The size of the Barbary lion

[GuateGojira]

Short note - On the skull of the Cape lion:

I was trying to get a good idea about the variation on the skull values of the lions in Southern Africa with the sole porpuse of estimate the greatest length of the skull of the largest Cape lion specimen B.M. 18.5.23.2.

As we know Mazák (1975) estimated a Condylobasal length of near to 355 mm, the biggest among the wild lion specimens, although not by a really big margin. The largest real condylobasal length that Mazák measured was of 350.5 mm and came from a skull with a greatest length of 396 mm. The biggest condylobasal length measured by Roberts (1950) is of 348 mm and came from a skull of 395 mm.

Now, how reliable is to use condylobasal length to get the greatest length? I far I remember the idea was good in the case of tigers, but I never had done that with lions. Using the 3 specimens from the Cape, 6 from the Transvaal region and 11 from other parts of Southern Africa, I could get some figures to understan the relation.

When I used only the males from the Cape (n=3) the relation is the worst with R2 been of only 0.1678, and the graphic that I got shows the values all over the place. The main problem is the skull of 338 mm, which for some reason Mazák & Husson (1960) presented a condylobasal length of only 287 mm, too short for a male. So, using only these 3 specimens is imposible to get a reliable estimation of the greatest length of the skull.

Now, using only males from the Kruger/Transvaal region (n=6) the relation is the best with R2 been 0.8203. In this case we can estimate, using a ratio of 1.1378 between GSL/CBL, that the greates length of the specimen B.M. 18.5.23.2 will be of c.404 mm.

Finally, using all the males from the Southern region, including Kruger/Transvaal and the Cape (n=20), the relation is moderated to good with R2 been 0.7966. So we can estimate, using a ratio of 1.1288 between GSL/CBL, that the greates length of the specimen B.M. 18.5.23.2 will be of c.400.7 mm.

Now, the problem with this is that based on descriptions like that of Smith (1842) and @peter, the skull of the Cape lion is relativelly shorter and bulldog like in comparison with those from other lions like those from Kruger. If this is the case this may suggest a slightly shorter skull. In fact, if we use only the Cape lions the GSL will be of c.392 mm, but as the R2 is the worst, that figure is not reliable.

Based on this, it seems that the skull of the male B.M. 18.5.23.2 was slightly over 400 mm, depending of the method used, and among the largest skulls ever recorded. For comparison, the largest skull reported by Stevenson-Hamilton was of 406 mm in GSL and the biggest from Vaughan Kirby is of 419 mm. However the problem with this figures is that none of the authors describe the method that they used to measure the skulls, if they use caliphers or if they used just two perpendiculars and including the mandible, like it was the norm in those days. If that was the case, the GSL will slightly smaller than the presented values with 1 cm less at the most.

Hemmer (1974) presented these ranges for skull measurements from this population:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This values are less than the ones found, and I still will like to see where he got the higher values, as none of the skulls on record reported by Mazák of Christiansen presents the GSL of 394 mm and the CBL of 340 mm. Even then, the values are no larger than those from Kruger region. Reply