WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
The size of the Barbary lion
The size of the Barbary lion
|
The size of the Barbary lion
|
 (01-25-2022, 11:54 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(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? These two cats have reached enormous sizes. Really impressive. By the way, I was looking at your size comparisons of Tigers and Lions and I noticed that the largest Lions were both longer and taller than Bengal Tigers. How could that be? In theory if Tigers are heavier then they should also be taller and longer, right? Did the length and height averages also include Sundarban Tigers or only mainland ones?? If so, then do you have the number for average length and height for mainland Tigers only? If it does include only mainland ones then it's surprising that Tigers are much heavier despite being less in length and height.  (01-26-2022, 12:05 AM)LonePredator Wrote: These two cats have reached enormous sizes. Really impressive. By the way, I was looking at your size comparisons of Tigers and Lions and I noticed that the largest Lions were both longer and taller than Bengal Tigers. How could that be? In the images you need to see the measurement method. All those lions that you see as "bigger" than Bengal tigers were measured "along the curves", which means that in a "straight line" they are smaller for at least 10 cm, maybe more. That is why you need to see all the details in the tables, not only see the numbers. Check also details where it mention that some shoulder heights are not real "heights", so again, please check the details and tell other people to do the same. About the Bengal, it does includes Sundarbans tigers, all the figures include them to be fair, and I mention it in the details too! So now I am worried that people out there are not paying atention to the details are confused.  (01-26-2022, 12:30 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(01-26-2022, 12:05 AM)LonePredator Wrote: These two cats have reached enormous sizes. Really impressive. By the way, I was looking at your size comparisons of Tigers and Lions and I noticed that the largest Lions were both longer and taller than Bengal Tigers. How could that be? I posted many tables about tigers shot in Nepal, northern India and Cooch Behar roughly a century ago in the tiger extinction thread. In male tigers shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam, the difference between both methods ('over curves' and 'between pegs') was 5,5 inches (13,97 cm). In northern India, the difference was more limited (3-4 inches). In other regions, however, the difference was pronounced. It isn't easy to measure an adult male lion or tiger 'over curves'. It depends on the way the method is applied. You need quite a bit of experience to do it right. This is the reason 3 different people measuring the same cat 'over curves' will produce 3 different results. Make that very different. When doing an experiment, I was quite amazed at the results. We're not talking about amateurs, but people involved in (captive) big cats. I measured two captive male Amur tigers 'between pegs' and 'over curves'. In the shorter male, the difference between both methods was less than 3 inches (7,0 cm). In the longer male, it was just under 5 inches (12,5 cm). The longer male (HB 194 cm, weight 185,5 kg) was quite lanky, whereas the shorter male (HB 180 cm) was bigger all the way. The protocol in use today says wild big cats have to be measured 'over curves'. The problem is this method is applied in different ways in different regions. The most common result is confusion. Anyhow. Everything I have on wild Indian tigers today strongly suggests they compare to the tigers shot a century ago. They could be a bit heavier though. The most likely reason is conservation. Most ecosystems seem to be intact and large individuals are able to pass on their genes. Is conservation that important? Yes. Example. In Corbett's day, however, Nepal male tigers had 4-5 inches on male tigers in northern India. Strange, as they were, and still are, more or less similar in size. The most likely reason was conservation. In Nepal, tigers were protected. In northern India, they were hunted. All in all, I agree with Guate on the Panna tiger table. While it has a few slops, it's the first that has information about the growth and size of wild tigers in a reserve in central India. Many thanks, Rage and Khan! As to the size Barbary lions. In the lion extinction thread, I posted info about the actual standing height of a few captive specimens in the Paris Zoo well over a century. They were a bit taller than the tigers (referring to tigers from what used to be French indochina) displayed in that zoo. Sizewise, they seemed to compare to lions in western Africa (referring to the pictures I have). In spite of that, they had large skulls. The question is why a lion of average size would need a contest winning skull? The answer is we don't know.
Ever since I was a kid, I've heard that the biggest lions are in Ngorongoro Crater. Like their neighbors in the Serengeti and Mara, they do not experience cycles of plenty and hunger annually. Having a range of great prey at your disposal without major displacements makes a difference. Under genetic criteria, they are highly inbred and many male specimens have very low spermatic mobility. But nature finds a way to solve problems and produces these fantastic beasts.
Could we imagine such an example walking in the middle Atlas or in the Aurés mountains, occasionally using wild boar, red deer, Hartebest Bubal, barbary sheep and reaching that muscular mass? Ecological aspects and prey biomass make all the difference in the morphological conception of a predator like the lion. A specimen like that is preparing for battle... not prepared to run after the fast prey existing in North Africa. Quote:Conservation? Yes. Example. Sizewise, there isn't much to choose between tigers in Nepal and northern India. In Corbett's day, however, Nepal male tigers had 4-5 inches on male tigers in northern India. In Nepal, tigers were protected. In northern India, they were hunted. Fragmented habitats, strong human pressure, low numbers of prey and targeted pursuit by hunters - are stressors that severely impact the physical and physiological condition of the animal. Healthy ecosystems will certainly contribute to the species reaching their maximum body fullness. Tigers that develop a high predation capacity from an early age, with less interval between meals, may be the great specimens we see today. The answer may lie in ecology and not directly in genetics. Protected environment with high density of prey produce the largest specimens. And these specimens leave their legacy, offspring with greater ability to replicate the success of their parents. Am I talking nonsense?
MATIAS
Nonsense? Far from it. But there is a difference between an 8.10 lion reaching his potential and a male of 9.8 with a similar built doing so. The question is why they are large (not referring to weight) in some regions and small in others. In Amur tiger country, big specimens were still shot when they were very close to extinction. Same in the Ngorogoro. And the other way round. Tigers shot in the southeastern, largely swampy, part of what used to be French Indochina were short, but healthy and robust as a general rule. In Johore (tip of Malaysia). also located near the sea, however, large individuals have been shot. Why is it one type is more often seen than another in a specific, and well-stocked, region? Weight largely is a reflection of the things you mentioned, but size seems to be affected by quite many factors. Hunting is one, but relative location, genes, calories and the influx of new genes also seem to be important. And then there's the Ngorogoro. In the Crater, the old boys still rule. In spite of a lack of new genes, they're as big as ever. Inbreeding, in fact, may turn out to be the key factor in that it apparently produces the only type able to compete with the old boys. Relative location and plenty of prey are important, but inbreeding could be the main factor producing big, and healthy, lions. Isolationwise, they compare to the former Java and Bali tigers. The tigers on these islands, however, lost size over time. Same, so it seems, for Sumatran tigers. Sumatra still has plenty of large animals. The tigers, sizewise, didn't respond. The Ngorogoro lions did, although they have to share their meals. Why is that? Barbary lions were shortish and not that big. In spite of that, they had large skulls. This one (picture first posted by 'Phatio) had a head fitting a 10 feet lion. I doubt if he even reached 9 feet:  *This image is copyright of its original author In a way, they compare to Indian lions and Ethiopian mountain lions. The Ethiopians are mountain forest cats. In spite of the lack of large prey animals, they live in prides and seem to do ok. Although not big, they're healthy and quite robust. Time to have a chat with Dr. Moran, I think. I have a few questions.
@peter, thank you for your insightful response!
As you said, many variables shape the great especimens. Size and physical appearance in captive felines are the result of factors that, to a large extent, are dissociated from free life; and numerous cases of morphological identification of captive lions are confounded by the combined or selective effects of abrasion or wear, nutrition, testosterone levels, climate and temperature..., in general, lions and tigers in zoos should not be used as a benchmark for wild comparisons. Nature has endless mysteries, and our attempt to interpret the “reasons” that generate large specimens is very complex, where we are certainly led to a rationalization that little can serve as truth in absolute terms – much more intuitive. But let's go ahead, it's always a pleasure to try to understand the engines of evolution and adaptation. Body size is not a predictor of evolutionary success, and large species with high specialization are the first to disappear when their ecological conjuncture changes. Reaching adulthood and reproducing through generations is the simple function of any living organism to thrive. Often, the search for this theme of great specimens reduces the focus of what is really important, even if it is indisputable that the size of a lion or tiger exerts a fascination on people. Nature gives the same animal that inhabits different areas different sizes, and some species become extreme dwarfs, such as the 'pygmy elephants' that inhabited the islands of Cyprus, Malta and Sicily - all descendants of the genus Palaeoloxodon (the straight-tusked giant). It is not very difficult to understand the body variables that we have today, of the few or many that we had in the relatively recent past in continental habitats, whose body dynamics were directly linked to the broad questions of the ecology of life of each of these felines. There is a recent footage in the Bale Mountains (Ethiopia), video below, where a black maned lion, apparently short in stature and stocky in body, walking along the paved road. Their physical appearance is closely linked to the lions at the Addis Ababa Zoo and claims have been made for the “Barbary” origins of these lions, noting the possibility that ancestors were a gift from the Sultan of Morocco to the Emperor of Ethiopia, but recent genetic work molecular indicates that captive Ethiopian lions are a distinct subpopulation in their own right. I think it plausible that such similarities are a good thermometer to understand that the morphology of Barbarian Lions cannot be framed in terms of similarity with captive animals from any geographic point. I still assume that the lions that inhabited the coastal strip to areas of the middle Atlas had different physical characteristics than those that inhabited the arid belt further south. But it's just an intuitive thought, as if we rationalized morphological aspects based on climate we would not have the notorious maneless lions of Tsavo, in contrast to the protruding maned lions seen in some males of the Namib or even the Kalahari. One point I would like to share with you is about old photographs. The issue of image projection greatly deceives the size of the animal. Distance, angle and perspective make all the difference. I totally agree with this image of a lion, it makes us believe that its head seems to have large dimensions compared to the rest of its body. The problem is that if we design reasoning based on something that is not true, everything else is worthless. This applies to measurements made in the past, whether by hunters or even researchers, as it is also plausible that inaccuracies are made due to carelessness and a natural lack of observing the correct angulations in a dead animal. Assigning extra inches is an easy result to achieve, intentionally or not. As for analyzing an animal's weight, the problem can be even greater when faced with scales or other precarious means of obtaining a correct ratio. This does not imply that one should give up looking for these sources as a reference, except exceptions, but rather understand that the final product of these sources cannot have absolute power in the analytical context of an explanatory analysis. True, the flow of new genes from outside the Ngorongoro Crater is very small and the few lions that have been observed to enter the crater are repelled and killed by the resident lions, so the genetic exchange is tiny and irregular, perhaps almost nil. Inbreeding still does not seem to reflect on something deleterious to be measured/verified, but time will take its toll, this is inevitable. It is not yet known, and will likely remain unclear for decades, about the genetic definition/distinction of what a Barbary lion is - which genes distinguish them from the rest of the population, in the absence of a specimen of proven authenticity. It is a fact that the “Moroccan royal collection” lacks identification of its origin as faithful representatives of the population of the north. Historically, tradition explains that these lions were presented to the Sultan by the local Berber tribes and that the collection dates back centuries. The doubts start from the origin of the royal collection, and are confirmed as to the probability of hybridization in dates before 1960. In terms of practical and objective Conservation, from my point of view, nothing justifies this belief and myth of saying that captive lions moroccan and the wild Barbary lion have significant genes and other molecular distinctions in their Microsatellite Loci that make them unique within the West and Central African lion population. Dr. Simon Black is a very dedicated researcher, but I have seen over the years that he has a personal obsession with proving and propagating the “mythological aura” of these lions, as well as maximizing their importance in understanding the role of their extinction as a model for the current extirpations of lions, notably in West and Central Africa. While he explains, he amplifies what is not concretely known, suggesting that we should maintain the classical understanding of these lions as a relic population of an ecologically distinct region. I simply believe that every myth has some truth in it. In the case of the Moroccan Captive Lions, the original founding population from centuries ago was built up with effective Maghreb lions. Over the decades, other lions were incorporated into the royal collection, of uncertain origin, beautiful and physically attractive specimens. In the 20th century, the maintenance of these lions was once again relegated until the 1950s/1960s and new individuals of dubious origin must have been incorporated into the royal captive population. What we have today is a high genetic partitioning that is no longer justified to safeguard this population with the proper relic to which they want to be attributed. Any lions today that live in Niokolo Koba, WAP Complex, Benoué Complex, or even in Zakouma, are effectively representative of the wild lions that once roamed North Africa. If, at some point in time, the descendant population of captive Moroccan royal lions is part of an assisted selective breeding program, first of all, it is necessary to satisfactorily know the genetic characteristics that define the true genotype of the North African group. Anecdotally, I think that our species (genus Homo) explains a lot in what we should understand as a facilitator of countless adaptability to which animals are currently exposed and were in their evolutionary past. So, continental tigers have different sizes, shapes and markers, which we can't necessarily frame as faithful belonging to that region/geographical area. One thing that makes me reflect is that China has 4 subspecies of tigers in its territory (until a century ago) according to traditional taxonomy. If Amur tiger conservation (satisfactory co-participation between Russia and China) stays decades ahead, with natural prey density recovering, you will have great tiger specimens back in record time. In Conservation, there are those who don't care so much about subspecies – Lumpers; and those that divide to the extreme to conserve - Divisors/Splitters. Species are a biological asset to be preserved, we must view translocation/introduction within broader parameters of phylogeography, evolutionary history and available habitat. “Without exercising intuition, we can do nothing but replicate the thoughts of others” Matias
@peter You measured male Tigers from Assam? Were they significantly larger in size? I guess it’s confusing to compare them all if the measurements over the curves are taken differently.
But all the video footage I’ve seen of Kaziranga Tigers, they somehow look abnormally large. They somehow look like giants. When you see some videos of them hunting cows, they are huge! I am quite familiar with the cows in the cities in Uttar Pradesh and the same cows are hunted by Kaziranga Tigers in Assam. The thing is, those cows’ shoulder height reaches upto your lower chest and the Kaziranga Tigers seem just as big or sometimes even bigger. Are they really that exceptionally large or are the cows in Assam just smaller?
We need to admite that using captive specimens do not necesarily reflect the real status of a wild species, specially in lions.
Captive lions, specially in the past, did not generated muscular bodies like the wild ones, altough some of them did reached large sizes. Hollister reported also that the skulls from captive lions are much larger than the wild ones, and more massive in the bone structure. Why? I don't know yet. So, that could be an explanation about why the captive Barbary lions reported in litterature had such a large skulls. 
@GuateGojira : about #128
" Hollister reported also that the skulls from captive lions are much larger than the wild ones, and more massive in the bone structure. " It seems to me illogical. Captive lions make nothing with the flesh (chickens, cow and horse) they receive but swallowing and eating. In wild they kill their preys, dismember and eat them. I cannot believe that. (01-28-2022, 07:58 PM)Spalea Wrote: It seems to me illogical. Captive lions make nothing with the flesh (chickens, cow and horse) they receive but swallowing and eating. In wild they kill their preys, dismember and eat them. I cannot believe that. Believe it, it was interesting to see his document. Please see the attached PDF. Interestingly, the big skull of of 406 mm reported by Patterson in his book of the lions of Tsavo it is from a captive specimen. Also he skull of Rowland Ward of 432 cm is incorretly reported and belongs to the same animal. And last, the wides skulls came from captive specimens. I already reported this in previous posts, from different documents, so this is not news anymore. In the document Hollister report how the bones of the captive skulls are wider than those of the wild ones, by a significative margin. (01-28-2022, 08:17 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(01-28-2022, 07:58 PM)Spalea Wrote: It seems to me illogical. Captive lions make nothing with the flesh (chickens, cow and horse) they receive but swallowing and eating. In wild they kill their preys, dismember and eat them. I cannot believe that. Does the same thing happen to captive Tigers too?? (01-28-2022, 08:28 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Does the same thing happen to captive Tigers too?? I have not saw a document about that, but based in the measurements of Amur tigers made by Mazák an others, if we compare the wild ones and the captive ones, there is no diferences in measurements. I don't see any remark about bone density, but if you check the wild skulls with the captive ones, it seems that captive tigers had weaked zygomatic arches than the wild ones. So, based in this small comparison, we can assume (but not conclude) that captive tigers degenerate at some point, but the difference is not as dramatic as in the lions. @peter have more information about this topic of the skulls. In the PDF document that I attached we can see that the difference between captive and wild tigers is minimal, but that captive lions did suffer changes compared with wild lions and they suffer illness in they skull formation.
This is really weird and it doesn't make sense. Captive Lions are somehow more robust than wild ones while captive Tigers are less robust.
(01-28-2022, 09:36 PM)LonePredator Wrote: This is really weird and it doesn't make sense. Captive Lions are somehow more robust than wild ones while captive Tigers are less robust. Surprise, surprise! It seems that these two species react differently in captivity, not just in personality but also in morphology. Why? Well, I think that is something that someone will need to investigate in the future.
@GuateGojira
About #130: I read the file you linked. Interesting and the observation conditions well depicted. But I'm remaining skeptical. I believe understanding (I am not good in english) that the 5 captive lions were born in Kenya and fed with wild animal's flesh... But, of course, it isn't enough to explain such a difference of the skull bony structure between wild and captive lions. So, I don't know ! This experimentation dates from more one century now, and the results/conclusions seem to be so paradoxical. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |