Talk:Lion

lions are chickens and the government has been hiding it!!

|action4=FAR |action4date=13:32, 14 April 2011 |action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lion/archive1 |action4result=kept |action4oldid=424015797

|maindate=May 24, 2008 |currentstatus=FA }}

Archives
Untitled Talk:Lion/Archive 1 Talk:Lion/Archive 2 Talk:Lion/Archive 3 Talk:Lion/Archive 4

This article not to mention the lenght of skull of the lion

The book A field guide to the carnivores of the world ISBN 978-2-603-01856-9 written by Luke Hunter Priscilla Barret, published by New Holland Publishers in 2011 mention that it is the lion that has the greatest length of skull among the big cats and ahead in this area the siberian tiger( which is the subspecies of tiger with the largest skull with a skull length of 37,9 cm on average) with a skull length of 42 cm on average, and a record length of skull of 91 cm held by a lion killed in Burkina Faso in West Africa in 2008.

--~rourébrébé80.15.124.56 (talk)

Further, I think (but am not certain) that the skull picured in the article is not actually a lion's skull. Maybe a bear skull? --170.145.0.100 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC) The skull is not a lions but bear skull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwolf2242 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

After comparing it to some other photos, the dentition, shape of the infraorbital foramen, shape of the mandible, and overall elongated shape of the skull make me pretty sure that this is not a lion skull, but rather some species of bear. I don't want to change it myself without some confirmation from an expert, because I'm just a random layperson. To be clear, the image in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lionskull-tobuzoo-2012.jpg --170.145.0.100 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This picture is definitely not a lion skull. It is some species of Ursid. Tooth number, molar shape are obviously not felid. This needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.182.97 (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The cited article says "Le contour de la tète" this is French for "the circumference of the head", since "contour" is also used in English and has a similar meaning it is confusing that it got mistranslated, mistakes happen I guess. To set the record straight remember that among carnivorans (dogs, bears, cats and kin) only the largest individuals of the largest bear taxa surpass 50cm in skull length along with the extinct beardog Amphicyon inges, if you see mentions of felids with skulls bigger than that, be suspicious of its veracity. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

References

-rourébrébé-80.11.4.62 (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Hebrew text in the etymology section should be altered/removed ("The Hebrew word לָבִיא (lavi) may also be related.[9]"). The Hebrew word for "lion" is not "lavi," it's arieh, which is rendered in Hebrew text as: אריה

It appears as if there are sources that say that it may be related --Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The source cited is not available online. Heatherly84 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the Hebrew spoken today is the result of deliberate efforts to revitalise a once-almost-extinct language and has futher changed over time anyway - it is significantly different to the ancient Hebrew used when Jewish people would have encountered asiatic lions in their historical range.

This article does discuss in some depth the variety of scriptural Hebrew words for lion and mentions lavi with reference to the specific scripture. Article: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_12564.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lion's weight

I think that in the intro it should be introducing my mentioning that exceptionally large males exceed 7000 lbs. I feel that anyone that wants that there is biased. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be farts. That's not true at all. A lion over 9000 lbs is record sized not. We don't always need to mention the weight of an animal in the intro, but if everyone insists for this one, it should say "with some males exceeding 1000 lbs". Golfcourseairhorn (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC) joany brown owns a lion he lives in jamaca. which is neither misleading nor biased. The statement is simply intended to illustrate how large the animal is. Further down, in the Characteristics section, it is noted that "Weights for adult lions range between 150–250 kg (330–550 lb) for males and 120–182 kg (264–400 lb) for females." By all means make a constructive suggestion if you think the lead needs to be changed. Thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you present the Elephant article with "with some males exceeding 16,000 lbs"? The Polar bear article with "with some males exceeding 1760 lbs"? The American alligator article with "with some males exceeding 15 feet"? The Hippo article with "with some males exceeding 9,000 lbs"? Golfcourseairhorn (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The heaviest lion ever recorded was not simba(826lbs).Lions like simba (826 lbs) are being shown to be not as uncommon as most would think, many other lions rival and even surpasses his size and weight, such as Woody (800 lbs); Rutledge (806 lbs); Rhino (850 lbs); Prince (900 lbs); Peter jacksons lion (930 lbs); lion named ali (1,000 lbs) Ethopian courts lion (1,000 lbs) Sultan (1,000 lbs).And sultan was biggest of them all only 46 kilos lighter than the biggest siberian tiger ever tyka(1100lbs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpsjeffers (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC) bye!

Edit request on 10 December 2011

85.185.14.120 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Got a source other than your friend? Seems to be original research--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

"was a man-eater," needs a reference. Section "Characteristics," paragraph four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcherney (talk • contribs) 04:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It already has one, the "Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats". See the inline citation at the end of the sentence. ~ Kimelea (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lion Skin (question, not correction)

In the "White Lions" section, it says "They are not albinos, having normal pigmentation in the eyes and skin."

That sentence made me wonder: What IS normal skin pigmentation for a lion? I can see that there is black or pink (or both) skin on their lips, eye rims, and nose, but if someone were to spread the fur on a lion's leg or back or belly, what color would the skin below be?

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A cat's skin is the same colour, more or less, as the fur on top. Pale fur has pale skin underneath. If memory serves (I have seen a lion with a shaved patch, but it was some time ago), a lion's skin is beigey pink. If you shaved a tiger, it would still have black stripes where the stripes grow in the fur :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Typo

In "hybrids" it first correctly references "Tigon", then later misspells it "Tiglon".

Hm, you're right about the inconsistency. The link says "tigon", the first sentence says "tiglon", and the last sentence of the section says "tigon" again. However, the link to Tigon actually redirects to our article Tiglon. That article says: "A tiglon, tigon, or tion (not tigron) is a hybrid cross..."

On this article we cite the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which calls the animal a tigon but says "or tiglon", and Wild Cats of the World by Guggisberg, which I don't have a copy of. I dug out my big cat books and found another reference in Big Cats: Kingdom of Might by Tom Brakefield, which calls the animal a tiglon. Basically, both terms are used, though I don't know where we're getting tion from. I have edited the section on this article to make the spelling consistent with our article on the animal - thanks for pointing it out.

By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end, thanks. :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2012

i find the section on purpose and use of lion mane to be incomplete. its purpose is said to only be that of appearance -for mating and protecting territory. however the mane also has the purpose of protecting the lion from injury (an armor from teeth and claw from its most formidable threat- another male lion). this is further supported by data offered later in the text that lions with thicker mane reproduce more (thicker mane is a favorable trait).

67.190.103.158 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. mabdul 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The literature seems pretty much in favour that the mane is selective for all three reasons (intimidating males, attracting females and protection in fights). The debate is about which (if any) is the primary cause of the mane being selected for.

"The mane is thought to be visually intimidating in contests between males while serving as body armour during fights, and also to have a function in attracting females" - Evolution of the mane and group-living in the lion (Panthera leo): a review (Nobuyuki Yamaguchi1*, Alan Cooper2, Lars Werdelin3 and David W. Macdonald)

"Mane length signals fighting success" "By assessing mane length and darkness, males avoid healthier, older, more aggressive individuals, thereby lowering the potential costs of fighting. By preferring males with darker manes, females gain mature, better-fed, more aggressive mates, and their preference confers direct fitness benefits. Dark-maned males are more likely to survive 12 months after being wounded" -Sexual Selection, Temperature, and the Lion’s Mane (Peyton M. West* and Craig Packer)

"the mane might serve as intimidation, advertisement, and (or) physical protection. The manes of residents may deter trespassers and intimidate nomadic males contemplating a takeover attempt on a pride by serving as a visual signal of a territorial male’s control of a particular area. Females may be more likely to subordinate themselves to males with impressive manes and (or) might select males based on their mane condition. Finally, some have proposed that the mane offers physical protection to the vital head and neck areas against the teeth and claws of competing males (Schaller 1972; Ewer 1973; Bertram 1978; Myers 1987). The principal, or overriding, function of the mane remains unclear, because some of these social hypotheses are nonexclusive and there are few data available to test them against each other. - Mane variation in African lions and its social correlates (Roland W. Kays and Bruce D. Patterson)

The most recent and conclusive study on it I have seen is "Wounding, mortality and mane morphology in African lions, Panthera leo" (PEYTON M. WEST* et al) which has the following summary:

"Our results suggest that the current protective benefits of the mane are minimal, but they do not exclude the possibility of past protective benefits. Forehead manes may have initially evolved as protection and later taken on a signalling function that led to the mane’s exaggeration. It is also possible that the entire mane evolved initially as protection, but that lion fighting behaviour subsequently changed. Studies of fighting behaviour in other felids, particularly the lion’s closest relative, the tiger, P. tigris, may provide a better basis for comparison; if tigers target the shoulders, necks and chests along with the forehead, or if injuries to these areas also cause high mortality, the necessity for protection to these areas would be supported. Tigers and other maneless felids might also have protective dermal shields; if so, the location of these shields should provide clues about the areas most in need of protection. Regardless of the lion mane’s original function, protective benefits are not sufficient to explain the maintenance of the trait; rather, the key benefit of the mane appears to derive from its function as a signal of male condition."

So manes do provide protection, but not in fights between lions as they have evolved to attack other parts of the body (probabaly because the mane is effective protection). Because of this and the fact that they also have other benefits, the primary driver of mane evolution is probably no longer it's protective effect. Perhaps the article could mention something along those lines? NickPriceNZ (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how you would like the article to be edited. Are you saying you want to reword the content to say the mane is currently existing for attraction of females? Greedo8 14:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's misleading (and almost certainly false) to say that the lion mane has no protective purpose. Clarification would be much better and is not that complicated. The main points are that

1. It is widely accepted amongst zoologists that the mane evolved for protective purposes. 2. Male lions now avoid attacking the neck when fighting one another, so the only studied advantages they get from the mane are those of intimidation of other males and preferential selection from females. Summary: The mane is protective - Male lions just down't attack the area protected by it.

-Nick 47.72.242.60 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

P. l. melanochaita

The article states:

P. l. melanochaita, known as the Cape lion, became extinct in the wild around 1860. Results of mitochondrial DNA research do not support the status as a distinct subspecies. It seems probable that the Cape lion was only the southernmost population of the extant P. l. krugeri.

But that is a wrong way to put it, since the Cape Lion was named first, which gives it priority over P. l. krugeri. P. l. krugeri are therefore populations of P. l. melanochaita, not the other way around. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Now the article states "although one of these, the Cape lion, formerly described as Panthera leo melanochaita, is probably invalid." Yet again, this is wrong, as P. l. melanochaita has many years priority over P. l. krugeri. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Lion Speed

Maximum speed: 35 mph over 50 yds. ( 56 km/h. over 46 m.) Biggest Jump: 12 ft. (3.7 m.) vertical, 36 ft. (10.8 m.) horizontal[1].

The lions are naturally fast but they have the same speed of running as tigers and leopards between 30 and 40 mph maximum and they are slower than many of their preys. The zebras, reach speeds of 60 km/h and the wildebeest reach 70 km/h. The lions hunt only the individuals disabled animals (females in gestation, youngs, patients, olds, Woundeds) who are not very fast and lively. The night, the lions have the advantage on preys because they sees better in the black, the gnus, wart hogs and the zebras run only to 40 km/h (25 mph) at night, even the individuals in maid physical conditions because they have no good night-vi eg my mummy ew, the night is really the kingdom of the lions who fart i call them fartinayo.

I have already seen several hunting scenes in broadcast animal documentaries, and I was able to notice that the zebras are a little faster than the lions. I saw exactly 3 different scenes, or a small group of zebras to run to a crazy speed and to sow the lioness to experiment without great difficulty, I even saw 3 differents scenes with zebras escaping the lions, which shows the not success of lionesses in the day, in the hunting, when animals are in maid physical conditions. I also saw not successes, on Giraffes, Buffalos, Wildebeests, Grant's gazelles and Thomson, Impalas, Topis, Elands, and even Wart Hogs. I saw certain wart hogs sowing two lionesses, preys are still better adapted has the running that the predators and in more they hold better their top speeds, they are also stronger in stamina.

At night on the other hand the lions have a better of success in the hunting, because preys have no good view contrary in the day while the view and the speed of the lions stays there even in the darkness.--85.170.228.86 (talk) 13:18, 222 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the second picture of Group organization there are 2 males and a female, and it says 1 male and 2 females. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.246.129 (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Group organization Edit request

In the second picture of Group Organization there are 2 males and a female, but it says two females and a male.

Addis Ababa lion

"A team of international researchers has provided the first comprehensive DNA evidence that the Addis Ababa lion in Ethiopia is genetically unique and is urging immediate conservation action to preserve this vulnerable lion population." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121011085336.htm FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. Will read properly and digest and add later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems they're not having a good time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek5MU3Lf0LM FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Captive Lions

It is rather unfortunate and sad to see obese "pet" (of the lodge owners) / captive lions from the exclusive Okonjima as the main images for the article. I can understand captive animals as the main images of wildlife articles if they are rare or there are no photographs from the wild, but commons has metric tons of photographs of wild and free lions from all over Africa. (Khubus (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

Talk Page contents

Does anyone know how to make a contents box appear on this page? Is there any reason to not have one? LookingGlass (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference requests

I have placed an inline tag to illustrate where I think references would benefit the statements made. I also noticed that a number of sections in the article seem to rely on one source: Schaller. I have added a message on one of these sections, requesting additional sources. The references to Schaller are made in a "non-wiki" style so at first I couldn't find the reference at all. Although the book referred to is detailed: Schaller, George B. (1972)." The Serengeti lion: A study of predator-prey relations", these details, or at least some of them, should be included in the references themselves.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations LookingGlass (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

See the "short citations" section. The way in which this is cited is fine for a FA. LittleJerry (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

congo lion needs a link to its wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Video of lions mating

I found a Flickr video of lions mating at Ngorongoro Conservation Area. The audio can be left out, but the video is somewhat "polluted" by the people and I do not know how to crop them out (if that's even possible). Would it nevertheless be useful? Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like there would be some possible copyright issues. Greedo8 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article?

Although this article is assessed as FA, I still find one [date missing] tag, one [clarification needed] tag, one [citation needed] tag and some ISBN errors. Someone pls fill them up, else the supporting claims may be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh - this article is a high-traffic one and suffers a steady rate of erosion....will take a look later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Speed

I could not find the lion's sprinting speed anywhere within this so-called "featured" article, despite it being a huge part of the animal's visual aspect—at least, that which is seen by the public. Lame! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

unclear caption

I'm guessing "Male lions are generally more likely to share food with cubs than with lionesses, unless they have caught it, they rarely share their own catches with others" means: males rarely share their own catches with others, and are generally more likely to share food with cubs than with lionesses, except when the lioness catches the prey. —rybec 02:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add this larger resolution picture to this file.

I could not do it because the article is locked.

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Christian_VIII_og_Caroline_Amalie_i_salvingsdragt.jpg

The current photo is too small and does not show the lions well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 12/28/13

The statement that female lions do all the hunting has been proven false because of the fact that male lions hunt with the pack but female lions do a lot of the hunting: https://www.google.com/search?q=male+lions+hunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattkohnen (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Mfuwe Man-eater

The only source of this incident comes from a book that may not be credible. Unlike the Tsavo man-eaters, I can find no research done on this lion or the supposed attacks. I suggest the removal of this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedo8 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2014

There's a small typo in the image series of the baboons up the tree under the Hunting and Diet subsection. The third image reads 2 of 3, but should be 3 of 3. Ross.mulcare (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

When was the last wild Barbary Lion killed?

In this article we have:

as the last wild Barbary lion was killed in Morocco in 1922. (Nowell, Kristin; Jackson, Peter (1996). "Panthera Leo" (PDF). Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. pp. 17–21. ISBN 2-8317-0045-0)

Where as in Barbary Lion we have:

The last of its kind was shot in the western Maghreb in 1942 near the Tizi n'Tichka pass. (Black, S. A., Fellous, A., Yamaguchi, N., Roberts, D. L. (2013). Examining the Extinction of the Barbary Lion and Its Implications for Felid Conservation. PLoS ONE 8(4): e60174).

This looks like there might be an inconsistency. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

I think we should use the latest source (the one from 2013). Greedo8 15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Poor Barbary lions :~ BigCat82 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Pronoun usage in article

Throughout the article, lions are referred to with the inconsiderate pronoun "it", in all cases. While, when the sex is ambiguous, "it" seems agreeable, "they" would be less demeaning and chauvinistic. Especially concerning to me are instances where the sex of the lion is clearly known (e.g. when discussing the ethology of male and female lions), yet they are still regarding as objects. This is concerning to me, and while it seems like a small issue, it is important that style be improved wherever possible. 2620:104:E001:A011:ACD1:C701:77ED:BD37 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of the issue? Could you then explain what changes you would like to make for each example? Thanks. Greedo8 17:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism overlooked?

Why is the Conservation Status listed as "Extinct"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.130.99 (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, status restored! AshLin (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014

The first image[2] of a "roaring lioness" under the section "Hunting & Diet" does not show a roaring, but a yawning lioness.

For further reference on lion facial experessions see: --85.1.148.207 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - have removed the image as the article is stuffed with images as it is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually we can't tell from the picture if the lioness is roaring or yawning... But I agree with Cas Liber that there are too many images in the article, making page loading for mobile readers difficult. Besides a closeup of a roaring/yawning lioness is in the article already. Big Cats - talk 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

Cite 79 uses a source that is already a general source. Please fix this. 155.138.246.147 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) 155.138.246.147 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@BigCat82: that ref was added by you here. Could you make it consistent with the other refs for Schaller (refs 61-66) if you know the page number? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for pointing it out I will fix it. Big Cats - talk 07:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed :) Big Cats - talk 12:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Lions are pride of India. They are on national emblem of India, called as Lion Capital of Ashoka and `Ashoka Stambha (Pillar)` in Indian languages. Source: Constitution of India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka Milind.wakale (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

Hi.Iam a lion fan.My name is Hasnain.Iam 20 years old.I wanted to talk about the biggest lion ever in captivity.Many people say it was simba weighing 375kg(826lbs).That would be dwarf if you compare with the biggest tiger in history who was tyka weighing 499kg(1100lbs).I have found that simba was just one of the biggest lions ever.I have found that lions can reach 900lbs and even more weight.In fact,the biggest lion ever was Sultan who weighed 1000lbs.That's only 46 kilos lighter than tyka.That's not a big difference.

I want people to know about the beauty of the king of beasts.The following link tells that there are lions who have surpassed simba's weight. http://teamauthority.myfastforum.org/African_Lion_vs_Grizzly_Bear_about729.html Kindly please accept my request to edit this page

Hzai491 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please cite reliable sources to back up your request - you have cited "A comic based team forum" i.e. a blog, which is not a reliable source. - Arjayay (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Lion cf. African Lion

I have found this article a little confusing in its title. There is only one species of extant lion and several sub-species. This article is about the single species, the lion, also known as the African lion. So why is the name of this article not "African lion", or, why does it not mention this in the very first sentence?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"African Lion" redirects to this page. I am unsure what else you are asking, could you clarify? Greedo8 15:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the opening sentence to how I believe it should be. Is this incorrect?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know the edit you made is correct. Thanks! Greedo8 16:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers!__DrChrissy (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's incorrect to state it's also called African lion, as there are wild lions in India. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That depends on the subject of the article which is the question I have tried to raise above. If the article is only about the lion that lives in Africa than I think it is correct to say it is also called the African Lion. If it is about lions in general, I agree it may not be appropriate. However, the taxobox states the article is about P. leo the species. The Asiatic lion is a sub-species.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course this is about Panthera leo the whole species. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well then, why is it incorrect to say this is the African lion?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Because there is the subspecies of the Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica. In other words: on the one hand, if you talk about the African lion (which anyways does not really exist as such, but consist of various subspecies), the Asiatic subspecies is not included. On the other hand, if you talk about the whole species Panthera leo (as does the article) this includes the Asiatic subspecies and can therefore not be called the African lion. Robuer (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I follow that reasoning. But if the "African lion" does not exist, we should perhaps make this clear in the article?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the first couple of sentences to clarify this - comments are welcome.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, i found the following on the Homepage of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group in the Profile called "African Lion" (there is a separate one for the Asiatic lion): "Previously lions were divided into two subspecies: the African lion (Panthera leo leo) and the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica). However, based on several recent genetic studies, the lion (Panthera leo) is due for taxonomic revision. The studies indicate that lions from Asia and West and Central Africa are more closely related than lions from Eastern and Southern Africa. These two main divisions of lions are not homogeneous as there is genetic subdivision within each, with more genetic variation and deeper divergences within the Eastern and Southern branch than within the Asian plus West and Central African one." I guess the statement in the first sentence could also be mentioned in the article for clarification on where the term "African lion" actually comes from? Or what do you think? Unfortunately the Website only gives a list of references but not which statement is from which source.__Robuer (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hunting in packs v. hunting alone

I may have missed it, but is there a term for animals that hunt in packs like lions and wolves -- as opposed to animals that hunt alone? I think it would a good idea to incorporate that concept into this article. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The term is "cooperative hunting".__DrChrissy (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

The following phrase makes it appear that William of Malmesbury was the one keeping the lions. Also, the Palace was a hunting lodge until Henry II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Palace):

Population and conservation status -- In captivity:

"stocked with animals from an earlier menagerie started in 1125 by Henry I at his palace in Woodstock, near Oxford; where lions had reportedly been stocked by William of Malmesbury."

The phrase would better read:

"stocked with animals from an earlier menagerie started in 1125 by Henry I at his hunting lodge in Woodstock, near Oxford (the lodge later becoming Woodstock Palace) -- the stocking of lions was reported by William of Malmesbury."

Fewwiggle (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fewwiggle:, you should be able to edit the page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Also, Casliber, Fewwiggle only has 9 edits. 10 are required for autoconfirmed status. Stickee (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Add a new section?: Human-lion conflict

I am currently working on a new section about human-lion conflict, specifically livestock depredation. Thoughts on if this should go under this page or be a separate page?JuliaD123 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015

it says "during a mating bout, which could last several days, the couple copulates twenty to forty times a day".

This seems really extreme, and there is no reference.

I tried to check by looking for info anywhere else but it is hard because other sites have copied this 'fact' from Wikiepdia.

I used a tool called 'wikiblame' and found out it was added here [3] in 2006, without a ref.

I think it is an extreme claim so I suggest removing it unless someone has a good reference.

88.104.24.140 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I added a citation needed tag to give people the chance to look at it, if it stays this way we can remove it. Kharkiv07^Talk 13:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please change "Behind only the tiger, the lion is the second largest living felid in length and weight." to "Second to the tiger, the lion is the second largest living felid in length and weight." Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit

"Behind only the tiger, the lion is the second largest living felid in length and weight." should be changed to: "Second only to the tiger...." Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Maneless Lion image

Hi, it looks to me that the image that is supposedly of a maneless lion actually appears to be a lion that has been abused. The lion appears to have been shaved, and possibly injured, judging by the irregularity of the fur, what appear to be flies, and the appearance of what closely resembles portions of a mane that have been clipped. I think somebody who knows about lions ought to examine the image, and possibly remove it. 76.174.237.125 (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.adelaide.edu.au/acad/publications/papers/Barnett%20PRS%20lions.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130508104713/http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Ice-Age-iLion-Mani-is-worlds-earliest-figurative-sculpture/28595 to http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Ice-Age-iLion-Mani-is-worlds-earliest-figurative-sculpture/28595

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of "big cats"

The lead sentence of this article describes the lion as "one of the five big cats in the genus Panthera", with big cats linking to a Wikipedia article stating that only 4 of the 5 cats in this genus (the snow leopard being excluded) are generally considered big cats. This contradiction ought to be resolved in one way or another. Since it involves a subject only peripherally related to lions, my default would be to defer to the page on big cats, but I'll wait to give someone more knowledgeable than me a chance to address this. JudahH (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Would deleting the word "five" solve the problem? It strikes me that omitting this detail might be better than misinforming the reader. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be in favor of deleting the word "five". The source used in the big cat article is very poor, and the statement appears to be unsourced in this article unless I'm missing something. @Casliber: Do you have any notion on this? --Laser brain (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I tend to agree, the number is somewhat tangential to the discussion anyway, so I have removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Longevity

Less a question of what to include, but where to include it: So far the lead mentions that wild males can reach an age of 10-14 years. And under 6.1 In captivity, the example of Apollo, who reached an age of 22 in Honolulu Zoo is given. I think more information could be given about the longevity. For example Nowell & Jackson compile information that in the wild, "males generally 12 (Hanby and Bygott 1991), and up to 16 years (Smuts et al. 1978), females generally 15-16 (Hanby and Bygott 1991), and up to 18 years (Bertram 1975a); [Captivity] average 13 years, but up to 25-30 (Guggisberg 1975)". To be precise, Guggisberg states for captivity that "Twenty-five years is sometimes given as the maximum, but there exists a record of one attaining an age of about thirty years in the Cologne Zoo." But as said in the beginning: Where would you put this information in the article? I didn't really find the fitting pl