Talk:Lion/Archive 6

Finding words
Can I ask how it is that you have been unable to find "Northern lions" and "Southern lions" in this document by Manuel et al., even with the function of "CTRL F", while double-reverting my edits in this article, in Panthera leo melanochaita, and in Panthera leo leo , while under the false impression that the phrases "Northern lion" and "Southern lion" were used "ONLY in combination with the word LINEAGE, or that "They used 'southern / northern LINEAGE' but NOT 'southern / northern lion'"?
 * "Northern lion" and "Northern lions" (which is not paired with the word 'lineage') each occur 2 times in the section "Results and Discussion"
 * "Northern lion" and "Northern lions" each occur once in the subsection "Population History of Modern Lions" (in which "Northern lion" is paired with "lineages", but only in this case)
 * "Northern lions" occurs once in the subsection "Inbreeding in Lions",
 * "Northern lion clade" occurs once in the subsection "Implications for Conservation"
 * "Southern lions" (which is not paired with the word 'lineage') occurs once in the subsection "Inbreeding in Lions" Leo1pard (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC); edited 11:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have decided to focus on black-footed cats or cats in ancient Egypt instead. What's interesting about your double-reversions in this article, Panthera leo melanochaita and Panthera leo leo, all of which were done using WP:Twinkle, is that:
 * At first, after I told you about using "CTRL F" to search for "northern lion" and "southern lion" in the document by Manuel et al., you said "They used 'southern / northern LINEAGE' but NOT 'southern / northern lion' in the article for P. l. melanochaita, which makes it appear that you put in "northern" or "southern" in the search box, without putting in "lion", and thus you saw "northern lineage" or "southern lineage", but not "northern lion" or "southern lion", but then
 * When editing P. l. leo and this article, you said "They did NOT, but ONLY in combination with LINEAGE", which implies that you did not pay attention to the first instance of the phrase "northern lion", because it occurs as "northern lions", not as "northern lion lineage", and likewise, that you didn't pay attention to the instance of "southern lion" appearing as "southern lions", not as "southern lion lineage"!
 * Why did you make such contradictory statements, or have such a change of attitude about whether or not the phrases "northern lion" and "southern lion" existed in that document, in a matter of less than 6 minutes, as if you were in a haste to revert someone else's edits, like I see you were elsewhere, all using WP:Twinkle, especially after talked to you about your habit of repeatedly reverting other people's edits? Leo1pard (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you telling me that I have been working on black-footed cat? I also know that I did !! And this had priority over answering your questions, as I had nominated this page for GA. It just passed --, BhagyaMani (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re your questions: I did search Manuel et al. (2020) for the keywords 'northern' and 'southern', but found them in combination with 'lineage', 'lion clade', 'group', but NOT implying a subspecific name that YOU read into this. I still don't think that using common names for these 2 subspecies is important. This article provides a host of info that is far more relevant to add to the respective lion pages than (assumed) names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So you didn't see "northern lions" or "southern lions", just bits "in combination with 'lineage', 'lion clade', 'group', but NOT implying a subspecific name"? Don't be too sure, because just as Ji H. Mazák referred to P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica respectively as "Mainland Asia tiger" and "Sunda Island tiger" in 2008 (albeit before the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group officially recognised them as subspecies in 2017, barring a subsequent study by CSG members Stephen O’Brien, Shu-Jin Luo and Carlos Driscoll in 2018), Marc de Manuel et al. referred to P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita and "northern" and "southern lions" respectively, and like I told, the issue of subspecies of lions is linked with those of tigers, because the main CSG recognised only 2 subspecies of lions in 2017, as with for tigers, but then, just as some CSG members (O’Brien, Luo and Driscoll) rebelled against the classification of 2 subspecies for tigers, by insisting on there being 6 monophyletic clades of tigers, or 6 living subspecies of tigers, in 2018, we now have a study which suggests that the taxonomic position of Central African lions may need to be revised, and this study was done by people, including CSG members O’Brien and Nobuyuki Yamaguchi, so watch out for what's going on within the CSG! Leo1pard (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Lion origins
, I don't know why you're insisting that the earliest lions did not originate from Africa, even though your source (Werdelin) clearly states that they did. It did not say that the lion fossils found in Tanzania were merely modern lions. You have also cited Tseng (2014) for the claim that lions originated in Asia but what it actually states is "This is then followed by later Miocene dispersal of the lion–leopard–jaguar lineage and then Pliocene dispersal of the fossil ‘lions’. According to the DEC models, the last two dispersals probably occurred from Africa-Palearctic or Holarctic ancestral geographical ranges." Its stating that fossil lions could have originated anywhere in Africa or the Holoarctic. I personally think this information is unhelpful to readers and we should merely state that the earliest known lion fossils are found in Africa. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there are several issues here. Firstly, the earliest fossil lions are 2 million years ago in Africa. This might not be the earliest lion. Secondly, the genetic evidence on lineages (Johnson et al, 2006, Li et al, 2017) suggests a possible earlier Asian origin, but one without fossil evidence. A third issue is that the modern lions can be traced to a more recent African ancestor (~250 kya?). This is just off the top of my head so I'd need to check the details. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re 'secondly': this is what I understood too, given that all authors agree about Panthera having radiated from Central Asia, with the leo lineage having migrated south / southwest, and the 2 cave lion lineages towards north, northwest and northeast; and that the Olduvai fossils are attributed to leo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor suggestion - Melbourne Zoo photo description
Hi, just a minor edit suggestion for the Melbourne Zoo lion photo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#/media/File:Lion_-_melbourne_zoo.jpg.

The description is emotive, saying that the lion is enjoying the moment. No other photo uses this emotive language. We also have no idea if the emotion is accurate, maybe the lion is just tired and yawning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaizoku-D (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020
This line seems grammatically weird:

> Lions also enter waterways, evidenced by the occasional lion claw found in crocodile stomachs.[138]

If it's saying Crocodiles sometimes kill and eat lions, something like:

> Crocodiles may also kill Lions who enter waterways, evidenced by the occasional lion claw found in crocodile stomachs.[138] 70.186.123.3 (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternate purposes of the mane
On one hand, the main purpose of the mane is considered to be playing a role in sexual attraction towards females. On the other hand, the mane's length is considered to signal fighting success in male–male relationships, with it acting as protection for the neck and throat in territorial fights with rivals, and I've seen it myself, not just in fights between male lions, but also between lions and tigers in captivity. Tigers are supposed to have longer canines and stronger bite-forces than lions, yet I've seen plenty of cases where tigers failed to kill lions with their regular method of killing, that is to bite the throat or neck. If the manes did not offer any protection for the lions' throats or necks, then those lions should have been doomed when the tigers aimed for their throats or necks! Leo1pard (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC); edited 12:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The mane being neck protection is no longer valid. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, because the mane has been seen to be a form of protection, contrary to what this reference says, and the case of one reference contradicting another means WP:Conflicting sources, so we have to take a WP:Neutral POV. But as it is, you missed something in the given source:

"Even though today manes don't seem to offer protection, West says a protective role could have been the reason the trait evolved in the first place. In the early evolution of the trait, males may have gone straight for the neck, making individuals with manes harder to attack and thus more favored by natural selection. As evolution continued and more and more males developed manes, attacking the neck area would no longer have been an effective fighting strategy, causing lions to try for the back side instead."

Leo1pard (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC); edited 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * She said "could have". We should mention the function that has the most evidence. LittleJerry (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, let's finish the discussion first. Not just that, even Peyton West et al. could not refute the idea held by Joubert and others that the mane at least made it hard for opponents to kill male lions by trying to bite their necks. What West et al. actually said is that lions were shown to attack rivals at their backs or hindquarters, whether or not they were maned, therefore that the presence of the mane did not influence their style of fighting style, not that the manes cannot protect the lions' necks at all! You can even ask, who like me has seen fights between lions and tigers, and I believe that he would agree with me that if it wasn't for their thick manes (not think or scanty manes, like the juvenile Huerte, or what happened at Ankara Zoo), then the male lions in those fights should have been doomed when the tigers (which are considered to have stronger bites, besides longer canines) aimed for their nacks, like this leopard, right Tijkil?

According to Christiansen, Wroe et al., tigers have higher average bite forces (such as at the canine tips) than lions. The bite force adjusted for body mass allometry (BFQ) for tiger is 127, while that for lion is 112. Tigers have well-developed sagittal crests and coronoid processes, providing muscle attachment for their strong bites. Tigers also have exceptionally stout teeth, and the canines are the longest and biggest among all living felids (barring hybrids like the liger), measuring from 7.5 to 10 cm in length, and are larger and longer than those of a similar-sized lion, probably because tigers need to bring down larger prey alone than lions, which usually hunt large prey in groups, according to Sunquist & Sunquist, and World Animal Foundation Leo1pard (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC); edited 08:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Could have. May be. Perhaps. : This page is NOT the place to speculate ! NOR rely on pers. comms. with other editors ! Readers have access to both relevant articles presenting research methods + results, and can speculate themselves, privately, after reading the full versions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is basically confirmed that lions tend to avoid the necks when fighting each other, preferring instead the hindquarters or the backs, and that manes make it at least difficult to bite the neck of male lions with thick manes. Leo1pard (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What we discuss here, is the CONTENT of the section on main page, but not what is basically.... The images do not contribute ANYthing to this discussion on content. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, but it is basically confirmed that the thick mane of a lion makes it hard for a rival to bite its neck, and that lions tend to fight or kill each by aiming for their backs or hindquarters, rather than their necks. And to quote Packer & West, the length of the mane is related to a lion's success in fighting, so we have an abundance of sources showing that the manes of lions are useful in fights with their rivals, not useless! Leo1pard (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC); edited 11:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's what Packer and West say in their article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"However, we could find no evidence that lions primarily attack the neck/shoulder region or that wounds to this area are especially harmful(14). Further, all felids are similarly armed, yet the lion is the only species with a conspicuous male ornament. Owing to their complex social system, lions are the only felid in which males and females can regularly compare males, and excess females can freely choose among them. Thus, the mane might have evolved to signal male genetic and/or phenotypic condition."


 * Yes, that's right, male lions usually don't attack each other the area of the neck (which is covered by the mane), whereas tigers for instance regularly attack or kill their victims by aiming for their necks. This kind of fight, in which the mane was targeted, is therefore rare, but even then, both of them survived, so the thick mane does make it hard for a rival to bite its neck, and even tigers have found that hard. Leo1pard (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the bolded part? LittleJerry (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it means that the lion has a unique style of fighting among felids, because of its unique mane. Leo1pard (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It means that the "fighting" explanation does not explain why elaborate manes didn't evolved in other cats. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly!!!! This is a question I had in mind aaaall the time: since all other male carnivores fight, why did only the male lion develop a mane ?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Either way, the lion has a unique system of fighting, just as it has a unique mane and a unique social system, within the genus Panthera, like how the tiger is unique in this genus for having stripes rather than spots, considering that the other species (the lion, leopard, jaguar and snow leopard) all have spots or rosettes (with lions being spotted at birth). Leo1pard (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You said that the because of the mane, the lion has a unique fight style. Now you're saying it has the mane because of how it fights. LittleJerry (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I said that the lion has a unique system of fighting, just as it has a unique mane and a unique social system, within the genus Panthera, not that the lion has the mane because of its style of fighting! Leo1pard (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Lion life is known as?
Den, is the name given to the place where the lion lives. Lion is a wonderful creature and loves to live in groups. The group normally consists of a lion and more than one lioness. Priteshtiwari (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Fix the historical distribution in the opening
In the opening it says "lions ranged throughout Africa, Eurasia, and North America". Africa, yes. Eurasia, ok. But North America? This would make sense if they still thought that Panthera Atrox(American lions) were a lion(panthera leo) subspecies. But we now know that they along with Eurasian cave lions(Panthera spelea) were distinct species that long diverged from modern lions. The species we know today only existed in Africa and part of Eurasia from Greece to southern Asia. Please fix this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profligate222 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Subspecies : table or list ?
Hey all. In the past years, the layout of this part about the lion subspecies has changed from list to table to list, and now back to table again. Imo, the list was the better solution. What do others think about this? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be a table to be consistent with the pages Leopard, Tiger in the genus. You can also see it in American black bear, Giraffe (previously featured), Cheetah. The table is structured which makes it easier for the reader to get the pennant data.--Cs california (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the necessity for consistency with pages on other species, because: a) there are only 2 lion subspecies and resp. pages; but b) several leopard and cheetah subspecies and resp. pages that are linked, and c) several pages on tiger pops that are also linked. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with BhagyaMani, the table is unnecessary and rather oversized, given that there are only two subspecies. If there were three or more, it might be warranted, but that is not the case. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't have the table there should be an example image of both subspecies on the page somewhere --Cs california (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You apparently missed reading the part that lion subspecies do not look different from each other. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Article: Lion. Subcategorie: Descripition
Hello everyone, here I found a book that mentions the fact that lions are the mammals with the highest percentage of skeletal muscle among all mammals. 58.8% (It is mentioned rounded up as 59%), 1.31 times more than the average mammal. It is on page 19.

Source:

-Calder, W. A. (1996). Size, function, and life history. Courier Corporation.

https://books.google.es/books?hl=es&lr=&id=-iBS6-2OO3wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Size,+function,+and+life+history&ots=CSR0pp2Ml9&sig=K8oavtJ_3iXLhKqihOxKCeI8sv4#v=onepage&q&f=false

I hope to hear from you. And I hope to see if you accept this information in the next edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeandroPucha (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021
I would like for the word "Antelope" to link to the antelope wiki page. Ejmayo15 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sanskrit connection
At lion:


 * "Panthera is phonetically similar to the Sanskrit word पाण्डर pând-ara meaning 'pale yellow, whitish, white'."

At Panthera:


 * "The phonetically similar Sanskrit word पाण्डर pând-ara means 'pale yellow, whitish, white'."

Phonetic similarity is an irrelevant coincidence unless there is also some etymological connection. I suggest that either the etymological connection is stated or the sentence is deleted if none is known. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:45FA:4CE:A465:F912 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Body Size of African Lions
Hi,

i think the informations about the body size is not conclusive. So i suggest to make averages for all regions that differ noticably as they could even be claimed as seperate subsepcies. The measurements, skull differnces suggest that as well.

For example the average for 175 kg east african lions is not the only data.

Bertram et al gives the average for East African lions at 187 kg on a empty stomach (. Professor Robert Kock(Chef KWS vet) euthanized a male lion in 1993 because of domestic stock raiding in Kenya. The weight was 272 kg on a empty stomach as he said it to me in a personal communication.

The 272 kg lion was NMK OM 7935 and from Nowell and Jacksons page 42 https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/1996-008.pdf

And more detailed infos from Gnoskes study at page 27 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250181260_The_Science_of_'ManEating'_Among_Lions_Panthera_leo_With_a_Reconstruction_of_the_Natural_History_of_the_'Man-Eaters_of_Tsavo'

For South African Lions from Kruger NP the average for 16 males was 200.01 kg. (Lions infected with tubercolosis not included because the symptoms are heavy weight loss and 5 males out of the 16 infected liond even died and no one surpassed the age of 10 years) https://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/conservation/scientific/projects/Project_Reports_PDF/73.pdf

From A. Roberts(famous zoologist) it can be seen a lion of 251 kg in Kruger NP was recorded. Page 192 https://books.google.de/books?id=gzg_AAAAYAAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&redir_esc=y

In Etosha Dr Huberry(Rip) captured 10 males with a average weight of 190 kg and the heaviest was 260 kg http://the-eis.com/elibrary/sites/default/files/downloads/literature/Contraception_reproduction%20and%20demography%20of%20free_ranging%20Etosha%20lions.pdf

Personal Communication i had wwith him. He provided more infos about this lion to me.. 191 cm length, chest: 139cm, height: 106 cm, weight: 260 kg And i can provide official lion weights of 280 kg from Timbavati but they werent published in a study. I contacted the ecologist and the normal email adress of timbavati. The lion had a mate who was also weighed at 250 kg but that doesnt matter now.

--YusufCatLover (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Western world" or "Europe"?
, friends, lionfolk, lend me your ears. A schism exists among us today, basically centred on whether Far Eastern, Middle Eastern and Near Eastern cultural significance of Leo should be understood relative to Old World approximation of the Western world that ended in the Sea, or post-15th century thinking, wherein Western culture is pretty much dominated by stuff from New York and Los Angeles (but also encompasses parts of Southern Ontario, South Australia and South Africa).

As a Roman Catholic Algonquin metalheaded forest spirit, I personally feel the subsection in question deals almost exclusively with the times and spaces living people collectively prefer to group as "European", or pertaining to Europe (minus the MGM mascot, arguably). But I appreciate how an editor who identifies as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant technopunk urban dweller (or other class) might read it differently. What say you, international volunteer committee? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, there's probably enough lion-related content to spin out a North American branch entirely. Off the top of my head, I can think of two teams Europeans wouldn't think of as football clubs and two luchadores the Turks, Uzbeks and Mongolians don't likely consider famous wrestlers. And there are multimedia licensing discrepancies, too. All in favour of recognizing/recognising at least the potential for a breakaway sublevel of trivial organization/organisation? Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You should ping others too,, and . No we should not be splitting the sections over technicalities. They are nice and broad and this is an article on an animal, not a culture article. "Western world" is accurate enough for this. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree to both, accurate enough + NOT split. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from and meet you. New here, so no idea who I should have pinged. I only singled out Jerry because we met in the reversion. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. greetings. I agree with LittleJerry and BhagyaMani that "Western World" is an appropriate term for the section- and any cultural content in the section should be restricted to only the most significant, long-term stuff; hair-splitting sections doesn't exactly encourage that parsimony.
 * Those are some rather fascinating descriptions you used, by the way, and welcome to either Wikipedia (or this region of Wikipedia). Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no strong leaning either way really, though "Western World" more inclusive and more aptly covers books etc. described Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so everyone's here now, greetings and salutations! Seems clear there's consensus against splitting or renaming "Western world", and that's just peachy. But for consistency and dualism's sake, could it also be ducky to have an "Eastern world", comprising cultural bits and bobs from the Near, Far and seemingly forgotten Middle? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Something tells me I should also invite, strictly at face value, possibly just for an outside opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't invite someone who is not a contributor to the article. LittleJerry (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't that how you guys started, as outsiders? Maybe not. In any case, this was enlightening, but I've said my piece and whoever wants to take it or leave it can. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)\

, when ahead and divided it into Africa, Asia and the west. Three paragraphs each = better balance. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When we met, you seemed to say this wasn't geographical. I think Eastern world would make that clearer than Asia, and better complement its opposite. But three is tighter than four, in this context, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Target
The article currently contains the sentence "Male lions usually aim for the backs or hindquarters of rivals, rather than their necks" in the "Mane" section of the article. I think this statement is a little confusing, and that context should be given here, and that the article should explicitly say something along the lines of "due to the protection provided by the mane" or "unlike other big cats". I don't want to be gun-ho about it because this is a featured article, so I said I'd ask for consensus. Xx78900 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

CITES status
thanks for your edits to the CITES sentence, however I don't entirely agree that reference to the CITES split listing of Lions should be removed from the taxobox section completely. I do agree that a ref tag is not the most appropriate way of doing this - thanks for pointing that out. I have substituted for a note instead. In my view, is it important to note the CITES status in the taxobox and given it is split listed it could be misleading to the reader to not refer here to the split listing. Hopefully your changes in the text body and this amendment will now make that clear for readers. Goldfinger00 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct etymology
etymologically, lion comes from Old French lion which derives from Latin accusative LEONEM (nominative LEO) – it's important to explain this, as LEO does not sound like LION, while LEONEM (pronounced LEONE(nasalized E)) looks more like LION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F1:2F3F:B81:5DF4:D930:6A7A:CCC3 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this! I've edited that sentence, and it now looks like this. Let me know if you'd like to see changes made to that. – Uanfala (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Not fully understood"
It says in the opening paragraph that the cause of the decline in lion populations is "not fully understood". Why does it say that, even though it is obvious that poaching by humans is causing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flossingjonah (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"Not fully understood"
It says in the opening paragraph that the cause of the decline in lion populations is "not fully understood". Why does it say that, even though it is obvious that poaching by humans is causing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flossingjonah (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Subspecies/populations & weight chart
The weight range of the west African lion population should be mentioned in the chart as well. They're a distinct population with their unique physical characteristics. I don't know why lion and other big cat populations (former subspecies) pages were deleted since Tiger pages are still kept. The draft of the West Africam Lion page still available? Ishan87 (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion about which subpages to keep and which to merge took place about 3 years ago. Look up the respective talkpages and their archives. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Lion prey
What animals should be listed as prey for lions? LittleJerry (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

, please stop edit warring and discuss things here. Hayward and Kerley (2005) is a comprehensive literature review of studies on the lion's diet across its range. It states "Gemsbok, buffalo, wildebeest, giraffe and zebra are significantly preferred." Later in the article, there is a bar chart, and these five animals have black bars which means "species taken significantly more frequently than expected based on their availability". The impala's bar is unfilled, which means "species taken significantly less frequently than expected based on their availability". The kudu's is grey, meaning "species taken in accordance with their relative abundance". In other words, nothing special. Please don't make any more edits in regards to lion diet until you get a consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And please be considerate of the sources. You can't just add text that is not supported by the cites like here and here. This is a featured article your being reckless with. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Dude, u r the 1 who is warring for no reason. U started it and continuing it. The edits I did was not against the Wikipedia rulebook or against any of the references of the article. A Wikipedia article is supposed to provide facts and information based on more than a single source. Looks like you're relying heavily on only 1 source from 2005 and ignoring all other studies! Your claims about the chart isn't correct either. See here- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055182 There are citations of quite a few other sites and books. I do recommend u to read them. Gemsbok and giraffe aren't even their significant prey. Giraffe is usually avoided in most of the regions. Gemsbok is only preferred by the lions living in namib desert and kalahari region. Throughout southern Africa kudu is their important prey source and consists up to 15% of their diet. Impala coexist with lions through all of west and southern Africa and prefer same bushy habitat as lions. They're 4th most consumed prey by lions after wildebeest, cape buffalo, and zebra. I've watched 100s of lion. Documentaries, read countless wildlife journals and books about big cats, specially the lions. The edits you made is absurd and far from reality. Just bcz 1 source doesn't mention some antelopes it doesn't mean they're not common prey for lions. As for wild dogs, it is common knowledge that lions kill wild dogs, just like cheetah and leopard is mentioned without a citation. You claim for source but deleted the sources that was already there! you're instantly deleting the section that mentions the Lion's equations with wild dogs and spotted hyenas which has multiple citations in them. Clearly you're trying to dictate your opinion using this article and removing anything that you don't like, despite it having evidences. I suggest you to revert your edits and start studying about lions properly before making an edit again. Ishan87 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Look up literature review, its not just one study, but a review of multiple studies. And it concludes that these animals are the most preferred. Maybe it is outdated, but we can't just list every single animal that lions eat. We have to make choices and draw a line. A meta-study listing the most preferred species range-wide seems the best way to go. I understand kudus and impalas are your favorite animals, but we can't cherrypick studies on local lion diets and say "lion eats these animals here, and these here, etc etc." An expectation would be the Indian population, since that's on a different continent. LittleJerry (talk)
 * I agree, we should list what they kill mostly overall, not everything they kill. If there are newer sources stating other species are killed more, list them here on the talk page for evaluation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I too agree to limit the listed prey to the most preferred. Those who want to know more details, can download the refs from provided urls. Thanks, LittleJerry, for taking care of this ! Am sure you let me know when you need my help. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not about help. Just state what you think. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully agree to keeping the different prey species of the Indian pop, as these do not occur in Africa. Just checked the source Mukherjee et al. (1994) : domestic livestock made up only 15% of 40 scat samples, so not a 'significant' part. I'll check whether there is a later publication available. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that discussion of preferred prey from a high-quality review is much more informative than a scattershot listing of everything that at any time has been recorded as having been killed by a lion, picked from sources all over. Combative bluster does not make this approach more suited nor likely to be accepted by other editors. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "favorite", don't talk absurd Jerry. I specifically mentioned Kudu and impala bcz I know for a fact that they are more preferred by lions than some listed here such as giraffe and gemsbok. Check the link I provided, the study is legit and authorized by researchers including Hayward himself. I do agree that all prey animals shouldn't be mentioned, but since it claims to be most preferred prey the claim has to be accurate. Ishan87 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Its only one study in one area. Not enough. LittleJerry (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Central African Rainforest Zone and the Sahara Desert
I couldn't find anything regarding the following statement in the source mentioned: "In Africa, the range of the lion originally spanned most of the central African rainforest zone and the Sahara desert."

Maybe the sentence is meant to be the following, because that source particularly asserts the exact opposite: "The range of the lion originally spanned most of Africa except the central African rainforest zone and the Sahara desert." 82.222.98.119 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with the use of 'originally' as this is an undefined baseline, and doesn't do justice to the changing climatic conditions of Africa and the Near East during the Holocene. The range of the lion has spanned most of Africa and the Near East during more favorable climatic conditions since the Last Glacial Maximum ~21ka. This has included drier, more open habitats in what is now the African Rainforest Zone, and wetter conditions during the mid-Holocene Green Sahara/Arabia. Lion range has contracted following afforestation of the Congo basin, desertification of the Sahara, and simultaneous increase in human pastoral practices. See Cooper et al., 2021. A kingdom in decline: Holocene range contraction of the lion (Panthera leo) modeled with global environmental stratification. https://peerj.com/articles/10504/ 195.195.244.20 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
File:Lion distribution.png's description says in the "source" field:
 * "For the historic distribution, which will never be completely accurate, I used information here on Wikipedia with its own sources."
 * Looks like a case of WP:CIRCULAR.
 * "The present distribution in Africa is based upon a map created by 'The African Lion Environmental Research Trust (ALERT) which can be viewed here. http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lion-reintroduction.html#cr. While I consider this a reliable source, I researched two countries in depth to verify this, Uganda and Namibia. The map is indeed correctly shaded in the National Parks where lions are present. However I did not include the 'Occasional' shaded areas as these are obviously much more ambiguous."
 * I tried to find an archived version of that map and couldn't. It now redirects to Petside, a website that "offers practical advice on how to best care for pets". Doesn't look like a reliable source to me.

Do we have a better map? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe can make a new map using this? LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @LittleJerry: the IUCN could be used for the current distribution but not for the "historic distribution" as shown on the current map (File:Lion distribution.png). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the historic distribution I found the following sources:
 * Figure 1 in Spatiotemporal Genetic Diversity of Lions Reveals the Influence of Habitat Fragmentation across Africa (the closest to our map)
 * Figure 2 From: Phylogeographic Patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of Genetic Clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)
 * Fig 3 in The Decline in the Lion Population in Africa and Possible Mitigation Measures
 * Figure in The Challenges and Relevance of Exploring the Genetics of North Africa's (Barbary Lion) and the Conservation of Putative Descendants in Captivity => for the most recent "historic" distribution
 * Other maps but probably not relevant here:
 * Figure 1 in The Evolutionary Dynamics of the Lion Panthera leo Revealed by Host and Viral Population Genomics (nice map but authors are from a cancer institute, so not the subject-matter experts?)
 * Figure 2 in Mitogenomics of the Extinct Cave Lion, Panthera spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810), Resolve its Position within the Panthera Cats => but late Pleistocene
 * Figure 1 in Phylogeography of lions (Panthera leo ssp.) reveals three distinct taxa and a late Pleistocene reduction in genetic diversity: but this is the late Pleistocene period
 * Other maps but not WP:RS:
 * by WildCRU
 * Figure 13 in Source: Panthera 2009 Comparison of national wildlife management strategies: What works where, and why?
 * Lion Recovery Fund
 * I would use the first map (Figure 1 in Spatiotemporal Genetic Diversity of Lions Reveals the Influence of Habitat Fragmentation across Africa) or a combination of the first 4 maps. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but we still have to remove its historic range from some places like the Arabian Peninsula and the Caucasus. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Map lion samples and variability genetic markers.png
 * Yes for sure. I suggested we could use the above sources to create a new map.
 * A temporary easy solution is to upload this image as all images on PLOS are licensed under CC BY SA. I've just done it, I'll try to crop it now and replace the current map while waiting for a better version. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried... Removing all the labels is just too hard for me... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, can. And think that a map based on latest IUCN RL data would be the best solution. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @BhagyaMani thanks! Wouldn't it be good to add the historic range as well? Or maybe on another map? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The next best option, imo, is to wait for an update of the iucn RL assessment. This is likely to be published next year, and then we can use the new map in the taxobox. Thoughts? – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes @BhagyaMani, I agree we could wait for the current distribution but:
 * What about the historic distribution? We don't need to wait for the IUCN for that
 * What about the unsourced map currently on this article? Should we keep it or remove it?
 * a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The current unsourced map has been there for so loooong that we can keep it for few more months. Therefore imo: replace it by the new map, once available. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023
119.73.102.3 (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Animal Battle
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 09:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Lion (Panthera leo) male 6y.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 21, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-08-21. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

From the "Mane" section
''This feature likely evolved to signal the fitness of males to females and not to protect the neck. During fights, including those involving maneless females and adolescents, the neck is not targeted as much as the face, back and hindquarters.''

But couldn't this be evidence of the mane's protective qualities? Cats (including lions) generally kill their prey by attacking the neck, but male lions can't easily do that to each other because of all the hair in the way. So they have to target other parts of the body. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:21D8:A65B:DD4A:11C8 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you read the part were female lions and maneless adolescents also don't target the neck? LittleJerry (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This section also directly contradicts what is stated on the Maneless lion page, that "The purpose of the mane is thought to protect the lion in territorial fights". Which one is it? 72.66.107.22 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends on which experts you believe. Some experts believe that it's for mating, and others believe that it can defend the lion's throat, in a fight with another lion or felid. Leo1pard (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did tigers, with their powerful bites, find it hard to penetrate lions' manes?
} Believe it or not, a number of tigers have found it hard to penetrate the manes of male lions, and I have other cases as well! Tigers are supposed to have stronger bites than lions, so it doesn't make sense that if the mane offers no protection, then those tigers would find it hard to kill male lions by biting their throats! What I am basically saying is that the issue of whether or not the mane offers protection to the male lion is like the issue of whether a lion would beat a tiger in a fight, or vice-versa! If we are not going to have Tiger versus lion in Wikipedia, then I request that we ignore the controversial issue of whether or not the mane offers protection, and state what has been agreed, like that lionesses prefer male lions with large, dark manes! Leo1pard (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No original research. We are going with what experts say not some users personal bias. Two users have reverted you so stop with the edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends on which experts you're talking about. I agree with what BhagyaMani said. Leo1pard (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC); edited 15:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are poor sources compared to want we have. Packer goes into detail and provides evidence as to why the manes are not for protection. A 20+ year old statement that they "could" be used have been used for protection doesn't compare. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's just leave it at that, experts disagree as to whether or not the mane can protect the male lion's throat or neck in confrontations, for different reasons! Putting all the evidence together, the mane offers a degree of protection, but it's not perfect. Leo1pard (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This proves that you are the one with personal bias, not me! Where it suits you, you will use experts to say that the mane doesn't offer protection, but ignore the evidence which states otherwise! What scientists or experts say must be backed up with evidence, otherwise, it is irrelevant! What I said above is factually correct, that a number of tigers have found it hard to penetrate the lion's mane, and not all experts, who have studied lions or big cats, agree with Packer, whose study doesn't take into account what happened elsewhere! Leo1pard (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you not pay attention to what I said. "Packer goes into detail and provides evidence as to why the manes are not for protection." This is discussed in the article itself! You think a videos of a captive fight between a lion and tiger narrated by an anonymous person is on that level then you shouldn't be editing a FA. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that was nice. Tigers and other felids often aim for the throats or napes, but for lions, it's different! If the lion's mane offered no protection at all, then the fighting style of lions should be like that of tigers and other felids, in which they aim for the throats and napes! Basically, there is evidence for and against the idea of the mane protecting the throat or neck. Leo1pard (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC); edited 13:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OR. Thats on tigers not lions. Unmaned lions generally don't target the neck. LittleJerry (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That is precisely what I was saying! Tigers and other felids aim for the necks, whereas lions generally don't, so lions have a style of fighting which is different to tigers and other felids! If the mane offered no protection, then lions should be doing what tigers and other felids do, that is to target the neck! Leo1pard (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't an argument you are going to win, so please stop being disruptive. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all experts agree with Packer, so WP:Boomerang! Leo1pard (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you literally just not pay attention to what the other person is saying? "Unmaned lions generally don't target the neck" "During fights, including those involving maneless females and adolescents, the neck is not targeted as much as the face, back and hindquarters." LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wrong, lions are social animals, unlike most other felids. Cubs get taught how to hunt and fight from their parents, who have a different lifestyle to most other felids. Does that help to explain why maneless lions fight in a different way to tigers? Leo1pard (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC); edited 08:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. Leo1pard (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying WP:BLUDGEON into getting your way. Drop it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I said that I agree with this edit of LittleJerry, so stop your needless arguments! You get into arguments or conflicts for no reason! Leo1pard (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC); edited 13:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As per the above, the notion that the mane protects in fights seems to be not supported by a the recent sources mentioned, and we should not even mention this at all - particularly not with the unattributed phrasing "some say..." which is contrary to WP:WEASEL. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, we should revert to the FA situation of not mentioning this at all, and I have removed it again. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Amongst others, Dereck Joubert and Kailash Sankhala said that the mane does protect the lion's neck, so like I said above, this is a disputed topic. After attempting to hide the controversy from the article, I actually requested that we ignore the controversial issue of whether or not the mane offers protection, and state what has been agreed, like that lionesses prefer male lions with large, dark manes! Leo1pard (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC); edited 15:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me ask you something. Normally, you are happy to trim stuff, and get into conflict with other users, like myself and, by doing so. So this time, why are you insistent on keeping a WP:one-sided argument? If this isn't personal bias, then what is it? Leo1pard (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC); edited 08:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Dude, stop being creepy and trying to dig through my edit history in hopes of making a petty point. I can trim things that I think are unimportant and add things that I think are important. Now, stop beating a dead horse and move on. LittleJerry (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * So basically, you're happy to trim the work of others, like myself and, but not that the same should be done to you. If that's how you feel, then I advise you to join a forum, where you can argue whatever you want, without that fear. Leo1pard (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're bordering on HOUND. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Cathemerality
The article for Cathemerality describes lions as a cathemeral species however this article calls them "usually more diurnal" and "adapts to being active at night and at twilight" linking to all articles about modes of behaviour in regards to activity except cathemerality which seems quite vague and is also unsourced on this page. Meanwhile using Cathemeral would encompass all three in fewer words and be clearer. EldritchEmpress (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Like this? Leo1pard (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC); edited 07:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"simulating sex" is homophobic phrasing
I.e. from "Males will also head-rub and roll around with each other before simulating sex together." under "Behaviour and ecology" then "Reproduction and life cycle". They have sex. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

=== No it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.82.219 (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)