a new user, I am not particularly familiar with his post. If he later posted new relevant information about this specimen, I think I should apologize for my recklessness)

After my verification and personal communication, this skull is now housed in the Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), and its correct institutional catalog number is FMNH 35741.And just like the Amsterdam No.1336 skull you mentioned, it also has multiple measurements of different data. For example, its Greatest skull length at least has three different data : 394mm (Hill 1942); 401mm(Roberts 1951); 395mm(DeSantis and Patterson 2017).

*This image is copyright of its original author

I once asked the staffs of FMNH, and the measurement size provided by them is also similar to Hill's. Considering other measurement values, it does not seem to be much larger than the giant lion skull in Botswana and Namibia [especially a large lion skull in WALVIS BAY in Namibia (NRM 591971), whose CBL also reached 350 mm. According to the measurement data of V.mazák, its zygomatic breadth was up to 270 mm, which seems to be the largest record of wild lions measured by zoologists].

3.Possible measurement errors

Finally, I would like to talk about measurement errors. Based on my experience, in fact, when measuring skull measurement values with large data values (such as Greatest Skull Length), it is easy for several millimeters of error to occur between different measurers, even if they use the same method.

Usually, this error depends on the tool used during measurement. For example, when using calipers or measuring plates to measure the skull, it is easy to produce differences in the angle and posture of the skull during measurement, which can also lead to errors in obtaining measurement values.

In addition, even with the same tools, there may be differences in measurements with or without the help of auxiliary personnel. Auxiliary personnel can help observe whether the landmarks to be measured on the skull match the measuring tool. And whether the tools are placed in the correct position during measurement.

Therefore, in my opinion, skulls with only a few millimeters of difference in length can be said to be the same size.

*This image is copyright of its original author

I can give another example here, the MNHN-P 957, one of the largest Smilodon populator skulls in the scale diagram made by Guate. In Manzuetti et al.'s measurement, the GSL was 392mm. I also have a digital scanning model of this skull, and in my measurements, almost all measurements except for GSL (400.4mm) are the same as Manzuetti et al.'s. Our gap is 8mm, but the actual skull size is the same Reply

[return 80]

(03-20-2025, 07:58 AM)peter Wrote: RETURN 80

Very interesting posts! Much appreciated. After reading your posts, I decided to post a few essentials of a lion skull in the collection of the former Zoological Museum of the University of Amsterdam (ZMA). I said 'former', because the ZMA merged with the Naturalis Museum for Natural History in Leiden some years ago.

This post, to be more accurate, is a repost. I first posted about the skull quite some years ago. When I measured the skull, in 2004, Dr. van Bree, in spite of his advanced age, still worked a few days a week. When I visited him, he always had a list in front of him. It was an overview of the things he wanted to discuss. He often handed me a copy of an interesting article or a book I had to read. Dr. P. van Bree was the one who encouraged me to measure big cat skulls. He told me how to do it and opened a lot of doors in other natural history museums.

Dr. P. van Bree was born in Sumatra in the days it Indonesia was a Dutch colony. He showed me a lot of photographs of his early days and told me his interest in the natural world largely was a result of what he had seen when he was a boy. Back then, most of Sumatra was covered by dense forest. Tigers were everywhere. 

After Indonesia had become independent, Dr. van Bree met with V. Mazak in Amsterdam. V. Mazak more than once visited the ZMA to measure skulls. I found some of his notes when I measured the same skulls almost half a century later. V. Mazak and P. van Bree were good friends. I heard a lot of stories. What I remember most is V. Mazak was a motivated and dedicated man.  

When I asked dr. P. van Bree if he had measured big cats, he showed me a lot of records of (captive) big cats he had measured himself. Nearly all of them had been weighed in Utrecht. Dr. van Bree, to be complete, measured all big cats 'between pegs'. 

One of the first skulls I measured was the skull V. Mazak had measured as well (skull 1336). He refers to the skull in the third edition of his book 'Der Tiger' (1983, pp. 196). There's no information about the owner of the skull, a male from Abessynia (Ethiopia today), but Mazak wrote the skull was the largest he had seen (out of a series of 280 skulls). The skull had a greatest length of 402 mm, a condylobasal length of 377 mm, a zygomatic width of 258,5 mm and a rostral width of 106,2 mm. Here's two scans of the photograph I posted:

*This image is copyright of its original author

    

*This image is copyright of its original author

  
When I measured the skull, I got to slightly different results. A result of a lack of experience, I concluded. In order to be sure, I asked the curator of the ZMA to measure the skull as well. He, in his turn, asked another member of the staff to repeat the procedure. They didn't disclose the results of their measurements to each other. When I went over them with the curator, we were surprised to find the results were almost identical. The skull had a greatest total length of 408,0 mm and a zygomatic width of 257,5 mm. It was relatively low (163,0 mm at the orbit) and weighed 2,090 kg. As far as we could tell, the skull had no been degreased. The former owner of the skull had been captured in Abessynia (now Ethiopia) and died in Artis Zoo in 1937. We do not know why the results of our measurements were different from those of V. Mazak, but assumed it most probably was a result of time.  

The largest big cat Dr. P. van Bree measured was a captive male lion. He died during a transport in 1974. This lion was 300,7 cm in total length measured 'between pegs' (HB 216,7 cm; tail 84,0 cm). His weight was 280 kg (...). I measured his skull (16.470) in 2004. Compared to the skull from Ethiopia, it was more elevated at the orbit (172,0 mm), narrower (zygomatic width 248,2 mm) and not as long (378,0 mm). It was significantly heavier (2,450 kg), but had not been degreased. 

A skull of another captive male lion that died in Artis Zoo (11.753), for comparison, was similar in length (GTL 378,5 mm) and quite a bit wider (zygomatic width 261,9 mm). This skull had been completely cleaned and weighed 1,740 kg. This male lion was about 8 years of age when it died in 1982. 

Here's two photographs of skull 16.470:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Hi,peter

I have a question that's been on my mind,and I'd really appreciate for your guidance.

The 163mm of ZMA 1336 and 172mm of ZMA 16.470.Do these two data refer to the total height of the skull at orbit when including the mandible?I measured a height value on MVZ117849. Is this measurement the same as what you described?

*This image is copyright of its original author

Thank you very much for your reply! Reply

[peter]

RETURN

Yet another very informative post (referring to post 331)! Many thanks again. 

In this post, you'll find detailed information about the skulls of 3 male lions in the Naturalis Museum for Natural History in Leiden (the Netherlands). The post also has the averages of 9 male lion skulls. Hope you can use the information. 

1 - Cat 'e' 

The label didn't offer a lot of information. It is, however, certain the former owner of this skull was killed in Africa quite some time ago. His magnificent skull was shipped to London and ended in Rotterdam. In 2005, when I visited Naturalis, it was the longest (GTL 384,6 mm and CBL 333,5 mm) skull in the collection. It also is very wide (ZW 267,7 mm). The height (measured at the orbit, with the mandible attached) is 172,5 mm. The maxillary width is 101,8 mm. The weight of the cleaned (degreased) skull is 1,770 kg:  

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

2 - Skull 1781

The label says the former owner of this skull was shot south of the Zambezi River in what used to be Portuguese East Africa (now Mocambique). The skull was received in October 1929. In length (GTL 378,6 mm and CBL 323,5 mm), the skull compares to the previous skull. It is, however, narrower (ZW 230,8 mm) and a bit lower at the orbit (161,5 mm). The maxillary width is 96,9 mm. In weight, there's no difference with the previous skull (1,770 kg): 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

  
3 - Skull 308

The former owner of this skull was captured in what used to be German East Africa (now Namibia) and shipped to the Blijdorp Zoo (Rotterdam). The lion died in September 1913. Although it compares in length to the previous skulls for length (GTL 379,3 mm and CBL 328,0 mm), the teeth are not as well developed. Like most skulls of captive big cats (and lions in particular), it's very wide across the arches (ZW 276,0 mm). Measured at the orbit (with the mandible attached), the skull is 176,0 mm. The weight of the cleaned skull is 1,795 kg:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
4 - Averages

In 2005, when I measured the skulls, Naturalis had 9 skulls of male lions. Of these, 4 belonged to wild animals. Apart from one exception (cat 'e', see above), skulls of wild lions were significantly narrower across the arches. 

Here's the classified results:

The 9 skulls averaged 359,84 mm in GTL (range 320,50 - 384,60). In condylobasal length (CBL), the average was 312,14 mm (range 277,30 - 333,50). In zygomatic width (ZW), it was 245,40 mm (range 210,50 - 276,00 mm). The average width at the rostrum was 97,80 mm (range 91,00-104,40) and the average height measured at the orbit was 163,94 mm (range 150,50 - 176,00). The 9 skulls averaged 1,739 kg (range 1,425-1,990). Although skulls of captive male lions were consistently wider at the arches, they were not heavier than skulls of wild male lions. 

I also measured 11 skulls of lionesses. Of these, one was a young adult. They averaged 295,66 mm in greatest total length (range 271,80-317,00) and 258,24 mm in CBL (242,00-279,50). In zygomatic width, the average was 203,96 mm (range 189,00-217,00). The rostrum width was 82,02 mm (range 76,20-86,90). Measured at the orbit, the average height was 135,30 mm (range 126,50-147,00). In weight, the average was 1,072 kg (range 0,820-1,225). According to the labels, 4 of the 11 lionesses were wild.   

5 - Measurement errors

The paragraph about measurement errors was interesting. In general terms, regarding the greatest total length, I agree with your conclusion. In most cases, the differences between my measurements and those of others are limited. This, however, is not the case regarding the condylobasal length. Every time I was able to compare my measurements with those of others (also referring to the article of Cooper et al published in 2022), the difference was considerable. The question is why. 

All I can say for now is I follow the instructions of Pocock. He wrote the condylobasal length is the distance between the tip of the condylae and the tip of the maxillary bone (just before the insertion of the incisors). Every time I see an example, the conclusion is I follow the protocol. In spite of that, the result I get is different. 

It could be a result of the postition of the upper skull. When I measure the condylobasal length, I turn the skull upside down, ask the one present to keep it stable and measure the distance between the tip of the condylae and the tip of the premaxillary bone three times. The imaginary line created in this way is more or less horizontal. If I place the upper skull on a flat surface and let is rest on the upper canines and the condylae (or another part of the skull), the measurement (of the condylobasal length) increases (quite significantly, I may add). One reason, as I said, is the slightly different angle. Another is it's more difficult to find the tip of the maxillary bone in this way. 

This raises the question as to the method used by researchers. Today, most seem to use photographs to measure a skull. I never used photographs. When you have a real skull in your hands, the factors described above come into play. Interested in your view. 

6 - About GuateGojira

Guate was here from the start. He posted, but also was a mod. After he married and got a job, he wasn't able to continue as a mod. He posted when he had a bit of time. His tables were very informative and his posts often attracted a crowd. 

Not so long ago, a discussion about the size of (wild) Amur tigers erupted in the tiger extinction thread. Guate got involved and when I say 'involved' I mean involved. When the climate deteriorated, I had no option but to intervene. Guate wasn't banned, but decided to leave. Same for our longime member PCKTS. Losing both was a great pity, but posting at a forum isn't easy. Reply

[return 80]

Hi peter,
Thank you very much for your help!

I could share the tools and process methods I used during the measurement.

Usually, we prepare two small lifting platforms, one of which is used for placing the skull. Ensure that the front tip of the premaxillary and the distal end of the occipital condyle are on the same horizontal plane.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another small lifting platform is used to place metal calipers, ensuring that the calipers can measure the condylobasal length at the correct height. Our caliper has a claw length of 150mm, so it can accurately measure the anterior premaxillary and occipital condyle.

When using digital scanning models for measurement, the 3D software itself comes with corresponding measurement tools, so the distance between landmarks can be measured very accurately. Even the circumference of limb bones can be easily measured

*This image is copyright of its original author

The digital modeling software I usually use now are 3D Max and Blender, because I have assisted some MMD animation creators in animation production work in the past, so I am also familiar with the related 3D software.

For a period of time, I also attempted to measure specimen data using photographs. However, compared with actual measurements, it seems that there is always a certain discrepancy between the actual measurement values due to issues with photography perspective and angle.

The 3D software I use can open "orthogonal" perspective images, so I can eliminate the influence of shooting perspective and obtain more accurate images Reply