There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
Shoulder height:
Male: 80-100 cm
Head-body:
Male: 160-190 cm
Total length:
Male: 235-280 cm
Female: 250 cm
The fact that the smaller male is smaller than the female (or shorter) at 235 against 250, it's shorter iin length, tells me that the male isn't adult, or is a dwarf male (Barbaries in captivity were said to be smaller, usually, although sometimes they weigh a lot) Usually male lions are 30 cm (1 feet) longer than females in total length.
So I think the male of 100 cm tall, 190 cm long, is quite average-sized.
There are no measurements from female Barbary lions in the "flesh" in litterature. About the small captive male, I am not surprised as captive specimens may be smaller (check the Ethiopian lions). However the head-body length of 160 cm is in the range of fully grow adult males lions measured between pegs, so definitelly it was an adult (tail length is not relevant and may change depending of the individuals). The same with the shoulder height.
A lion of 190 cm in head-body is average for South African lions, but not for the northern populations. In fact, that was probably a big Barbary lion, specially if we take in count the fact that the entire subspecies Panthera leo leo (which includes the Indian and West African lions) are the smaller of the populations with a head-body length of about 170-180 cm in straight line.
Shoulder height:
Male: 80-100 cm
Head-body:
Male: 160-190 cm
Total length:
Male: 235-280 cm
Female: 250 cm
The fact that the smaller male is smaller than the female (or shorter) at 235 against 250, it's shorter iin length, tells me that the male isn't adult, or is a dwarf male (Barbaries in captivity were said to be smaller, usually, although sometimes they weigh a lot) Usually male lions are 30 cm (1 feet) longer than females in total length.
So I think the male of 100 cm tall, 190 cm long, is quite average-sized.
There are no measurements from female Barbary lions in the "flesh" in litterature. About the small captive male, I am not surprised as captive specimens may be smaller (check the Ethiopian lions). However the head-body length of 160 cm is in the range of fully grow adult males lions measured between pegs, so definitelly it was an adult (tail length is not relevant and may change depending of the individuals). The same with the shoulder height.
A lion of 190 cm in head-body is average for South African lions, but not for the northern populations. In fact, that was probably a big Barbary lion, specially if we take in count the fact that the entire subspecies Panthera leo leo (which includes the Indian and West African lions) are the smaller of the populations with a head-body length of about 170-180 cm in straight line.
So, except for the 243 kg male, there is literally nothing that we have from wild Barbary lions?
(01-19-2022, 06:36 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: So, except for the 243 kg male, there is literally nothing that we have from wild Barbary lions?
Correct, and that is sad as this animal got extinct in the wild and no one took the time to actually measure it and record real weights, just estimations and skin measurements.
Even worst, this figure of not entirely reliable for the following reasons:
1 - The record is from 1859, which is interesting as very few weights were recorded in those dates, specially in the north of Africa.
2 - There are no measurements recorded for the specimen, nor pictures, which do not add weight to its reliability.
3 - The lion was killing cattle, and cattle killers are normally heavier than regular ones, sadly Blakesley did not provided more details of the case.
Between 2004 -2005, when several scientists when together to check all the Amur tiger weights in litterature, they got to the conclution that if the record is not from first hand, reliable recorded with background information, measurements or at least pictures, the figures are not reliable (Slaght et al., 2005). Under this light, this only figure of 243 kg for the Barbary lion will be clasiffied as "unreliable", but even then I use it for reference in my comparative image, with the only difference that now I put an interrogation symbol "?" to show that the figure is not 100% accepted.
This case is not the only one, for example, there are no measurements and weights for the Bali tigers (the figures from Mazák (1981) often quoted are just his estimations based in the few available skulls) and there is only one weight recorded from a wild Javanese tiger.
Shoulder height:
Male: 80-100 cm
Head-body:
Male: 160-190 cm
Total length:
Male: 235-280 cm
Female: 250 cm
The fact that the smaller male is smaller than the female (or shorter) at 235 against 250, it's shorter iin length, tells me that the male isn't adult, or is a dwarf male (Barbaries in captivity were said to be smaller, usually, although sometimes they weigh a lot) Usually male lions are 30 cm (1 feet) longer than females in total length.
So I think the male of 100 cm tall, 190 cm long, is quite average-sized.
There are no measurements from female Barbary lions in the "flesh" in litterature. About the small captive male, I am not surprised as captive specimens may be smaller (check the Ethiopian lions). However the head-body length of 160 cm is in the range of fully grow adult males lions measured between pegs, so definitelly it was an adult (tail length is not relevant and may change depending of the individuals). The same with the shoulder height.
A lion of 190 cm in head-body is average for South African lions, but not for the northern populations. In fact, that was probably a big Barbary lion, specially if we take in count the fact that the entire subspecies Panthera leo leo (which includes the Indian and West African lions) are the smaller of the populations with a head-body length of about 170-180 cm in straight line.
(01-20-2022, 05:27 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(01-19-2022, 06:36 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: So, except for the 243 kg male, there is literally nothing that we have from wild Barbary lions?
Correct, and that is sad as this animal got extinct in the wild and no one took the time to actually measure it and record real weights, just estimations and skin measurements.
Even worst, this figure of not entirely reliable for the following reasons:
1 - The record is from 1859, which is interesting as very few weights were recorded in those dates, specially in the north of Africa.
2 - There are no measurements recorded for the specimen, nor pictures, which do not add weight to its reliability.
3 - The lion was killing cattle, and cattle killers are normally heavier than regular ones, sadly Blakesley did not provided more details of the case.
Between 2004 -2005, when several scientists when together to check all the Amur tiger weights in litterature, they got to the conclution that if the record is not from first hand, reliable recorded with background information, measurements or at least pictures, the figures are not reliable (Slaght et al., 2005). Under this light, this only figure of 243 kg for the Barbary lion will be clasiffied as "unreliable", but even then I use it for reference in my comparative image, with the only difference that now I put an interrogation symbol "?" to show that the figure is not 100% accepted.
This case is not the only one, for example, there are no measurements and weights for the Bali tigers (the figures from Mazák (1981) often quoted are just his estimations based in the few available skulls) and there is only one weight recorded from a wild Javanese tiger.
I just remembered. Not doubting anything you say, but does this also mean that the 250 cm body length male woth the 75 cm tail, and the 230 cm body length male (not classified as in a straight line, could also be over the curves) is also unreliable? Just curious.
(01-20-2022, 09:44 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: I just remembered. Not doubting anything you say, but does this also mean that the 250 cm body length male woth the 75 cm tail, and the 230 cm body length male (not classified as in a straight line, could also be over the curves) is also unreliable? Just curious.
Take this in count:
From 177 adult males lions measured between pegs, none surpassed the 220 cm in head-body, and from 112 males measured by scientists non surpassed the 210 cm in head-body (Hobatere do not count, those were measured incorrectly), so something over that is very fishy.
Other thing is the "over curves issue", which could be a possibility, but check that he did not says that an especific animal measured that, in fact Gerard only says that lions in that area reach that size but he never presented the evidence and that is the problem.
Now with the measurement of 250 cm, that is definitelly unreliable, no modern cat reach that head-body, that is too big and sizes like that were reached only by Pleistocene great cats, as you know. Gerard was so exagerated that he even reported lions of 17 ft (5.2 m) long, according with Guggisberg (1961).
So, if the measurement of 230 cm was based in a real animal, definitelly was taken "over the curves" or from a skin, both methods are unreliable, and the size of 250 cm is definitelly out of question.
Now other posibility that I had in my mind was that the total length was of 250 cm and the tail of 75 cm, that will be more realistic, but based in the text that was not the case.
01-25-2022, 07:28 AM( This post was last modified: 01-25-2022, 07:33 AM by Betty )
(01-20-2022, 11:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(01-20-2022, 09:44 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: I just remembered. Not doubting anything you say, but does this also mean that the 250 cm body length male woth the 75 cm tail, and the 230 cm body length male (not classified as in a straight line, could also be over the curves) is also unreliable? Just curious.
Take this in count:
From 177 adult males lions measured between pegs, none surpassed the 220 cm in head-body, and from 112 males measured by scientists non surpassed the 210 cm in head-body (Hobatere do not count, those were measured incorrectly), so something over that is very fishy.
Other thing is the "over curves issue", which could be a possibility, but check that he did not says that an especific animal measured that, in fact Gerard only says that lions in that area reach that size but he never presented the evidence and that is the problem.
Now with the measurement of 250 cm, that is definitelly unreliable, no modern cat reach that head-body, that is too big and sizes like that were reached only by Pleistocene great cats, as you know. Gerard was so exagerated that he even reported lions of 17 ft (5.2 m) long, according with Guggisberg (1961).
So, if the measurement of 230 cm was based in a real animal, definitelly was taken "over the curves" or from a skin, both methods are unreliable, and the size of 250 cm is definitelly out of question.
Now other posibility that I had in my mind was that the total length was of 250 cm and the tail of 75 cm, that will be more realistic, but based in the text that was not the case.
There is a male lion killed in Algeria（1856）, with an estimated weight of 200kg and a total length of 2.5 meters. This data is very interesting, perhaps it has some connection with the 2.5-meter head and body length in the legend of the Barbary lion.
(01-20-2022, 09:44 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: I just remembered. Not doubting anything you say, but does this also mean that the 250 cm body length male woth the 75 cm tail, and the 230 cm body length male (not classified as in a straight line, could also be over the curves) is also unreliable? Just curious.
Take this in count:
From 177 adult males lions measured between pegs, none surpassed the 220 cm in head-body, and from 112 males measured by scientists non surpassed the 210 cm in head-body (Hobatere do not count, those were measured incorrectly), so something over that is very fishy.
Other thing is the "over curves issue", which could be a possibility, but check that he did not says that an especific animal measured that, in fact Gerard only says that lions in that area reach that size but he never presented the evidence and that is the problem.
Now with the measurement of 250 cm, that is definitelly unreliable, no modern cat reach that head-body, that is too big and sizes like that were reached only by Pleistocene great cats, as you know. Gerard was so exagerated that he even reported lions of 17 ft (5.2 m) long, according with Guggisberg (1961).
So, if the measurement of 230 cm was based in a real animal, definitelly was taken "over the curves" or from a skin, both methods are unreliable, and the size of 250 cm is definitelly out of question.
Now other posibility that I had in my mind was that the total length was of 250 cm and the tail of 75 cm, that will be more realistic, but based in the text that was not the case.
There is a male lion killed in Algeria（1856）, with an estimated weight of 200kg and a total length of 2.5 meters. This data is very interesting, perhaps it has some connection with the 2.5-meter head and body length in the legend of the Barbary lion.
*This image is copyright of its original author
It is very interesting, this is most likely shorter than other lions but heavier.
(01-20-2022, 09:44 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: I just remembered. Not doubting anything you say, but does this also mean that the 250 cm body length male woth the 75 cm tail, and the 230 cm body length male (not classified as in a straight line, could also be over the curves) is also unreliable? Just curious.
Take this in count:
From 177 adult males lions measured between pegs, none surpassed the 220 cm in head-body, and from 112 males measured by scientists non surpassed the 210 cm in head-body (Hobatere do not count, those were measured incorrectly), so something over that is very fishy.
Other thing is the "over curves issue", which could be a possibility, but check that he did not says that an especific animal measured that, in fact Gerard only says that lions in that area reach that size but he never presented the evidence and that is the problem.
Now with the measurement of 250 cm, that is definitelly unreliable, no modern cat reach that head-body, that is too big and sizes like that were reached only by Pleistocene great cats, as you know. Gerard was so exagerated that he even reported lions of 17 ft (5.2 m) long, according with Guggisberg (1961).
So, if the measurement of 230 cm was based in a real animal, definitelly was taken "over the curves" or from a skin, both methods are unreliable, and the size of 250 cm is definitelly out of question.
Now other posibility that I had in my mind was that the total length was of 250 cm and the tail of 75 cm, that will be more realistic, but based in the text that was not the case.
There is a male lion killed in Algeria（1856）, with an estimated weight of 200kg and a total length of 2.5 meters. This data is very interesting, perhaps it has some connection with the 2.5-meter head and body length in the legend of the Barbary lion.
*This image is copyright of its original author
can you show us where it mentions the length and weight please?
(01-25-2022, 07:28 AM)Betty Wrote: There is a male lion killed in Algeria（1856）, with an estimated weight of 200kg and a total length of 2.5 meters. This data is very interesting, perhaps it has some connection with the 2.5-meter head and body length in the legend of the Barbary lion.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
That make sence, an adult lion of 250 cm in total length "straight" is possible.
01-25-2022, 07:40 PM( This post was last modified: 01-25-2022, 07:42 PM by Betty )
(01-25-2022, 06:53 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(01-25-2022, 07:28 AM)Betty Wrote: There is a male lion killed in Algeria（1856）, with an estimated weight of 200kg and a total length of 2.5 meters. This data is very interesting, perhaps it has some connection with the 2.5-meter head and body length in the legend of the Barbary lion.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
That make sence, an adult lion of 250 cm in total length "straight" is possible.
For reference, the total length of an ordinary male polar bear is about 233cm. If the tail length of 8cm is deducted (the tail length of a polar bear is 8-18cm), the body length is about 225cm.
It is difficult to imagine that a Barbary lion can have a head and body length of 250cm, especially the tail length is only 75cm. In fact, hunters of the past tended to overestimate the size of large animals.
The following 1 user Likes Betty's post:1 user Likes Betty's post • Matias
(01-25-2022, 07:28 AM)Betty Wrote: There is a male lion killed in Algeria（1856）, with an estimated weight of 200kg and a total length of 2.5 meters. This data is very interesting, perhaps it has some connection with the 2.5-meter head and body length in the legend of the Barbary lion.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
That make sence, an adult lion of 250 cm in total length "straight" is possible.
For reference, the total length of an ordinary male polar bear is about 233cm. If the tail length of 8cm is deducted (the tail length of a polar bear is 8-18cm), the body length is about 225cm.
It is difficult to imagine that a Barbary lion can have a head and body length of 250cm, especially the tail length is only 75cm. In fact, hunters of the past tended to overestimate the size of large animals.
Can we have the statement of the Barbary lion being estimated at 200 kg?
(01-25-2022, 07:28 AM)Betty Wrote: There is a male lion killed in Algeria（1856）, with an estimated weight of 200kg and a total length of 2.5 meters. This data is very interesting, perhaps it has some connection with the 2.5-meter head and body length in the legend of the Barbary lion.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
That make sence, an adult lion of 250 cm in total length "straight" is possible.
For reference, the total length of an ordinary male polar bear is about 233cm. If the tail length of 8cm is deducted (the tail length of a polar bear is 8-18cm), the body length is about 225cm.
It is difficult to imagine that a Barbary lion can have a head and body length of 250cm, especially the tail length is only 75cm. In fact, hunters of the past tended to overestimate the size of large animals.
Can we have the statement of the Barbary lion being estimated at 200 kg?
(01-25-2022, 07:40 PM)Betty Wrote: For reference, the total length of an ordinary male polar bear is about 233cm. If the tail length of 8cm is deducted (the tail length of a polar bear is 8-18cm), the body length is about 225cm.
It is difficult to imagine that a Barbary lion can have a head and body length of 250cm, especially the tail length is only 75cm. In fact, hunters of the past tended to overestimate the size of large animals.
Exactly, and this is the point of all this. When Peace (1915) mentioned his lion of 250 cm in head-body and tail of 75 cm (325 cm in total length), he seems to be unnaware that this size is impossible for any modern lion. However if the 250 cm was actually a total length, the head-body will be of 175 cm which will be correct, but again, a tail of only 75 cm is too short. At the end, this was only my appreciation and at the end, the measurements from Peace are incorrect and unreliable.
No modern cat has measured over 221 cm in head-body measured in straight line in modern days. Head-body of over that belongs only to the giant Pleistocene great cats.
(01-25-2022, 07:40 PM)Betty Wrote: For reference, the total length of an ordinary male polar bear is about 233cm. If the tail length of 8cm is deducted (the tail length of a polar bear is 8-18cm), the body length is about 225cm.
It is difficult to imagine that a Barbary lion can have a head and body length of 250cm, especially the tail length is only 75cm. In fact, hunters of the past tended to overestimate the size of large animals.
Exactly, and this is the point of all this. When Peace (1915) mentioned his lion of 250 cm in head-body and tail of 75 cm (325 cm in total length), he seems to be unnaware that this size is impossible for any modern lion. However if the 250 cm was actually a total length, the head-body will be of 175 cm which will be correct, but again, a tail of only 75 cm is too short. At the end, this was only my appreciation and at the end, the measurements from Peace are incorrect and unreliable.
No modern cat has measured over 221 cm in head-body measured in straight line in modern days. Head-body of over that belongs only to the giant Pleistocene great cats.
Which cat was it which was 221cm by the way? Was it an Amur or a Bengal?
(01-25-2022, 10:31 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Which cat was it which was 221cm by the way? Was it an Amur or a Bengal?
Good question, actually in theory, it should be both. But let me tell you.
Officially, the tiger with 221 cm in head-body "straight" is a Bengal one (Brander, 1927). However, Mazák (2013) says that the big Amur tiger killed in Manchuria that measured 330 cm "between pegs" (estimation made by him as the animal was measured "over curves") could had a head-body of up to 225 cm "straight" too. So, "technically" both Amur and Bengal tigers can reach over 220 cm, but "actually recorded" only Bengal tigers reached that size.
The size of the Barbary lion
