Yuku free message boards

So what are the records of experts for length and skull size of lions? Below, a summary of what was posted before (different threads). All records (length) refer to straight line measurements of adult males ('between pegs'). Same for skull measurements. 



SKULL SIZE (number- average - longest- sample - source - region)  

1 - 342,9 mm. (13,50 inches) - 406,40 mm. (16,00 inches) - 00 - Bruce D. Paterson (2004) - Tsavo and other regions

2 - 355,9 mm. (14,01 inches) - 408,00 mm. (16,06 inches) - 18 - My table (2005) - Wild skulls Africa (Dutch museums)

3 - 000,0 mm. (00,00 inches) - 419,10 mm. (16,50 inches) - 00 - Stevenson-Hamilton (1947) - Kruger and other regions

4 - 351,3 mm. (13,83 inches) - 373,00 mm. (14,69 inches) - 17 - Bold's records (2011) - Central Africa (range 324-373)

5 - 380,0 mm. (14,96 inches) - 000,00 mm. (00,00 inches) - 15 - Yamaguchi (Bold's post) - Kruger


6 - 357,5 mm. (14,08 inches) - 419,00 mm. (16,50 inches) - 50 - Average of 1-5 (every average counted as one) - total sample very large

 

LENGTH

1 - 268,4 cm. - 298,5 cm. - 0027 - My post in the lion extinction thread (Guate's post not included) - India

2 - 000,0 cm. - 299,7 cm. - 2150 - Stevenson-Hamilton - Kruger (as well as other parts of Africa)

3 - 279,9 cm. - 298,0 cm. - 0004 - Hollister - Central and East-Africa

4 - 276,2 cm. - 289,6 cm. - 0018 - Smithers & Wilson (1979) - Zimbabwe

5 - 271,0 cm. - 284,5 cm. - 0014 - Meinertzhagen (1904) - Kenya (average weight 386,9 pounds or 175,5 kg.)

6 - 000,0 cm. - 300,7 cm. - 0001 - Van Bree (1985 - Captive animal in Dutch safariparc (weight 280 kg.)

7 - 000,0 cm. - 302,3 cm. - 0001 - Selous (longest out of a long series)


8 - 273,8 cm. - 302,3 cm. - 2215 - Average of 1-7 (every average counted as one)



ADDITIONAL

Dr. Berger (in Mazak, 1983) apparently shot an animal of 326 cm. 'over curves'. Photograph was posted. A captive Siberian tiger of 337 cm. 'over curves' was 319 cm. 'between pegs' (Mazak, 1983), so the 326 cm. lion could have been 16-17 cm. shorter in a straight line. 

Bold posted a record of a lion taping 10 feet and 4 inches in a straight line. I found another of 10 feet 4 inches 'between pegs' in a book. Bruce D. Patterson saw this lion (a man-eater now in the Field Museum) and wasn't impressed. Perhaps some exceptional animals could be 10 feet 4 inches, but it isn't likely and Stevenson-Hamilton would have required more than a newspaper report.

Van Bree's captive measurement was added for comparison. This lion compared to the longest wild lions.



CONCLUSIONS

1 - Skull length. The averages I found range between 342,9-380,0 mm. and the average of all averages (each counted as one) is 357,5 mm. or thereabout, which partly is a result of the enormous Kruger skulls. It could be there are, as most of the old boys thought, subspecies in Africa after all.  

2 - Body length. The averages mentioned above are relatively high. Mazak concluded an average male ranged between 260-270 cm., whereas a large one would tape 285 cm. or over. Stevenson-Hamilton, who also had information on many (2150) animals, also concluded the average would be a bit under 9 feet. But large local types (Kalahari, Etosha, Zimbabwe, Kruger, Ngorongoro), perhaps, could average between 270-280 cm. roughly.  We don't know.

3 - Relation between body length and skull size. Unclear. But we know the Kruger's average 187-189 kg. and 380 mm. They, in this respect, seem to be exceptional, as most males seem to range between 260-280 cm. and 343-380 mm. The 300,7 cm. (280 kg.) captive Van Bree lion had a large skull (total length 378,0 mm. - zygomatic width 248,2 mm. - rostral width 102,8 mm. - upper canine 67,0 mm. - base of canine 28,0 mm. - height at the orbit 172,0 mm.) and it was the heaviest of all weighed (2,450 kg.).

4 - Lions and Indian tigers. We could assume most male lions, as Mazak and Stevenson-Hamilton stated, range between 260-275 cm. roughly and average between 350,0-358,0 mm. in skull lenght. We know most male Indian tigers range between 270-290 cm. and 351,0-353,3 mm. in skull length. Meaning lions, for their average body length, have both absolutely and relatively slightly longer skulls. In absolutes, the difference seems to be a few millimetres. In relatives, the difference is more pronounced. But not to the extent often assumed.  

5 - Subspecies. African lions, like tigers, could have subspecies. Discriminating factors would be average skull length and weight. Length would be out. Bruce D. Patterson, by the way, confirmed Cape lions could have been the largest subspecies. Their skulls, however, were shorter and bulldog-shaped.       
    
6 - Largest. Based on what is known, Indian tigers top the list in body length and weight. Largest skulls, according to Rowland Ward and Pocock (1929), between 14-16 inches (the table was posted on the tiger extinction thread). The largest lion skulls seem to be longer than the largest tiger skulls, but the differences, as far as we know, seem to be limited. Very large lions (ranging between 285,0-302,3 cm. in total length and 500-560 pounds) are close to very large Indian tigers, but close isn't quite equal to. In averages, the difference could be roundabout 6 inches and 50 pounds. In very large animals, the difference seems to be a bit more pronounced. This difference, apart from the exception noted by trainer Tony Hughes, is not seen in captive animals.    

7 - Scaling. Some large male lions seem to combine great size with very large skulls, but this is also true for some Indian tigers. Unclear, that is. It, as usual, depends on additional information on the individual animal. If information is missing, averages and regions have to be used. In skulls, a difference of roundabout 1 cm., as Bonns suggested, could be a bit generous. This, however, wouldn't be the case when Kruger's are involved. The largest skulls, for averages, I know of. But I haven't been in the Chabarowsk Natural History Museum yet.        

It isn't about skulls only. It's about scaling and using skulls as indicators. Skull size has absolute and relative meaning. And relative is relative to body length and/or weight. When averages are known, the next question is if there's a connection between body size and skull size. This is unclear.

Mazak's 319 cm. straight line Prague Zoo Siberian tiger had a 371,0 mm. skull (greatest length). His 7-year old, 298 cm., son, however, had a longer skull (377,0 mm.). Brig.-Gen. Burton, a century ago, shot tigers at the Deccan. His longest tiger was 9 feet 8 inches. But a 9 feet tiger had the largest skull. 

The relation between body length (or weight) and skull size, therefore, isn't lineair. Age could be an important variable, but we don't know. It's for that reason additional information is needed. And additional information could be age, body length, weight and, for instance, region. For both species, that is.

And how scale accordingly when the absolute difference in greatest length is 2-7 mm. (averages)? How about scaling non-average animals? And non-averages combining large body size with large skull size? There are plenty of examples. In scaling, it's about relative size. It's the only reasonable and practical option. 

Next time, first read Apollyon's first post before reacting. Do it well and search for body size, relative skull size and goal. Than delete your last two posts.