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
|
 (06-12-2019, 01:35 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: A "very large" lion from the Barbary region was said to have been presented to King Frederick I of Sweden in the 18th century, who then pitted it in a fight against a bear held by butchers in Stockholm: https://books.google.com/books?id=Io5NAA...on&f=false That is a famous lion, but not for killing a bear :)  *This image is copyright of its original author Quote: "An unforgettable lion Today, the castle draws large numbers of visitors who come to admire the grand rooms, to experience a sense of history and to see the large collection of portraits. Perhaps one of the castle's main attractions is the stuffed lion from the 18th century. Its present-day popularity is due to the fact that the taxidermist tasked with stuffing the lion's body had probably never seen a living lion, resulting in a stuffed lion that looks rather different to the lions we are used to seeing. Once you have seen it, you are unlikely to forget it." Source: https://www.kungligaslotten.se/english/articles-and-movies/news/2019-02-05-gripsholm-castle-a-history.html  *This image is copyright of its original author It is also in facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lejonetpagripsholmsslott/ I have no idea if there has been a fight or not, but I haven´t seen such mentioned in any Swedish articles etc. There have been some animal fights arranged at times of Queen Christina and King Charles X Gustav of Sweden, but I haven´t seen anything concerning King Frederick I. Maybe that story in the book is some mix up etc. It would be interesting to find other sources too, because that description is odd looking. Killing a bear with one swipe, that would be something. If true, that lion was as lucky as a lottery winner :) But if that really is only source, then I have some doubts, because about other fights can be found some information from Swedish historian sources, not about this.  (09-19-2019, 09:49 PM)Shadow Wrote: That is a famous lion, but not for killing a bear :) This is one of the worst and, paradoxically, more famous taxidermy works that I have saw in the web.  Interestingly the guy that made it probably had not saw a lion in real life and probably used the heraldic lions as a model (just like the "lions" from China). Typical of medieval Europe. Funny and interesting at the same time. 
(09-19-2019, 09:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:(06-12-2019, 01:35 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: A "very large" lion from the Barbary region was said to have been presented to King Frederick I of Sweden in the 18th century, who then pitted it in a fight against a bear held by butchers in Stockholm: https://books.google.com/books?id=Io5NAA...on&f=false That lion specimen has ridiculous face. (10-11-2019, 03:06 AM)lionjaguar Wrote:(09-19-2019, 09:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:(06-12-2019, 01:35 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: A "very large" lion from the Barbary region was said to have been presented to King Frederick I of Sweden in the 18th century, who then pitted it in a fight against a bear held by butchers in Stockholm: https://books.google.com/books?id=Io5NAA...on&f=false That´s why it´s so famous :)  (09-19-2019, 09:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:(06-12-2019, 01:35 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: A "very large" lion from the Barbary region was said to have been presented to King Frederick I of Sweden in the 18th century, who then pitted it in a fight against a bear held by butchers in Stockholm: https://books.google.com/books?id=Io5NAA...on&f=false 
The size of the Cape lion:
Among the diferent subspecies/populations of lions, the Cape lion is one that is normally stated as one of the largest, togheter with the Barbary lion. However, is there real evidence of this, or is just a popular "myth" based in the large size of the mane of these lions? Using the evidence available, I will make a description of the specimens in litterature and museums, and this will give us a better idea about the size of this lion population, that based in DNA is not extinct, but it is just the southern population of the still existing Kruger lion. 1 - Body size: The first time that it was described like a different lion population and nominated as Leo melanochaitus was by Charles Hamilton Smith in 1842, check the original description:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Since the begining, he describes its bull dog head and great size, but as most of the old descriptions, the characteristics that he used are not exclusive from the lions of that area. However, previous to that William Cornwalis Harris (1840) is the first in present body measurements of a male and a description of the subspecies:  *This image is copyright of its original author For Mazák (1975), those measurements are somewhat reliable but the problem is that it is not clear if he used a real specimen, or just a collection of information of several ones. In that time Mazák do had the knowledge to distinguish the measurements "between pegs" and "over curves", but he did not clarify that in his statements (will discuss this latter) and focused in knowing if it was a "live" animal or a "dead" one. Even then, its body size is remarkable: * Total length: 320 cm * Tail length: 91.5 cm * Shoulder height: 112 cm Even then, we don't know if the measurments were taken "between pegs" or "over curves" or if they were "in the flesh" or "in the skin". Gugguisberg (1961) presented a little collections of measurements:  *This image is copyright of its original author He clearly described the fact that we can't be sure of the realibility of those measurements, but at the same time, we can't just ignore the posibility that some of them were correct. Take in count that some of them are from museum specimens that are stuffed. Roberts (1951) present what he think is the only realiable measurement from a Cape lioness:  *This image is copyright of its original author He also presented other measurements of other lions, but again, is not clear if those were taken "in the flesh" or "in the skin", specially beause at the time of the original records (between 1820 - 1830) there were no reliable methods to measure great cats, which make posible that those measurements were of skins. Mazák (1975) made a great description of this particular subspecies, however I manage to get only a few fragments of the information, so here we go:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author By the way, here is the original document of William Patterson of 1789 about the lioness hunted by him and is the first lions measurement published of this subspecies/population. Interestingly he believe that it was "not very large", which again suggest that those measurements were taken "in the flesh along the curves" or "in the skin":  *This image is copyright of its original author So, using all the information available in these books, we can see that only 3 specimens were obtained from the Cape region and there is no evidence if they were measured in the flesh or from skins and definitelly, based in the dates of the publications none of them was measured "between pegs" as that method started by the year 1890 more or less. The 3 specimens are: Date Sex Total length Tail length Shoulder height 1789 Female 268 cm 91.5 cm 112 cm 1822 Male 335 cm - - 1840 Male 320 cm 91.5 cm 112 cm As we can see, the measurements seems repetitive and based in the fact that the lions in those dates were measured in the skin, based in the reports of Frederick Selous in his book "A hunter's wanderings in Africa"of 1881 (first edition), we can conclude that those measurements are not reliable. Interentingly Mazák (1975) quotes other records from other areas and I can also mention others: South Africa - Stevenson-Hamilton: 300 cm total length (94 cm tail). - Vaughan Kirby: 307 cm total length (89 cm tail) - height of 112 cm. Zimbabwe - F. Selous: 302 cm total length - height of 112 cm. "East Africa" - S. Downey: 292 cm total length. - Gibbons: 300 cm total length (91.5 cm tail) - height of 109 cm. Kenya - Hollister: 298 cm total length (103 cm tail). - Roosevelt & Heller: 297 cm total length (102 cm tail). All these record lions were measured "between pegs" and from a total sample of about 400 male lions of East and Southern Africa. Just two measured around 10 ft (305 cm) long and only one aproached the 220 cm in head body (Vaughan Kirby, 1899 - South Africa), the next one been of 208 cm (Gibbons, 1898 - East Africa). So it is practically imposible that those measurements from the years 1780 - 1840 from the Cape lions were real. Like a side note, the tallest lioness from East Africa was of 102 cm (n=16) while the tallest female from Southern Africa was of 99 cm (n=25). The only weight recorded for this population is the famous lion hunted in the Orange Free State in 1865 that weighed 583 lb (264 kg) which for Mazák is the heaviest lion reliably recorded. I have not found the original source but all the other books that quote this figure do not say if the animal was empty belly or not. Apart from this, there is no other weight in litterature available. Mazák in his document "Preliminary List of the Specimens of Panthera leo melanochaitus Ch. H. Smith, 1842, Preserved in the Museumsof the Whole World in 1963" of 1963 (attached file) shows a list of measurements of several stuffed specimens at museums taken "over the curves". Interestingly none of them, except for a female, match the 3 sizes recorded by the years 1780 - 1840. 2 - Skull size: In 1960, Mazák published other document about the same lion subspecies and presented a description of the characteristics that he belived were specifically of this population and presented skull measurements. @peter presented that document here and he can put it again. Interestingly Mazák made 3 documents about this lion population, showing a particular interest on them. J. H. Mazák used only two skulls from the Cape region, both male, and only one present length measurements. This is not surprise as in the main document about Cape lions from Vratislav Mazák "Notes on the Black-maned Lion of the Cape, Panthera Leo Melanochaita (Ch. H. Smith, 1842) and a Revised List of the Preserved Specimens" from 1975 he presented a descripton of those two skulls but the interesting thing is that the big incomplete skull is the largest skull from a wild specimen that he ever measured, check this:  *This image is copyright of its original author Based on this, Mazák estimated that the large skull B.M.18.5.23.2 had a condylobasal length of near 355 mm. This is impresive as for a list of 9 males measured by him the largest skull had a condylobasal length of 350.5 mm (GL of 396 mm). Roberts (1951) present a big list of skulls and from a sample of 22 males from Southern Africa the longest skull had a condylobasal length of 348 mm (GL of 395 mm) and from 20 males from East Africa the largest male had a condylobasal length of 335 mm (GL of 375 mm). Important to notice the the longest skull from Southern Africa with 401 mm had a condylobasal lenght of 345 mm, while the longest skull of 380 mm for East Africa do not have condylobasal length (Allen, 1942), which suggest that probably the figure of 335 mm is not the maximum and based in the other 4 skulls from the same region, the condylobasal length of that large skull could be close to 340 mm. This skull is the only evidence that may suggest that the lions of the Cape region were somewhat longer than those of other areas and at diference of the large c.410 mm skull from the Barbary lion, the specimen B.M.18.5.23.2 of the Cape lion is a wild specimen and not a captive one. I don't know if Mazák (1975) presented more body measurements or skull measurements, but based in other documesnt it seems that what I found is all. About other skull measurements, I could get this list: Males: Greatest lenght 330.8 338 358.1 Condylobasal length 319.1 287 325.5 c.355 Source 1. 2. 3. 4. Females: Greatest lenght 307 308 301 Condylobasal length 291 - 281 Source 5. 2. 5. Sources: 1. Christiansen, 2007; 2. Mazák & Husson, 1960; 3. J. H. Mazák, 2010; 4. Mazák, 1975; 5. Meester, 1971. Based in the other 3 male lions skulls, the big specimen B.M.18.5.23.2 could have a greatest skull length of 392 mm (range 367 - 418 mm), but this is just speculation as the variation is too great between the specimens. Now let's compare these figures with the big sample of Roberts (1951) that compile a big list of skulls from Southern and East Africa:  *This image is copyright of its original author It seems that all, except for the big specimen B.M.18.5.23.2 match the other lion skulls from the other regions. This suggest that the Cape lion was not particularly big, but match the biggest lions from South Africa. This is not surprise as we stablished very well, based in several weights, that lions in Southern Africa are the biggest of the species. We can remember that the biggest condylobasal length from a lion, measured by Mazák, was of 377 mm, but that came from a captive lion with such a deformed skull that almoust looked like a horse. 3 - Conclusion: Based on this evidence, there is little information to support the claim that the Cape lion was in fact a particularly large population of lions in size terms, with only 3 specimens measured "in the skin" and only one weight. In the skull department they are of the same size of the largest lions of South Africa, with a posibility that at least one was larger than the others recorded. Interestingly there are South African lions that have the same characteristics of the Cape lions, for example this male nicknamed "Hairy Belly":  *This image is copyright of its original author It match the especifications of Mazák and based on evidence the Cape lions were just the southern population of the existing lions of South Africa. Check this picture from skulls (probably not in the Mazák's sample), the smaller is from the Cape:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Check also this picture from @peter:  *This image is copyright of its original author It seems that with a larger sample, we could conclude that the "special characteristics" that diferentiated the Cape lions were just random characteristics of the specific specimens studied. Similar results were get by J. H. Mazák (2010) with his study on tiger skulls. Hope this helps to know that, like the Barbary lion, there is no evidence to suggest that the Cape lions were giants, but contrary to the north manned, the Cape probably did reached the huge sizes of the present South African lions. Greetings to all. 
GUATE
You know the Dutch were among the first settlers in South Africa. Some years ago, I read a number of old journals kept by settlers and others. I didn't find anything on the size of Cape lions, but there were quite a few entries on lions attacking cattle and settlers. In the former Zoological Museum of Amsterdam (ZMA), I saw a few skulls of lions shot in the southernmost part of South Africa a long time ago. The skulls of these 'Cape' lions (referring to the labels) were different from Kruger skulls in that they were shorter and (relatively) wider. I'll repost the info when I have time. The info of Roberts on skulls was difficult to read (too small). Can you do a repost? (11-29-2019, 12:22 PM)peter Wrote: GUATE Hello @peter. Yes, I was aware the that Dutch were the first in the area and also I read some books where it mentions that the lion was the first to be exterminated by this first settlers and the British too. I have this pic about that:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now, about the image of Roberts, I tried to change it but I got the same result. You may try to save the picture and then you can see it larger in your computer or cellphone. I attached the image just in case.
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. (06-12-2019, 01:35 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: What was the outcome of that particular fight?  (04-07-2014, 08:50 PM)Kingtheropod Wrote: Here is a picture of a lion from Paris, possibly Barbary in descent... That cannot be a barbary lion. It says "lion d'Abyssinie" which is Abyssinian lion in english. Also can anybody send my a copy of Simba the life of the lion as PDF. PM me, I will ask only few pages. Also I have some data to discuss on The black north african lion apparently weighed between 600 to 660 lbs. Is it true?  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (05-10-2020, 04:45 PM)Asad981 Wrote: The black north african lion apparently weighed between 600 to 660 lbs. Is it true? No evidence, skins... nothing. Much of these old writings were filled with crap meant to sell books by fascinating the curious but clueless readers back home at Europe, who'd never find out whatever they're writing was true or not.  Extinct But Not Forgotten We can't show you real live Barbary lions because they're extinct. So we invite you to meet their distant cousins: a pair of lions named Rock and Roar, currently living in a zoo in England. Curator Richard Sabin explains how these lions may help us understand the evolutionary journey of the Barbary lion in our Web Exclusive Video: Rock and Roar.  (11-29-2019, 06:58 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: The size of the Cape lion: Guate, I estimated the average weight of the Barbary lion, using the 372.3mm skull, and got the weight between 193.8 - 211.5 kgs. Thus, I politely disagree the statement that were "no larger than their West African cousins". In my opinion, the Barbary lion was on average larger than their cousins from Southern African (Panthera leo melanochaita), but I expect that on maximum, a lion from Okavango delta or Ngorongoro Crater would surpass the maximum weight for a Barbary lion. Thank you. (01-12-2022, 01:13 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: Guate, I estimated the average weight of the Barbary lion, using the 372.3mm skull, and got the weight between 193.8 - 211.5 kgs. There is a couple of points that we need to take in count. First, the skulls used in the study of J. H. Mazak are all from captive specimens (in fact, all the Barbary skulls are from captive specimens), and we know that captive lions develope bigger and more massive skulls than those from the wild. For example Dr Per Christiansen measured a dead lion that had a Condylobasal length of 359.7 mm (less than 4 mm than the biggest Barbary lion skull in the study) but its head-body length was only 185 (tail of 95 cm) and a weight of 203kg (already big for a lion). So using captive specimens to calculate weights, specially in lions, is not reliable. There is no evidence to support that the Barbary lions were larger than any lion population. In fact, the available information suggest that South African lions are bigger in body, weight and skull measurements. In fact, Vratislav Mazák said that the biggest skull that he measured, appart from the captive lion of 402 mm GSL from Etiopia, was a wild male lion from South Africa classified as "Cape lion" had an estimated condylobasal length of c.355 mm (broken end), and that is the biggest condylobasal length ever recorded for a wild African lion. Barbary lions, been of the same population of lions from India and West Africa, was probably similar in size, but as we only have captive specimens to compare, it is only speculation. In fact, the lions from the Rabbat Zoo look large but are small compared to other captive lions. The measurements in litterature (which all came from the same French author) and those from stuffed specimens, are not reliable. Finally, there are no available measurements from lions in Okavango, there are only visual estimations which are not reliable until we have real measurements (the same happen with Assam tigers). About Ngorongoro lions, there are no measurements published yet, and no weight has been taken, but from my personal communications with Dr Packer, the largest chest girth was of 143 cm, which is not exceptional compared to other lions from South Africa. Hope this helps. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |