Search this Topic:
Wed, Mar 12, 2014 11:29 PM
Asad wrote:Someone doesn't know how to interpret science.Above from Dr. Patterson. below the most recent confirmation.The first Asian record of Panthera (Leo) fossilis (von Reichenau, 1906) (Mammalia, Carnivora, Felidae) in the Early Pleistocene of Western Siberia, RussiaA lion-like pantherine felid is described as Panthera (Leo) fossilis (von Reichenau, 1906) from the late Early Pleistocene sediments of the Kuznezk Basin (Western Siberia, Russia). The find of P. fossilis first recorded in Asia considerably extends current notion of the eastward expansion of the most ancient lions. The Siberian lion is geologically the oldest form and is dimensionally among the largest members of the group of fossil lions on the Eurasian continent. Although known by mandibular remains only, it is readily distinguished from Panthera (Leo) spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810) by a heavy built mandibular corpus with rectangular profile in the cheek teeth area, a deep, well-outlined and narrow anterior section of the masseteric fossa, and a large р4 supported by a big unreduced anterior root. These features the Siberian lion shares with the European Middle Pleistocene P. fossilis and American Late Pleistocene P. (Leo) atrox (Leidy, 1853), which suggests their close relationship. P. atrox originated from P. fossilis and was isolated in North America south of the Late Pleistocene ice sheets. This explains why the American lion has retained more primitive features than the coeval Eurasian cave lion P. (L.) spelaeahttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1749-4877.12082/abstractAre you blind Guate your denying Dr. Barnett, Yamaguchi, Patterson, Packer and now the most recent study? Atlas lions are unique isolated from other populations, and "they live in opposite side on continent".Beyond epic failure from conglomerate business sider. your also avoiding the obvious that lions lived in IndiaA. K. Dutta. 1976. Occurrence of fossil lion and spotted hyena from
Pleistocene deposits of Susunia, Bankura District, West Bengal. Journal
of the Geological Society of Indiahttp://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?reference_no=11349&action=referenceInfohttp://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=collectionSearch&type=view&wild=N&reference_no=11349http://web.archive.org/web/20090206173029/http://www.asiatic-lion.org/distrib.html
Dutta, A. K., 1976. Occurrence of fossil lion and spotted hyena from
Pleistocene deposits of Susunia, Bankura District, West Bengal.
Journal of the Geological Society of India, 17: 386–391.
Pilgrim, G. E., 1931. The fossil Carnivora of India. Palaeontologica
Indica, 18: 1–232.Atlas lions unique..distinct.. However, the Barbary lion is morphologically more distinct than any of the African lion populations (Hemmer, 1978). Because
of this, the guidelines of the precautionary principle (Foster et al.
2000) would suggest that reasonable action to conserve diversity is
preferable...In 1968, a study on the skulls of the Asiatic,
Barbary, Cape, and other African lions showed that the same skull
characteristics, the very narrow postorbital bar, existed in only the Barbary and the Asiatic lion skulls.
This shows that there may have been a close relationship between the
lions from Northernmost Africa and Asia. It is also believed that the
south-eastern European lion (sometimes seen as a seperate subspecies
Panthera leo europeae) that became extinct at the beginning in A.D.
80-100, could have represented the connecting link between the North
African and Asiatic lions. It is believed that Barbary lions possess the
same belly fold (hidden under all that mane) that appears in the Asian
lions today. (Preservation Station, 2005) There appears to be no record
of contiguous populations of the two subspecies in historic times
(Nowell, Jackson, 1996).http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/barbarylion.htmRecent genetic and morphological research showed that the Barbary lion
(North African lion population) is slightly different from the Asiatic
lion (Asian lion population), but clearly distinct from sub-Saharan
lions (Hemmer and Burger 2005; Barnett et al. 2006; Burger and Hemmer
2006). Grouping all African lions into one single subspecies, including the North African Barbary lion, would therefore be incorrect. The Barbary lion (Panthera leo leo) can be considered a distinct valid lion subspecies.http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/barbarylion.htmThe Barbary lion (P. l. leo) is considered distinct from the six commonly defined sub-species in the rest of Africa ,
owing to its geographic separation, morphology and unique montane
habitat with cold winters. Although the phylogenetic status of lion
populations remains unclear , ,
recent morphological and genetic studies consistently differentiate
northern lions (India to North Africa) from sub-Saharan African lionshttp://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060174Perrault what your understanding as a biology major reading the above did lions reside in all mentioned studies above? Epic fail from the entire other side eh? The time to take ownership has arrived your all throwing guesswork, squashed by science.
don’t you get tired of your own lies and fake evidence. Let’s start your
1. On the document of Dr Patterson (On the nature and significance of
variability in lions), what this have to do with Barbary lion????
NOTHING about Barbary lions. Besides, did you saw that the document is from 2007??? This document is OUTDATED as it was made TWO YEARS BEFORE the document of Barnett et
al. (2009), so its conclusions about lion evolution are now incorrect and most
be ignored in favor of new documents like that of Barnett et al. (2009; which reveals three different taxas of lions) and
Dubach et al. (2013, which reveal
only TWO subspecies of lions).
2. About this document (The first Asian record of Panthera (Leo) fossilis (von Reichenau, 1906)
(Mammalia, Carnivora, Felidae) in the Early Pleistocene of Western Siberia,
Russia). You have completely misunderstood the document.
say the abstract:
“A lion-like pantherine felid is described as
Panthera (Leo) fossilis (von Reichenau, 1906) from the late Early Pleistocene
sediments of the Kuznezk Basin (Western Siberia, Russia). The find of P.
fossilis first recorded in Asia considerably extends current notion of the
eastward expansion of the most ancient lions. The Siberian lion is geologically
the oldest form and is dimensionally among the largest members of the group of
fossil lions on the Eurasian continent. Although known by mandibular remains
only, it is readily distinguished from Panthera (Leo) spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810)
by a heavy built mandibular corpus with rectangular profile in the cheek teeth
area, a deep, well-outlined and narrow anterior section of the masseteric
fossa, and a large р4 supported by a big unreduced anterior root. These
features the Siberian lion shares with the European Middle Pleistocene P.
fossilis and American Late Pleistocene P. (Leo) atrox (Leidy, 1853), which
suggests their close relationship. P. atrox originated from P. fossilis and was
isolated in North America south of the Late Pleistocene ice sheets. This
explains why the American lion has retained more primitive features than the
coeval Eurasian cave lion P. (L.) spelaea”.
explanation is simple. The document is stating the next:
This new document of Sotnikova & Foronova
(2014) present a different scenario apart from the one speculated by Barnett et al. (2009). Lets discus this:
al. (2009) stated that Panthera atrox
was the descendent of the eastern population of Eurasian cave lions and that
begin its separation at about 337,000 years ago, with a final and definitive
separation at 200,000 years BP. These dates correspond exactly in the period of
the Middle Pleistocene.
Check that Barnett and his team never mention
anything about the Panthera spelaea
fossilis in this part, he only mention it as the root of its Fig. 2. However
this is the species what was living in that time. Just after this separation
between Fossilis-Atrox happened that the evolution of the Upper Pleistocene
cave lion begins.
Now, it is interesting to see that Barnett et
al. (2009) also proposed that at some moment at 46,000-48,000 years BP there
was a sharp decline in genetic diversity, with the extinction of several
haplotypes, while after this time, only one (B) existed. This genetic
bottleneck removed the earlier lineages.
subsequent re-invasion and/or range expansion of haplotype B is consistent with
it being the most widespread and numerous mitochondrial sequence across the spelaea range (12 out of 17
specimens) after 48 000 bp. Members of the star radiation (haplotypes B and D)
are first detected at 46 000 and 50 000 bp, suggesting that this group had started
diversifying before the putative genetic bottleneck. The other derived haplotypes
(A, C and E) may have also existed at this point, or evolved subsequently as
populations containing haplotype B expanded in range and numbers. Such a
pattern could be produced by the localized extinction of populations (e.g.
across Eurasia), followed by the replacement with individuals from other parts
of the range (e.g. eastern Beringia), as has previously been detected in
Pleistocene bison and mammoth populations (Shapiro et al. 2004; Debruyne et
In simple words, it seems that Bartnett et al. (2009), based on DNA, states that
the original species Panthera spelaea,
which gives origin to the P. s. fossilis,
evolved in Europe and expanded to all the north or Eurasia, reaching America
and forming a population that reached up to México (Chiapas). Latter, in the
upper Pleistocene of Eurasia, the original genetic variation disappeared and a
re-invasion of specimens from Beringia repopulated Europe with new specimens,
smaller in size, just like those from Alaska and Yakutia.
Now, how the new theory of Sotnikova & Foronova
(2014) fits here? Well, as we don’t have yet the document itself, we can only
speculate from the abstract. They state that P. s. fossilis reached the center of North Asia and beyond. Check
these two maps from the Kuznezk Basin, from two different views:
From this, they stated that Panthera (spelaea) atrox was a relic
population of Cromerian lions in America. Check that this new hypothesis put
even further the separation between
modern lion (Panthera leo) and Panthera (spelaea) atrox, even when they
still use “leo” in the name sometimes,
which only creates more confusion.
Other important thing is that this new fossils
is older than previous discoveries of European lions, which means that it
should be beyond the 600,000 years BP mark (or 700,000 years according with
Wikipedia). With this, the evolutionary tree of Barnett et al. (2009) and Burguer et
al. (2005) should change and the separation between “spelaea” and “leo” should
be larger genetically speaking.
Now, this image from the new document of 2014 is contradictory to the study of Barnett et al.
Here, the author proposes that the Late
Pleistocene lions came from a group that evolved in Europe itself and only until
the late Pleistocene they spread to Eurasia. However this is contradictory to
the genetic bottleneck identified by Barnett and his team, which propose that
were the West Asia lions which repopulated Europe and replaced the old form (Fossilis).
It seems that at this moment, both documents
agree in the fact that Panthera atrox
was a direct descendent of the Cromerian lion (Panthera fossilis) and that the Eurasian Cave lion (Panthera spelaea) also spread from the
old Panthera fossilis in the MIS6.
Now, until we see the document itself of 2014,
we can only argue about its results. Interesting that the document of Marciszak
et al. (2013; the document of the
giant skulls) identified a direct evolutionary trait between Fossilis and Spelaea, but let’s see the new document and we will take our own conclusions.
understand now, Asad-idiot???? This new document of 2014 and the genetic document of Barnett et al. (2009) are contradictory. Which of the two do you believe???
3. Asad said: “Are you blind Guate your denying Dr. Barnett, Yamaguchi, Patterson,
Packer and now the most recent study?
Atlas lions are unique isolated from other populations, and "they
live in opposite side on continent".”
Where in the two previous documents that you
post above, says that Dr Barnett, Yamaguchi, Patterson or Packer, ARE SAYING
that Atlas lions are unique isolated from other populations????
Did you see
what it says Dr Barnett and his team (in
2009)??? Check this
Here is the image of the evolutionary tree of the three different
taxas of “lions” from the original document of Barnett et al. (2009), plus a little ad:
the DNA analysis showed that Barbary and Indian lions are about the
same, they are NOT unique, they are even more closely related than some Cave lion population between them (intra-specifically).
even more, the theory of Thapar et al.
(2013), that lions from India were originated from Africa, and that the
particular population of Gir probably came from the lions exported by the
Mughals and Alexander the great, which take them from North Africa and Persia.
Amazing corroboration!!! Barbary lions are about the
same than Indian or Iranian lions!!!! Read it, you ignorant. I have put this
THREE times here and you still denied it.
WHERE Yamaguchi is saying that Barbary lions are “unique”???
By the way,
nor Patterson or Packer said ANYTHING about Barbary lions. WHY YOU LIE
ASAD-IDIOT??? What is the point in embarrassing yourself???
4. About this documents:
* A. K.
Dutta. 1976. Occurrence of fossil lion and spotted hyena from Pleistocene
deposits of Susunia, Bankura District, West Bengal. Journal of the
Geological Society of India
G. E., 1931. The fossil Carnivora of India. Palaeontologica
Indica, 18: 1–232.
Have your read this documents???? Did you know that they finds
correspond to large Indian leopards (or even earlier Indian tigers) of the Pleistocene and not lions???
I have already
bought the book “The Story of the Asia’s Lions” of Divyabhanusinh. When I get it
here, I will scan it and you will see your EPIC FAIL!!! Are you afraid now, you
5. About the page of Petermass: http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/barbarylion.htm
a. “However, the Barbary lion is morphologically
more distinct than any of the African
lion populations (Hemmer, 1978).”
says AFRICAN, not Iranian or Indian.
b. “In 1968, a study on the skulls of the Asiatic,
Barbary, Cape, and other African lions showed that the same skull
characteristics, the very narrow postorbital bar, existed in only the Barbary
and the Asiatic lion skulls. This shows that there may have been a close
relationship between the lions from Northernmost Africa and Asia.”
SWEET, this proves that Barbary lions and Indian lions are THE SAME, again!!!
c. “It is also believed that the south-eastern
European lion (sometimes seen as a seperate subspecies Panthera leo europeae)
that became extinct at the beginning in A.D. 80-100, could have represented the
connecting link between the North African and Asiatic lions.”
corroboration of the theory of Dr Valmik Thapar. This proves that the lions
that transported Alexander the great could be this European lions (Panthera leo
europaea) and this also explain how they are so close to the Barbary lions.
WOW, THANKS TO THIS GREAT INFORMATION. Dr Valmik Thapar is every new steep more
d. “It is believed that
Barbary lions possess the same belly fold (hidden under all that mane) that
appears in the Asian lions today. (Preservation Station, 2005) There appears to be no record of contiguous populations of the two
subspecies in historic times (Nowell, Jackson, 1996).”
This is the
PERFECT way to end. Read this, the Barbary lions heve THE SAME BELLY FOLD than
the Indian lions. Sadly, the hunting of humans isolated this population from
they twin brothers of Iran and India.
page (Petermass) is the BEST evidence to prove that Barbary lions are NOT
unique. For the contrary, they state that:
Barbary, Cape, and other African lions showed that the same skull
characteristics, the very narrow postorbital bar, existed in only the Barbary
and the Asiatic lion skulls.
b. This shows that
there was a close relationship between the lions from Northernmost Africa and
Asia (also corroborated by Barnett et al. (2009) and Dubach et al. (2013).
lions possess the same belly fold (hidden under the mane) that appears in the
Asian lions today.
Barbary lions are so like the Indian lions that it is sure to say that Barbary,
West African and Indian lions are the one and same subspecies.
the way, check the two diagrams from Dubach et al. (2013).
Did I need
to say more??? The two best genetic documents
at this moment (Barnett and Dubach) shows that Barbary lions are NOT unique and
that they are the same, genetically speaking, that the lions from West Africa
6. About this final document (Examining the
Extinction of the Barbary Lion and Its Implications for Felid Conservation). They
clearly ignore the study of Barnett et al (2009, they don’t even mention it)
and they clearly don’t even knew the study of Dubach et al. (2013) which was of
February of 2013.
check this out: “…recent morphological and genetic studies consistently
differentiate northern lions (India to North Africa) from sub-Saharan African
this other document also mention that the Barbary lions (north Africa) are
closely related with those of India and these two TOGETHER are diferent from
other Sub-Saharan African lions!!! GREAT, this FINALLY prove that I am 100%
you have maid and EPIC FAIL!!! ALL your sources corroborated that Dr Valmik Thapar
and I are correct: Barbary lions are NOT unique, they share ALL they
characteristics with the Indian lions and genetically, they are the same together
with those of Gir (India) and the West of Africa.
The time to
take ownership has arrived Asad-idiot, your all throwing guesswork, misquotes and
fake evidences are clearly squashed by REAL Science!!!
I am glad
to destroy you so many times Asad. I will add all this data here:
you see how this Asad-idiot don’t even read what he/she/it puts??? The
information that he used SUPORTED the theory of Dr Thapar!!! This is amazing.
Thu, Mar 13, 2014 1:13 AM
I have not forgotten
this, check the original map:
but the same original document: https://www.catsg.org/catsgportal/cat-website/catfolk/asaleof1.htm
only the dates of the last hunted specimen are reported in India, but not the
dates of fossils or any other possible corroboration of the lions in Indian in
did you check the HUGE gap between the last CONFIRMED
(dark triangle) report
of wild Persian lions and the westernmost report of Indian lions in Pakistan???
Again, it seems that Indian lions arrived to India thanks to the intervention
of something else than the simple nature (humans?).
that already in 1996, Nowell & Jackson (1996) grouped both Barbary (North
Africa) and Indian (Asian) lions in a single group. It seems that it is now academic that Barbary lions and Indian
lions are about the same in look and in genetic.
Thu, Mar 13, 2014 10:03 AM
A long time ago a strange creature appeared in China and horrified and ate men and animals. The fast and fierce creature was called 'nien' (or 'nian'), which sounds like the Chinese word for 'year'. Neither the fox nor the tiger could fight the 'nien' effectively and in despair the people asked the lion for help.
Thu, Mar 13, 2014 1:52 PM
Asad wrote:Guate,The summation of everything you have written as a counter of the respected scientist (over 10 I lost count) is that they providing inaccurate information, and you as a business major generously providing valid proof's.1. Dr Patterson2 Dr Schaller3 Dr Yamaguchi4 Dr Barnett etc..etccThe above has agreed that the Panthera leo F, and Atrox are pretty much the same thing. The Lions in India are hybrid lions not pure Persian not pure African, not exact same as the Atlas lions. The evidence you provide that there is a void is your personal opinion.
Valmik Thapar: Natural historian, wildlife conservationistA large male tiger weighs about 200 kilogrammes"..Like tigers, snow leapards avoid conflict by intensive territorial marking... and can eat 50 to 80 kg's of meat over 3 to 4 days..for the most part adult tigers avoid each other....http://books.google.com/books?id=9Dvx6EoLwa4C&pg=PA255&dq=thapar+tigers+200+kilogrammes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KHAfU47vGsrVkQeKkYCwAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=thapar%20tigers%20200%20kilogrammes&f=falseYou have gone as far as implying Valmik is mistaken and that 227 kg is considered a very large Bengal tiger which you consider average. I guess you have it all under control.
really, don’t you get tired of been WRONG?
that lions average barely 9 ft in length, that mane of lions is related with
clmate and that Barbary lions are NO LARGER thatn East African lions.
that lions in the Serengeti are also smaller, with average weight of about 170
kg for males and 120 kg for females, that they are not even territorial in some
parts and that a male can eat up to 33 kg in a single meal, which is 20% of its
He is a
lion fan, he states that lions are heavier ON AVERAGE than tigers AT SPECIES
level. He also states that Sauraha male weight very low, but he has NEVER
worked with wild tigers and he don’t even know that wild tigers in Nepal eat
and average of 14 kg in 24 hours with a maximum of c.19 kg in that period.
He and his
team made several good DNA studies. In the last one of 2009, he stated that
modern lions (Panthera leo) and cave
lions (Panthera spelaea) are different
species (three different taxas) and that even when they are related (together
with leopard and jaguar), they are separated by no less than 600,000 years of
evolution. Besides his genetic study also proved that Barbary lions are the
same than Indian lions, and that there is no such a thing as “isolated” Barbary
where in the all documents posted by you and me, I have been wrong??? In NONE
of them, for the contrary, I have been proved right in EVERY SINGLE of them.
Do you have
read my last posts??? This clearly shows that Barbary lions are not unique.
Sorry Asad-idiot, but you are fighting a lost issue.
a. Asad-idiot say: “The above has agreed that the Panthera leo F, and Atrox are pretty much
the same thing. The Lions in India are hybrid lions not pure Persian not pure
African, not exact same as the Atlas lions. The evidence you provide that
there is a void is your personal opinion.”
but although the document of 2014 do try to prove that Panthera fossilis give origin to Panthera atrox (they are not the same thing, check the abstract again),
this study is contradictory to that of Dr Barnett and his team in 2009, which
states otherwise. So I ask, AGAIN, which of the two
contradictory studies do you believe???
thing, the lions of India are not hybrids, no one had say that, only you and
your twist mind. They are exactly the same Barbary-Persian lions, based on the
DNA, read again Barnett et al. (2009)
and Dubach et al. (2013) and stop
I don’t presented
my personal opinion, I presented the tables, diagrams and direct documents and
they prove that you are completely WRONG.
b. About Valmik
Thapar: Natural historian, wildlife conservationist
Valmik Thapar. 1989. Tigers, the secret life.
an expert, he estimated one of his male tigers at up to 220-225 kg and is MEDIUM SIZED, which means AVERAGE, but he also
states that Bengal tigers had reached 350 cm in length (over curves) and up to
275 kg in India.
Did you read, Dr
Thapar clearly states that a male Bengal tiger of medium size weight an
estimate of 220-225 kg. The figure of 200 kg is outdated and also an estimate.
However, check that he also states that there are CONFIRMED weights of up to
275 kg in India. Where you saying???
c. About the book “Wild life is Beautifull” of
know that this document is entirely based in Dr Sunqusit monograph of 1981? In
that document also from 1981, the heaviest tiger (T-105) bottomed the scale of
225 kg. So that is why Majipuria quotes this exactly figure as the maximum,
That is why
you need to know the context of the texts that you quote. You only quote this because
it serves to your agenda, but at the end, the book itself is based also in an
outdated database and a bottomed scale specimen.
d. Asad-idiot, your desperate attempts to prove
you right are just that. You have been proved grown by REAL Science and the
evidence is in your face. Don’t know that a hell are you, but you are really a
liar and person without etic. If you are a real “nurse” like you have said
previously, they you are one of the worst in the world.
this idiocy, accept your OBVIOUS DEFEAT and respect the topic (Barbary lion
vs Tsavo lion).
here are more TRUE RELIABLE data about tiger size:
between 400-500 lb (180-227 kg), obviously much larger in the extreams.
Karanth. 2003. Tiger ecology and conservation in the Indian
Sunquist. 2010. What is a tiger? Ecology and behavior.
Dinerstein. 2003. The Return of the Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the
Greater One-horned Rhinoceros.
Thu, Mar 13, 2014 2:49 PM
Thu, Mar 13, 2014 3:47 PM
Thu, Mar 13, 2014 4:45 PM
you are just a %*!+$%$. Why you continue changing the theme and posting
1. Dr Packer
is incorrect. Modern lions DON’T come from Panthera
atrox. Check the document of Barnett et al. (2009):
Why you are
no ignoring this document??? You previously accept it, but now that I have
proved that this paper prove you wrong, you now ignore it.
2. Nor Dr
yamaguchi or Schaller, Patterson, or any “countless” others are in agreement
Yamaguchi NEVER said that Panthera atrox
was the antecessor of the modern lion. Check that he worked with Barnett in his
document and BOTH proved that modern
lions HAVE NOT EVOLVED FROM PANTHERA ATROX.
NEVER SAID ANITHING about lion evolution. You are a LIAR and Dr Patterson also
naver said ANYTHING about this. Why you lie Asad-idiot. The evidence is HERE
but you STILL ignore it.
3. If the
lion is SLIGHTLY heavier than tiger at species level, What? That doesn’t make
it the largest cat. The Bengal and Amur tigers are larger than the largest lion
populations, so they are the TRUE largest cat. Proved by scientific community
(Karanth, Sunquist, Mazák).
4. Dr Mazák
based his statements in old hunting records of Amur tigers, but at the end,
check that modern research states that Amur tigers are of the same body size
and slightly lighter in weight than Bengal tigers captured by radio-collar
studies, READ THIS AGAIN:
understand it now??? Bengal tigers are heavier than Amur tigers, although they are of the same body size.
say: “Lions have much larger skull than tigers of same size, even at largest
Lions have LONGER skulls but tigers have WIDER skulls and overall, the average
difference is of only 2 to barely 3 CM!!! This is not even an important difference,
you idiot. Check your own sources before stating lies and twist information.
By the way,
you show two images of random skulls, why you don’t show a group of measurements
of skulls to show a range of sizes. Did you know the age or sex of those
skulls? You claim that lion skulls are way larger than those of tigers only
based in two skulls???
lion skull ever: 432 mm.
tiger skull ever: 413 mm.
is ONLY 1.9 cm!!! Did you know how large is 1.9 cm??? They are practically of
the same size, Asad-idiot.
By the way,
I can play the same game:
the largest skull are from tigers.
6. The YOUNG
less than 4 years old tiger of 220 kg was NOT BAITED. Do you get it??? If not,
PROVE IT, you liar.
Looooong copy-paste study that you post used CAPTIVE LIONS!!! This is NOT
reliable for comparison between wild lions, nor even between lions and tigers.
So, it is
IRRELEVANT for the discussion.
lions are variable by geography by size and prey. And this PROVES that Barbary
lions are not UNIQUE. It supposed better characteristic is based entirely in
the mane, which change according with climate. Check this out, AGAIN:
Mane variation in
It's long been known that lions
with long, full manes get the girls. Now, an innovative study based on zoo
animals all across America shows for the first time that cold temperatures help
the king of the beast grow his mane long and thick, and more appealing to
In fact, up to one-half of the
length and density of a zoo lion's mane can be attributed to temperature,
rather than nutrition, social factors, individual history, or genes, according
to a study that will be the cover story of the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Mammalogy.
Dense manes retard heat loss as would a scarf or fur
hat. Zoo lions in hot climates adapt with smaller, thinner manes. Those in
northern zoos never overheat so no reduction in their mane is necessary. Those
in southern zoos occasionally overheat, so a differential hair growth rate
keeps their manes relatively thinner. These differences in mane
conditions are not the result of natural selection. Rather, they are a sign of
a flexible trait that can vary to match local conditions.
Like a buck's antlers or a peacock's tail feathers,
the lion's mane primarily serves to attract females and intimidate male
competitors. But it comes with a cost: a full mane takes energy to grow and
maintain; gives away location to prey; makes maneuvering through bramble
difficult; harbors parasites, and, as we have said, retains heat.
Overheating explains why lions in colder climates have
longer, thicker manes: the heat-retention cost of a full mane is less for lions
in cold weather conditions than it is for lions in hot weather conditions.
"While a big mane impresses everybody, even a
small mane can be imposing in hot dry climates, where the costs of overheating
are great and most male lions have little or no mane. This is the case in
Tsavo, Kenya, where most lions are maneless," said Bruce D. Patterson, PhD, the MacArthur curator of
mammals at The Field Museum and lead author of the research.
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE ON THE LION'S MANE (PANTHERA LEO)
Lion manes represent a compromise between social
benefits and ecological costs. Mane
development of Panthera leo varies geographically with prevailing climate,
but varying genetics, behavior and social systems, and nutrition may all
influence such broad-scale correlations. We studied captive lions housed
comparably across 12 degrees of latitude in North America and correlated mane
variation with climatic, life-history, and husbandry variables. As predicted from heat-load considerations,
mane length and density were inversely correlated with temperature; color
variation was unrelated. Mane development was correlated with January but not
July conditions, suggesting a stronger response to cold than to heat. Climate-induced variation
in manes of captives accounted for up to 50% of variation seen. Developmental
effects of climate appear to be responsible for many of the taxonomic names
applied to African lions and may signify important biological
differences between modern and Pleistocene lions.
Conclusion, mane of lions is correlated with climate,
lions in colder climates, like those in USA zoos, had larger manes than those
in hotter areas. So, NO Barbary lions after all.
Slap in the face to Asad-idiot, the worst liar, that
is an insult to real Science.
9. You are
misquoting this case. The “polluted” tigers in India where only those of Dudhwa
National Park, NOT IN OTHER REGIONS OF INDIA.
However, check this out:
“To a lot of experts, genetics lies on the
fringe of conservation programmes. "The role of genetics in the
endangerment of a species is highly exaggerated," says Ullas Karanth of the Wildlife Conservation
Society of the US. He says that the ecological threats faced by vulnerable
animals like the tiger are bigger worries.”
Corbett NP, Nagarahole NP, Bandhavhgar NP, Kaziranga NP and Orang NP, among
MANY others, are completely OUT if the region of Dudhwa. The giant tigers in
those areas are 0% Amur genes. So, what is your point is showing a SINGLE and ISOLATED event like if it was a disaster?
says: “Bengal tiger weighs are
exaggerated gorged heavily as noted by Dr. Sunquist, Yamaguchi 227 kg is
considered very large considering a few kilometers away we have 145 kg
Sunderban and 160 kg at species level as 80% tigers reside in one nation.. nice
don’t noted that tigers in Nepal were heavily gorged, check this out:
Do you see,
Dr Sunquist statest that NO TIGER WAS GORGED. FACT!!!
Sundarbans tigers are no near been the 80% of the entire tiger population, that
is a HUGE LIE. Bengal tigers average 200 kg ALLREADY including Sundarbans,
Check this to:
although 160 kg is the average weight of tigers at species level, this include
the small tigers of Bali and Sumatra. But at the end, this doesn’t avoid the
fact that Amur and Bengal tigers are STILL the largest cats on Earth.
said: “height Most tigers are a whole foot short of the tallest lion, lucky to
reach within 5 inchs”
lie. Check these records:
height for lions and tigers:
Male African lions:
* 101 cm (n=50). Range: 86-109
cm. Stevenson-Hamilton (1947) – South Africa.
* 96.2 cm (n=14). Range: 81.3
cm-107 cm. Meinertzhagen (1938) – Kenya, East Africa.
* 107.1 cm
(n=42) Ferreira & Funston (2010) – Location?
* 97 cm (n=?). No range.
* 114 cm Max. recorded in the
Wild (Pitman, 1945).
* 112 cm. Max. recorded in
captivity (Wood, 1983).
Average: 100.3 cm.
Male Bengal tigers:
* 109.3 cm (n=6). Range: 104-114
cm. Brown (1893) – Purneah, India.
* 103 cm (n=2)
Range: 102-104 cm. Meinertzhagen (1938) – Southwest India.
* 100 cm (n=43). Range: 88-114
cm. Cooch Behar (1908) – Northeast India.
* 99 cm (n=42). Range: 91-112
cm. Brander (1923) – Central India.
* 93.3 cm (n=5). Range: 89-99
cm. Mazák (1983).
* 91 cm (n=?). No range.
* 114 cm Max. recorded in the
Wild (Cooch Behar (1908) – Brown (1893)).
* 118 cm Max. recorded
standing height in any big cat (Ward, 1914).
Average: 99.3 cm.
* 95 cm (n=11). Range: 82-106
cm. Kerley et al. (2005) – Sikhote-Alin ZP, Russia.
* 102 cm (n=7). Range: 96-106
cm. Mazák (1983).
* 106 cm Max. recorded in the
Wild (Kerley et al., 2005).
Average: 98.5 cm.
see, WILD tigers and lions are about THE SAME SHOULDER HEIGH and both have the
same height. Your pictures of CAPTIVE small tigers and huge CAPTIVE lions are
no evidence. The TRUE measurements in the field show the reality, tigers and
lions are the same shoulder height.
By the way,
most of this post is just a REPETITION of your other posts. You are only
copy-paste the same thing. So, I will also only copy-paste my previous answers
showing your lies.
insulting the REAL SCIENCE Asad-idiot, your words are a waste of time and have
been showing false by ALL the scientists and they documents posted here. You
are embarrassing yourself.
Thu, Mar 13, 2014 5:01 PM
Asad wrote:12. lions hunt frequently with less injury "larger more dangerous prey" in open savannah.
Asad say: “lions hunt frequently with less injury "larger more dangerous prey" in open savannah.”
Wow, check this out:
Yes, “less injury”, but all those injured and dead lions says
other thing. Jajajajajajajaja!
normal animals, not “kings” or “gods”. They are natural predators that receive injures
like any other animal. BE REAL Asad-idiot!!!
You are a
loser Asad-idiot. You can run now to your cave.
Fri, Mar 14, 2014 8:52 AM
Predators may influence
their prey populations not only through direct lethal effects, but also
through indirect behavioral changes. Here, we combined spatiotemporal
fine-scale data from GPS radio collars on lions with habitat use
information on 11 African herbivores in Hwange National Park (Zimbabwe)
to test whether the risk of predation by lions influenced the
distribution of herbivores in the landscape. Effects of long-term risk
of predation (likelihood of lion presence calculated over four months)
and short-term risk of predation (actual presence of lions in the
vicinity in the preceding 24 hours) were contrasted. The long-term risk
of predation by lions appeared to influence the distributions of all
browsers across the landscape, but not of grazers. This result
strongly suggests that browsers and grazers, which face different
ecological constraints, are influenced at different spatial and temporal
scales in the variation of the risk of predation by lions. The
results also show that all herbivores tend to use more open habitats
preferentially when lions are in their vicinity, probably an effective
anti-predator behavior against such an ambush predator. Behaviorally
induced effects of lions may therefore contribute significantly to
structuring African herbivore communities, and hence possibly their
effects on savanna ecosystems.
Lions did not apear to adjust their stalking behaviour according to the vigilance of the prey group.
Fri, Mar 14, 2014 1:27 PM
And the point is???
We were talking about Barbary
lions, but when I beet you there, you changed the theme about Panthera
atrox. Interestingly in BOTH cases I defeat you gallantly and showed that
you are a liar that doesn’t even understand scientific papers of genetic
graphics. However, now you change the theme AGAIN with lion hunting techniques???
Check that all this papers
only said that lions don’t get injured WITH WILDEBEEST ONLY. With all the other prey,
they are DO INJURED in hunts. This is normal in ANY predator. Don't be biased Asad-idiot, lions are just ANIMALS like all the others, no "kings" or "gods" like you think in your sick mind.
Tiger also adjust their
stalking behavior according to the vigilance of the prey group and are also flexible
and will accommodate to the prey size, demographics, hunting technique that differ
Asad copy-paste this: “We
found that lions encountered preferred
prey species far more frequently than expected based on their abundance, and
they hunted these species more frequently than expected based on this higher
encounter rate. Lions
responded variably to non-preferred and avoided prey species throughout the
predatory sequence, although they hunted avoided prey far less frequently than
expected based on the number of encounters of them. We conclude that actions of
throughout the predatory behavioural sequence, but particularly early on, drive
the prey preferences that have been documented for this species. Once a hunt is initiated, evolutionary
adaptations to the predator-prey interactions drive hunting success.”
the same apply to tigers. What is the point of all this???
I did not see ANY advantage of the lion
over the tiger in ANY of these statements. Both tigers and lions are excellent predators,
what is the point???
Asad said: “Lion is a superior hunter's given the open environment competition which
is completely missing "almost in totality" for the tigers closed
environment. (schaller, packer, Sunquist). Lions hunt larger prey than tigers,
and although killed at times by the dangerous buffalo, most of the time avoid
injury or bring killed from wildebeest to the largest land mammal elephant.”
That is a HUGE LIE AND
MISSINTERPRETATION. Tigers are also the supreme hunter. The only diference is
that lions are adaptable to open enviroments and tigers to the forest, but BOTH
are the top of the food change in they respective habitats.
Besides, tigers also live
in open or semi-open environments, don’t you know about Ranthambore tigers or
the whole habitat of the Caspian tigers???
Tiger hunt smaller prey
than lions ON AVERAGE, and this is because they don’t need to hunt in group,
that is NOT a disadvantage at all, it is simple Ecology!!!
Wildebeest are the easy
prey for lions, so they are cowards because they choose it instead of
buffalo??? No, they just hunt them because it is the most abundant prey in most
of they habitats. Predators are just searching prey and they will hunt what
they can found, that is all!!!!
Don’t be biased Asad, stick with the theme of
the Barbary lions, although I have already PROVED with Scientific evidence and
documents from the top scientists that they are NO LARGER than any lion
population and that they are the same than Indian lions based on the genetic
By the way, tigers also
hunt elephants and they do this ALONE or in pairs, while lions only hunt
elephants in great groups. THAT is an important point Asad-idiot.
Mon, Mar 17, 2014 6:06 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.