The size of the Barbary lion

[GrizzlyClaws]

(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.

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.

It does look like 16 inches is the upper limit for the modern lion/tiger skull. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-29-2022, 02:18 AM)Spalea Wrote: 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.

Actually, those lions were fullly rised in captivity in they adulthood and that is why the skulls are so big. Again. the other document that I posted here is from 2014, so it is futile to deny the fact that captive lions, for some reason, develop bigger, wider and stronger skulls than wild ones. In fact, do you remember the huge lion skull that Mazák measured? It was from a captive one and the skull was so long and deformed that it looks like a little horse. There are other deformities that lion skulls develop, they are described in the document. Reply

[Matias]

(01-28-2022, 08:17 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:   Efects in skull of captive lions (with measurements)-Hollister_1917.pdf (Size: 1.43 MB / Downloads: 3)

Revealing the study of Mr. Ned Hollister (biologist), there are numerous inferences made and, regardless of the distant year of 1917, his revelations based on the five lions traded to the Washington Zoo by Mr. Mc Millan bring great considerations of immense value and very significant details. According to Mr Millan, all five arrived at his farm as puppies and are wild-born. When sold, they were all young people in growth . The alterations found in a post-mortem examination, inflicted during the years in captivity (zoo + farm), predict that the drivers of so many morphological changes are far above the conception that is based only on food, and encompasses many issues, addressed here and others not, in the face of the knowledge of the time, which greatly enrich the understanding, showing that captivity does not serve as a reference for size and body appearance in wild lions, much less to move subspecies criteria.

Citation:

Quote:At Juja Farm the five lions were kept together in a stone building, perhaps 25 feet long, 15 feet from front to back, and 8 feet high. This was divided by a partition running from front to back, into two compartments, perhaps 15 and 10 feet wide. The roof was of galvanized iron. The floor was of con#crete, with good drainage so that it could be washed out with a hose. All sides were tight, except the front, which was closed with an iron grating. The place was poorly lighted and the animals had little chance to get into the direct sunlight.

At the park the lions were put into cages 10 feet wide, 8 feet deep from front to back, and 7 feet high. They were kept in these for about two years and then transferred to cages 12 feet 6 inches wide, 12 feet deep from front to back, and 9 feet high. These latter cages connect with outdoor cages 20 feet wide, 33 feet deep from front to back, and 10 feet high. The lions had free access to these outside cages during the day, whenever the weather was suitable.

The first male McMillan lion to die in the park was No. 197944, March 1, 1914. He had been in "Washington a little over four years and was, according to Mr. Baker's records, about six years of age at the time of death. The skull shows a fully adult animal with basi#sphenoid suture obliterated and with a fully developed sagittal crest. The skin is considerably darker, more ochraceous buff or cinnamon buff, than in wild-killed males of the same age. The general color of the back is more cinnamon buff; the black hair tips, though present, are less conspicuous against the darker ground color and the general appearance is therefore less grizzled, more reddish. The belly, throat, and inner sides of limbs are decidedly pinkish cinnamon instead of pinkish buff, as in all wild-killed males. The tufts at the back of elbows are long, luxuriant, and silky, mixed deep black and buff—much longer and fuller than in any wild-killed animal. There is a supplemental tuft of dark brown hair on each side of the lower belly. The mane is longer, more sillcy, and more cinnamon buff in color than in wild-killed lions. It extends far back on the withers and laterally onto the foreparts of the shoulders in curly masses. The tail is decidedly more ochraceous and black, instead of buff and blackish as normal in the subspecies.

The second male McMillan lion (No. 199707) died in the Zoo July 1, 1915, at an age of about seven and one-half years, five and one-half years of which had been spent in Washington. The skin of this lion is decidedly darker than any other East African specimen. The appearance of the animal has been greatly changed—from a pale grayish buff to a dark brownish ochraceous. The general color of the upper parts and sides of the body is dark tawny olive; of the belly^ throat, and insides of limbs cinnamon to pale ochraceous tawny. Tufts at backs of elbows are extraordinarily long, thick, and silky of rich black and buff hairs. Whereas in wild lions of equal age the hairs of these tufts average about 60 millimeters in length and are rarely over 80, in this specimen they are 200 millimeters in length. The mane is remarkably full and is not approached in this respect nor in its deep coloration by those of wild-killed lions. It is full and wide on the withers and luxuriant on the lower neck and anterior shoulders. The whole head, face, and mane are richly tinged with deep tawny and ochraceous. The tail is rich and dark in color, the black tip offering little contrast in shade from the general color of its upper side.

The greatest interest in the study of the McMillan lions compared with wild examples from the same region lies in the skull. The skulls of the captive animals are of a definite, uniform shape and differ from all the skulls of wild-killed lions in the Museum col- lection in a number of conspicuous characters. They are broader and shorter, more massive and bulky, and exhibit abundant relative differences which would be instantly accepted as of " specific " value in wild animals. The obvious reason ;for these great differences is that the principal muscles operating the jaws and neck (those muscles used by a wild lion in mauling and killing game, biting, gripping, and shaking) have had little influence on the shape of the bones during development. In a wild-reared lion these powerful muscles naturally and in a normal way mold the growing skull, par#ticularly in the regions of their attachment. The most conspicuous peculiarities of the McMillan lion slcuUs are the greater (relative and actual) zygomatic breadth, the large rostra, and the great distance across the base of the skull at the mas#toids. While actually measuring less in condvlobasal or greatest length than many of the wild massaica skulls of equal age, they have a far greater zygomatic breadth than any, averaging about 30 millimeters more in males and 20 millimeters more in females. (See detailed measurements, p. 192; and pi. 24.) All five of the McMillan lions, male and female, are, as already noted, fully adult, the skulls with basal sutures obliterated. All agree in most particulars in the differentiating characteristics, and compari#sons may be made with wild-killed skulls of Felis leo massaica from the same vicinity and of equal age, without special designation of specimens by number. The differences are sometimes most pro#nounced in males. Regions of attachment of the massete?' muscle.—Contrary to the usual textbook definition of its function, the masseter muscle un#questionably furnishes the chief gripping power; it is the one most exercised during use of the canine and incisor teeth.

Capacity of the hahicase.—As stated above, external measure- ments of the braincase in wild lions are less than in park-reared animals of equal age. The capacity of the braincase, however, is considerably greater. Young adults of each, as usual among carni#vores, have greater braincase capacity than old or aged adults. The bones forming the cranium of the Zoo lion are thicker, and the actual size of the brain is less than in w^ild-killed examples. In the case of the McMillan lions the capacity is about 50 cubic centimeters less in males and about 40 less in females, than in wild-killed ex- amples of equal age from the same locality. The "Richardson lion," from the New York Zoological Park, cele- brated as the record skull for greatest breadth,^ and the Menelik lion, the type-specimen of Felis leo roosevelti, are both park-reared ani- mals of uncertain history but they show the skull characters of cap#tive lions to a marked degree. Even the skulls of these enormous lions, although the animals represent forms unquestionably larger in a wild state than Felis leo massaica, have less braincase capacity than any wild-killed examples of the East African lion.

The mastoid breadth in a wild-killed adult male lion from Nairobi (No. 155443) is 135 millimeters; in a McMillan lion of the same age (No. 199707) it is 152. The lambdoidal ridge and occipital bones are broader in the Mc#Millan skulls than in any skulls of wild lions. Here again the splenius and complexus muscles, through nondevelopment, have failed to influence the bone as in a normal wild lion w^hose life is one of tearing and shaking of strong prey. The development of powerful neck muscles evidently begins in the wild lion at an early age.


[b]This remarkable change has taken place in the lions under artificial treatment. Might some such a change not happen in a state of nature? At numerous times in geologic history whole groups of animals have become extinct. In fact, this is the rule, and only a few of the types known from fossil remains have left living descendants. If all the imgulate mammals of Africa or in some one extensive region were swept away in a few years by a plague like the rinderpest, would the lion die out, or would he completely change his habits in one generation and become a feeder on mice, squirrels, birds, and fruit? In the latter case, would not the enforced disuse of the powerful mechanism for the destruction of zebras, hartebeest, and larger game produce in one generation, as with the park lions, a type of skull wholly different from that now known in a state of nature?equence without further data:


One can easily believe that if the ordinary wild lion skulls were known only from Miocene deposits and the specimens were com#pared with the Mc Millan lion skulls, they might be regarded as rep- resenting the ancestor of the latter. The great change would natu#rally be regarded as the result of slow variation continued over that long period of time. The use of zoological park material in the description of new forms of mammals should be discouraged. New names should never be based on animals in parks or on skins and skulls of specimens which have lived long in captivity. Relative dimensions (ratio of length to breadth) of skulls is shown by the McMillan lions to be easily changed by habit or environment. Great weight has often been placed on the ratio of length to breadth, as a deep-seated character. Paleontologists, especially, value such differences much higher than do workers in recent mammals who have access to large series of closely related subspecies and are fa- miliar with the variations they exhibit in this respect. The surpris#ing and uniform differences in this regard between the McMillan lion skulls and the skulls of wild-reared examples of Felis leo massaica are, nevertheless, a revelation to all mammalogists who have seen the specimens.
[/b]

It seems unbelievable that all this knowledge and ability to argue and deduce situations that even today some are still suspicious of, was already present in the scientific knowledge of the beginning of the 20th century.


@GuateGojira 

I appreciate the opportunity to read something so meaningful. 




Note: To the moderators: this topic has many posts that have nothing to do with the subject. "When talking about lions and tigers, some connection must be made with the theme "Barbary". Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-29-2022, 04:08 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: It does look like 16 inches is the upper limit for the modern lion/tiger skull.

It seems so. This is an screenshot that I took from one of my previous posts that includes the biggest skulls reported and at some point corroborated (specially in the hunting records):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[LonePredator]

(04-05-2014, 11:58 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Here is the link of my original post: http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/55/The-size-of-the-Barbary-lion#.U0BS8VcXK8w

I have more genetic data from many other documents, I will share it with you here.

For the moment, is 100% sure that Barbary lions, Indian lions and at some degree the West African lions, are genetically indistinguishable. Besides, they morphology seems to be equal. Check that both Barbary and West African lions have the same belly fold and they skulls also have the divided foramina aperture in they skulls.

If Indian lions have other differences, this are only because they are highly inbreed, and based on they genetic, they are like twins and have ZERO genetic variation (O'Brien et al., 2003).

Were the other populations of Lions which lived in India (except Gir) the same subspecies as West and North African Lions or were they a different subspecies than Gir Lions??

Since the Mughals imported Lions from North Africa, they were obviously P. Leo Leo (North and West African and Gir subspecies) and those are the Lions still living in Gir.

But were the other Lions from the rest of India also the same subspecies as the Gir Lions or did they belong to the East and South African Lion subspecies? Or was it a completely different subspecies altogether? 

And I agree about the Gir Lions, those Lions have recovered from a very small population, I remember reading somewhere that at one point, their population was as low as 20-30 specimens and at that point, inbreeding was pretty much inevitable. They’re definitely heavily inbred.

And most likely because of this reason, the Indian Lions seem to have somewhat deformed faces. For example, the Lion below seems to have a weird and deformed face, I don’t think Asiatic Lions are supposed to look like this and it’s probably the result of inbreeding. What do you think??

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[GuateGojira]

(05-25-2022, 11:28 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Were the other populations of Lions which lived in India (except Gir) the same subspecies as West and North African Lions or were they a different subspecies than Gir Lions??

Since the Mughals imported Lions from North Africa, they were obviously P. Leo Leo (North and West African and Gir subspecies) and those are the Lions still living in Gir.

But were the other Lions from the rest of India also the same subspecies as the Gir Lions or did they belong to the East and South African Lion subspecies? Or was it a completely different subspecies altogether? 

And I agree about the Gir Lions, those Lions have recovered from a very small population, I remember reading somewhere that at one point, their population was as low as 20-30 specimens and at that point, inbreeding was pretty much inevitable. They’re definitely heavily inbred.

And most likely because of this reason, the Indian Lions seem to have somewhat deformed faces. For example, the Lion below seems to have a weird and deformed face, I don’t think Asiatic Lions are supposed to look like this and it’s probably the result of inbreeding. What do you think??

In theory, all the lions from west and north Africa, middle east and up to India, are the same subspecies Panthera leo leo. I say " in theory" because I don't remember if genetic studies included specimens from middle east. However, the animals from west/north Africa and India are virtually the same, based in DNA.

All the lions from India are of the same population, and although there are reports of lions imported from Mozambique to India, they did not leave decendance as there is no trace of Souther Africa DNA in the Indian lions at this day.

Please check that the image of the lion that you share is from captivity, and captive lions have irregular skulls that do not match with those from the wild. So that is the most simple explanation to its form. Reply

[BigLion39]

(05-25-2022, 09:11 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Please check that the image of the lion that you share is from captivity, and captive lions have irregular skulls that do not match with those from the wild. So that is the most simple explanation to its form.

I have always wondered why captive lions look very different from wild lions. Their skulls in particular and their manes. Why is that? Reply

[GuateGojira]

(05-26-2022, 11:28 AM)BigLion39 Wrote: I have always wondered why captive lions look very different from wild lions. Their skulls in particular and their manes. Why is that?

About the manes, it is directly related with the climate and the care/feeding of the specimens. I can tell you that here in Guatemala there was a captive male lion in the La Aurora Zoo named "Leono" (like the Thundercats leader) and even in our tropical climate it developed an impresive mane, that animal was beautiful. Maybe also as they live in less stress (in the good zoos at least), they develop big manes too, is just a third posibility, but is only a guess.

Now, about the skull, we have two studies that focus on this, and although they showed this phenomenon, they do not provide a clear explanation about why this happens. In fact, it is weird that this phenomenon is not present at the same level in other Panthera species. Reply

[Matias]

(05-25-2022, 11:28 AM)LonePredator Wrote: And most likely because of this reason, the Indian Lions seem to have somewhat deformed faces. For example, the Lion below seems to have a weird and deformed face, I don’t think Asiatic Lions are supposed to look like this and it’s probably the result of inbreeding. What do you think??

*This image is copyright of its original author

By photography, despite the grooves on its forehead, it is not possible to identify with some fidelity the existence of craniometric anomalies in this Asian lion. If it is a wild specimen there will hardly be considerable anomalies, if it is captive probably the result will have some support.

Given the natural physiognomic differences between Asian and African lions, notably the little manes between Asian wild males in the central area of the head, it leads you to believe that there is some anomaly in this specimen. Male of captive Asian lions living in cold environments such as Eastern Europe, they are from Juba Grande and uniform, making it difficult to quickly identify that it is an Asian lion. If you look for images of lions in Tsavo, you will see some similarities with Asian specimens.

“The patterns of geographical and phylogenetic lions variation based on an extensive morphometric analysis in 255 wild lions skulls indicate that lions skulls vary considerably along their geographical area and that variation is greater within populations than between They, being found a significant subdivision only between sub -Saharan Africa and North Africa/Asia ”. Ji H Mazák.

Visually Asian lions are different from Africans. These differences are not supported by craniometric morphology, especially especially in issues involving diverse environmental associations. Remember that: Any skull of a human born in Europe and another born in China has no difference. The image of each is very different, the work of the complex structuring between muscles, tendons, vessels - driven by genetic determination and geographical determinism. Some like to mention phenotypic plasticity and biogeographic modeling, but we will not enter this foolish scientism - just recognize that geographical extremes and long millennia in isolation will multiply differences. Fortunately or unfortunately, Asian and African lions do not have dozens of millennia in isolation, so their differences are noticeable in visual morphology, and nothing that is fully evidenced in fossil analysis that identifies significant differences in the skull. The most that can be said is that the population of Asian lions shows differences in "shape" in relation to the populations of Africa, driven at high speed by the recent population bottleneck of this population in the last 150 years. Given this, it is almost impossible to determine how evolution is acting on the criteria of expertise in this Asian part. Reply

[LonePredator]

(05-28-2022, 08:44 AM)Matias Wrote:

(05-25-2022, 11:28 AM)LonePredator Wrote: And most likely because of this reason, the Indian Lions seem to have somewhat deformed faces. For example, the Lion below seems to have a weird and deformed face, I don’t think Asiatic Lions are supposed to look like this and it’s probably the result of inbreeding. What do you think??

*This image is copyright of its original author

By photography, despite the grooves on its forehead, it is not possible to identify with some fidelity the existence of craniometric anomalies in this Asian lion. If it is a wild specimen there will hardly be considerable anomalies, if it is captive probably the result will have some support.

Given the natural physiognomic differences between Asian and African lions, notably the little manes between Asian wild males in the central area of the head, it leads you to believe that there is some anomaly in this specimen. Male of captive Asian lions living in cold environments such as Eastern Europe, they are from Juba Grande and uniform, making it difficult to quickly identify that it is an Asian lion. If you look for images of lions in Tsavo, you will see some similarities with Asian specimens.

“The patterns of geographical and phylogenetic lions variation based on an extensive morphometric analysis in 255 wild lions skulls indicate that lions skulls vary considerably along their geographical area and that variation is greater within populations than between They, being found a significant subdivision only between sub -Saharan Africa and North Africa/Asia ”. Ji H Mazák.

Visually Asian lions are different from Africans. These differences are not supported by craniometric morphology, especially especially in issues involving diverse environmental associations. Remember that: Any skull of a human born in Europe and another born in China has no difference. The image of each is very different, the work of the complex structuring between muscles, tendons, vessels - driven by genetic determination and geographical determinism. Some like to mention phenotypic plasticity and biogeographic modeling, but we will not enter this foolish scientism - just recognize that geographical extremes and long millennia in isolation will multiply differences. Fortunately or unfortunately, Asian and African lions do not have dozens of millennia in isolation, so their differences are noticeable in visual morphology, and nothing that is fully evidenced in fossil analysis that identifies significant differences in the skull. The most that can be said is that the population of Asian lions shows differences in "shape" in relation to the populations of Africa, driven at high speed by the recent population bottleneck of this population in the last 150 years. Given this, it is almost impossible to determine how evolution is acting on the criteria of expertise in this Asian part.

Thanks and yes, African Lions (P. Leo Melanochaita) indeed seem to have a broader mouth and a broader looking face overall but the photo I attached above may have been of captivity but I have seen at least some wild Asiatic Lions which have that kind of facial structure.

Again, most of the Asiatic Lions look completely normal but some few specimens do seem to have that kind of facial structure.

I have not seen that kind of facial structure in West African Lions either so that may also be something to look at.

Do you think there is any probability that such unusual facial features in some specimens could be the result of a lack of genetic diversity since the same is not seen in West African Lions which are almost genetically same as Asiatic Lions? Reply

[Matias]

@LonePredator 

It was thought that any changes observed in the craniometric characteristics of Asian lions (harvested after the beginning of the 19th century) should, primarily, be observed as a result of inbreeding. However, read this enlightening study very atencion: 

Divided infraorbital foramen in the lion (Panthera leo): Its implications for colonisation history, population bottlenecks, and conservation of the Asian lion (P. l. persica)

The divided infraorbital foramen is not a “uniquely geographical feature, nor is it particular to the Panthera Leo family”; this occurrence may be an interspecific characteristic in some specimens of the broad genus Panthera and, in Asian lions, it is not dominant in percentage among the samples collected. The study clearly notes indicating the percentage decrease after the skulls obtained from 1950 onwards.

Citar: Wrote:

Split infraorbital foramen occurred in 45% (5/11) of Indian lion canyons collected in the 19th century, which rose to 67% (10/15) in the early 20th century (pre-1950s), including those without recorded collection dates, although they were likely collected during this period, as indicated by their museum registration numbers, but this dropped to 38% (13/29) after 1950.

Thus, it could be said that the divided foramen would tend to decrease evolutionarily. It peaked in the early 20th century, possibly due to the genetic bottleneck - a critical period that the species passed. The collection of very recent samples (last 20 years) could definitively confirm this approach. A good question to ask is: are there any advantages to having a divided infraorbital foramen? Mutations can be positive, neutral or deleterious, it remains to be seen, in the physiology of the lion, if this characteristic has any benefit to the species. As far as other species are concerned: tigers (found in 0.3% - out of 1 in 304) and cave lions (1 in 8) seem to demonstrate that the gene or genes that shape this trait work in some “random” way. ”.

In the case of the Barbary Lion, no skull was observed with a divided infraorbital foramen. And in African lions the prevalence was in specimens that lived especially in a relatively small area in central Tanzania to the east of the DRC, which allows us to conjecture that this physical characteristic can be determined by a gene shared by the whole species, kept active or inactive by unknown engines. Not forgetting that the placement occurs only on one side of the faces. In Asiatic lion some specimens have them on both sides. Let us also remember that a small percentage of African lions have the notorious longitudinal skin fold along the belly. And some Asians don't have them in compliance with the rule either.

Perhaps you are seeing unusual facial features without understanding that different facial features are a natural and desired feature. They are phenotypic characteristics within the natural variables of the species.

When the Asiatic lion group was attributed to the lions that inhabit the north, west and central areas of Africa, it was the result of studies on cytochrome b (a set of approximately 10,000 aligned genes, carefully separated, that were isolated within the larger group of millions of genes located in Mitochondrial DNA) that converged with some similarities between some existing groups. What I want to tell you is that the grouping that is genetically assigned is for Conservation and Taxonomic Classification purposes. Genetic science looked for traces among the existing populations… and these “positionings” also found divergences in the orderings. In short, western lions are the population closest genetically to Asians. Almost the same are the extinct lions in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc. We must consider that genetics does not control everything, like physiological adaptations.

What is urgent for conservation, guarding and genetic improvement of western and central African lions is to have some individuals, from geographic points where they are still present, also kept in captivity - groups originating in Senegal, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia and West from Uganda. Not in zoos, but along the lines of the small private reserves that exist in South Africa where lions, despite being surrounded, keep most of their characteristics in the wild.

If you like the topic of Conservation and Genetics, go to: 

Genetic guidelines for translocations: Maintaining intraspecific diversity in the lion (Panthera leo)

Dr. Laura D. Bertola has published several studies on this topic. What it does is make genetics at the service of conservation. A pragmatic vision that involves genetics in the broad scope of lion conservation, strengthening its evolutionary history, genetic enrichment and guarding, guiding introduction and reitroduction strategies, observing the best paths for the future survival of the species. Reply

[lfelipe86]

Good Evening! There were recent sightings of Barbary lions in Morocco close to where the last ones were killed or sighted during the mid 20th century! There is a moroccan documentary about a recent sighting!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pLLabCToX8&t=2607s Reply

[lfelipe86]

I have found a book that shows some information and very rare photos of barbary lions from North Africa at the Leiden museum! One thing that called my attention is their size! They don´t seem to be very big, in fact, they are way smaller than the average size for lions! The average height of a male lion at the shoulders is about 1,2m and the larger one in book is a little bit above 1m!! 


https://archive.org/details/zeitschriftfrsu351970deut/page/34/mode/1up?view=theater Reply

[lfelipe86]

I´ve came across some very interesting information regarding barbary lions size! Hassan el wazzan mentioned in his book,in the 16 Th century that the lions of Morocco are two types, those that lived in the plains close to the ocean and the ones that lived in the mountains! The ones that lived in the plains were more robust and fierce while the mountain lions were shy and not the same size. Reply