Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

I'm sorry but the section about hunting seemed a little too sexist. IFemale lions do most of hunting, but so do male lions when they are bachelors. When female lions can't take down big prey, the male lion will also is NOT a place for sexism , however, to be truthful, the male lion allows the females to do most of the hunting. So I would like it if we gave a little more acknowledgment to male lions, who are also intelligent and powerful hunters. Thank YouSoundBlast (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to say to the previous editor, chill. Yes nomadic lions do hunt. But we don't need to get way offended cus someone left that out. Kron650 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC) kron650 16:59 March 3rd 2008

Uhm, it depends on if you put quality over quantitiy. Yes, female lions do most of the work. Nevertheless male lions do the hard thing, they do the job when it is not so easy. Then comes the cavalry. User SoundBlast is right about what he said. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While female lions do most of the hunting, males do--sometimes--help the pride when the prey is hard to bring down, such as buffalo or elephants. A female elephant may be able to kill up to 5 lionesses, so it is wise for the males to help, but yet, most of the time, males will not get tired at hunting, because even when they hunt, the will come only after the prey is stopped.--96.232.63.175 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

91.143.220.142 (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Mane length signals fighting success and only appears to influence male-male assessment." Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5585/1339 It is obvious that because of the evolutionary advantage of a mane in fightings, only male lions have developed a mane as females do have to hunt rather than to fight. It is also written in the article: "They are not encumbered by the heavy and conspicuous mane which causes overheating during exertion." This proves also the evolutionary aspect in the difference between the genders about the mane. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do any modern lions inhabit caves? Should be mentioned, imo. --Jan 82.208.2.214 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The male lion is twice as strong as the lioness, just look at his much bigger head and see how lionesses regularly gets defeated by hyenas when you watch the fightings between lionesses and hyenas on Youtube. But HE is the hyena killer, killing the matriarch hyena not out of hunger, not out of any needs but because he is the natural born hyena killer on his mission. Hyenas are a threat to his lionesses and to his cubs, but he makes the hyenas pay dearly! Praise him as he has all the might, the power and the beauty on earth. ;-) He, the hyena killer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Oel79kS4Iw&feature=related --Tubesship (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, a male is not twice as strong nor twice as big. It's true that the mane makes the male look bigger, and the male is indeed much bigger but not double.

Second, hyenas can kill both lionesses and lions as long as they outnumber them. Personally, I've seen a YouTube video where about 6 or 7 hyenas scare away 4 lions [two of them males].

Thirdly, I'll sighn my posts--96.232.63.175 (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A few things I'm wondering about lions that I think would be interesting to have in the article.. how strong are they? That could go in the physical characteristics section. Also what are their reflexes like? How tough is their skin? It seems like they have weaker skin than say a hippo. How well can they swim? Any answers to any of these questions would be interesting. Cheers. Ben 2082 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ben. Hope that I can answer your questions. Lions are incredibly strong and are able(when fully grown) to kill a man with a single swing of their paws. I have heard that the force behind their paws is the equivilant to a ton of bricks hitting you. Their reflexs are also incredibly quick and they are very agile for their size. Their skin is not the thickest in the animal kingdom, but it is up to 8 times thicker than ours and is able to endure alot. Lions are good swimmers, though the majority prefer to stay away from water. However, there are prides in Botswana that live in the Okavango delta and so spend a lot of time in water. Hope that helpful. Originalalphaleo (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Most important experts consider this animal to be the King of The Jungle Could someone include a map showing the distribution of lions in Asia? It would be cool for the article. Eklipse (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing. The Africa-only map is a bit misleading. 142.177.158.46 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't save the Africa map as a '.jpg' on my computer. Could someone please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.233.9 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The following statement appeared in the lead:

"[Lions] were found in most of Africa, much of Eurasia from western Europe to India, the Bering land bridge and, in the Americas, from the Yukon to Peru."

I can find no evidence that lions were found "in... the Bering land bridge." There is "some evidence of faunal exchange between North America and Asia. Elements of a North American mammalian fauna from about 100 MYA resemble Asian taxa, suggesting a dispersal event at about that time." [1]. It is believed that mammals came across the land bridge. There is abundant evidence that lions inhabited North America (see American lion, Panthera leo vereshchagini). But there is no evidence that they lived in the land bridge. It is believed that they crossed the bridge into NA.

So, without a citation that says that they "lived in Beringia" (which is doubtful, because the bridge is under water), we need to modify that statement. For now, I've taken out the words "the Bering land bridge." The statement could be re-written to say: "There is abundant fossil evidence of lions in North America and it is believed that they crossed via the Bering land bridge..." However, that is cumbersome verbiage for a lead and I think it is much simpler to just leave it out. A statement along these lines could be added to the "Taxonomy and evolution" section, however. Sunray (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We call that hairsplitting! They must have occured in beringia. But I think it is fine, better too correct than uncorrect! But you should add the informattion, that they once occured far to the northeast in Eurasia, otherwise one might think the lions range reached only to india.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding a small section in the "Hunting" category about the level of stamina of the lion, explaining why they can only really hunt in short bursts rather than long chases. For instance, a male lion's heart takes up 0.45% of his total body weight, and a lioness's heart is 0.57% of her body weight, but a hyena's heart takes up something close to 10%, apparently, which seems a bit extreme...the statistic is from a reliable source though, not some random site on the web. Is this too much detail, do you think? Alphard08 (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good as long as it is referenced and the material is discussed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

'Tis done! Alphard08 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding a fair bit of content to tihs section recently. I definitely felt that there needed to be a bit more information about the life of cubs within the pride. Also, I think there should be some more information about what happens to aging lions, both male and female, how they are tolerated by their younger and fitter pride mates, etc...

However, I feel that the line between life cycle information and group organization may be getting a bit fuzzy...for instance, the stuff I wrote about subadult lions being evicted from the pride. It is part of the life cycle of some lions, but it could also be covered by the group organization section. I just noticed that, although female nomads are mentioned in this section, there was nothing specific about how females may be evicted, so I added that in the life cycle section. What do you think? Should this be relegated to a different section? Alphard08 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The current map does a fantastic job showing where in Africa lions live, however, it doesn't show where the Indian lions live.69.18.226.204 (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put another map at the top of the page, so it's easy to see at a glance where Asian lions live. The Indian Gir Forest Sanctuary map did already exist within the article, however - maybe it should be deleted since it's at the top now? Alphard08 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

SKOPIANS------------

It s sad to see that skopian nationalistic propaganda has made it to this article. There is the "dubious" paragraph that mentions lions and ROMANS, GREEKS, and MACEDONIANS. But macedonians is a link to a modern slav people.Slavs were not yet in the balkans when the lions dissapeared from europe...

If by macedonians you mean the ancient macedonian tribe that self identified as HELLENES according to their kings and ancient historians, then you should correct that link and swap "macedonians" with "ancient macedonians". If not, you are making the lions the only species on this planet (and perhaps the universe) that manages to time travel. Try write an article about that skopian nationalists!! it would still be more accurate than you claiming you are descended from ancient macedonians.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.165.200.231 (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should really be changed, as they are not talking about the Slavic peoples, but the Greeks. Why is the article not free to edit, at the moment? JackFrost1987 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though lions don't have natural predators, it might be useful to mention the fact that sometimes lions will get killed by other animals, such as crocs, buffalo, elephants, hyenas and espetialy by tigers - mostly when lions are by themselves.

You see, the lion has a big chance of failing badly when they hunt alone as most of their prey is not only larger but also much stronger. For example, once I saw a video of a buffalo chasing a male lion, and another of a bull elephant chasing away a whole pride of lions [the bull was by itself].

After humans, the hyenas are the first lion-killers, and no one really talks much about this. Rather, people say only how "hyenas steel a lion's kill" but the story doesn't end there.

96.232.63.175 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So, let's say a fully-grown male tiger of the bengal subspecies and an adult male African lion are having a fight. Who will win? I mean, both these cats have razor-sharp claws, long canine teeth and can run very fast, let alone their power. The way I see this is very interesting. Both the lion and the tiger have advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the lion has a heavy mane around the neck, while the tiger is maneless. The mane would protect the lion from blows and the killing bite. On the other hand, a Siberian tiger [or even a Bengal tiger for that matter] is about 160 ponds larger than the lion, and size can make the difference.

LION [advantages] -- Large, heavy mane around the neck protects against tiger swiped and mouth attacks.

fight experience

clawing speed about 16 feet per second.

heavy blows aiming to bring the rival down in a single blow.

good dodging tactics

taller than a tiger

Born fighter.

[disadvantages] -- The mane can slow movement [it's like wearing a jacket when having a boxing match]

Fairly smaller.

Tiger [advantages] -- Very large [up to 700 lbs. for Siberians]

Longer canines [three inch versus four inch]

More agile [but yet heavier]

More biting pressure

clawing speed faster than a lion

may stand on its hind legs to make itself a bit taller

[disatvantages] -- No mane helps the tiger

Looks less scary than the lion [even though is stronger]

claw power not as strong as lion's

So, I'd give the lion 60 out of a hundredPgecaj (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don´t like this kind of battle, but I have to mention that the tiger, which attacks usually from short distances in dense vegetation, has more powerfull forelimbs than a lion, which is adapted to open landscapes and is somewhat more cursorial.--Altaileopard (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Species do battle in evolution. the tiger is better adapted to forests, while the lion will outclass the striped cat in the open savanna. The result of a direct battle is probably highly dependent on the individual animal.--Altaileopard (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The average difference in weight between a male African lion and a male Bengal tiger isn’t 160 pounds – it’s more like 20 pounds, if we take the average weight of the African lion to be about 190 kg and the average weight of the Bengal tiger to be about kg. Furthermore, tigers may be longer, but lions stand taller at the shoulder, so some of the perceived size difference is more due to a difference in structural build (not to mention the fact that a lot of the Siberian tiger’s extra bulk comes from the fat and fur necessary for life in a freezing environment). Finally, you should take into account that male tigers are solitary (and thus, direct conflict and any resultant injuries could spell death for a solitary predator), whereas male lions have the specific role of defending the pride against intruder males. Tigers obviously do sometimes fight against each other in the wild, but male lions are still come into direct conflict with other males far more often, and so you could expect that they’re more psychologically primed for it (although I guess that's what you meant by "born fighter"). I agree with Altaileopard though that on the whole, the individual cat is probably the most important factor.

(And by the way, I too think the idea of this kind of battle is terrible, to be honest – I mean, I’ve heard there are video clips of lions and tigers battling on YouTube, obviously staged since they never meet in the wild (I'm assuming so anyway, I haven't actually watched any of the clips). Who on earth in their right mind would film that sort of thing? Discussing the outcome of a lion/tiger fight theoretically is one thing, but to actually pit two animals together just to sate human curiosity is barbaric) Alphard08 (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled on this quote today whilst looking up more info about tigers:

"The tiger has a longer body, and is usually more powerful in the back legs, having evolved this way for great speed and unmatched leaping power. The lion evolved primarily for fighting, with a larger head and more power in the forequarters. Paradoxically this has made him a poor predator." (from http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict8.html)

It could be wrong (the "poor predator" bit sounds a bit iffy, but maybe they're just commenting on how male lions tend not to do as much hunting as females), but the site is otherwise a very good resource on tiger information. I'm not sure whether or not tigers do have stronger forelimbs than a lion. I would've thought they'd have stronger hind limbs, not fore limbs, since this is where most of the power in the spring comes from. Alphard08 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A lion's head is the same size as the tiger's, but the shape is just a bit different, with the tiger having a wider jaw structure, which can help it to bite with more pressure. Also, tigers fight too. In fact, if one investigated this, they would find out that tigers and lions have an average of 8 fights in a lifetime over territory, but it's more natable on the lion since it's the only thing they do when they're pride leaders. The forelimbs of the tiger are weaker but not by much, while the hindlimbs are much more powerful and developed campare to those of the lions.96.232.61.102 (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This page here gives a good comparison of lion and tiger skulls: http://mambobob-raptorsnest.blogspot.com/2008/07/lion-and-tiger.html. It's true that the tiger does appear to have a wider jaw structure. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it bites with more pressure. For instance, the lion has a larger sagittal crest - this is the bit of the skull that the large muscles that support the jaw and neck are attached to, which could mean that the lion has more muscle power in the jaw and lower neck, and thus greater jaw strength (although I'm really no expert). I guess this serves to illustrate that it's not so easy to differentiate lions and tigers in terms of jaw strength. Overall though, I think the issue of bite pressure is largely irrelevant. I mean, jaguars have greater jaw strength than either lions or tigers, but do you think a jaguar could defeat a lion or a tiger?

"8 fights in a lifetime over territory" - could you please provide a reference for this? Solitary cats in general are largely reluctant to fight, and when two tigers encounter each other in territorial disputes, they first try to intimidate each other in a display of aggression, rather than outright violence. (I probably should have said lions are more likely to come into direct violent conflict than tigers). Alphard08 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on some research I did, tigers indeed might have to protect territories up to ten times in a lifetime, and these tiger-tiger battles seem to be deadly as both paries will fight to the death, while lions rarly die in battles. I think that the idea that the tiger only hunts and the lion only fights is merely more an immature opinion by some rather than a fact.

The tiger ha smore bite force, it's proven scientifically!--71.190.81.102 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never claimed that tigers only hunt and lions only fight.

Please provide some references for your assertion that the tiger has more bite force. A proper scientific method to prove this would be:

1) To first decide which subspecies of each animal to test. For instance, if we're only checking African lions or only Indian lions, we should only check one subspecies of tiger (Bengal, Siberian, or indeed, Malayan, South Chinese, Indochinese or Sumatran, it's the scientist's choice, as long as they record their decision). It’s fairest to select subspecies that are a roughly similar size (ie. don’t compare African lions to Sumatran tigers, or Siberian tigers to Indian lions).

2) Select sufficiently large, random samples from two populations of lion and tiger, consisting of fully grown, healthy specimens. If we are testing just males, then make sure we're testing males for both lions and tigers. Ditto for females. If testing both sexes, make sure that equal numbers of males and females are chosen, for both lions and tigers.

3) Record the locations of lions and tigers - don't target a specific group of tigers (eg. just in Nepal), whilst considering lions in a wider range. The process has to be random.

4) Make sure that the experiment is carried out equally and fairly (not to mention ethically - don't cause the animals any discomfort!) - check that the equipment measuring the bite force is properly calibrated, and that there's no systematic error involved.

5) Based on the data, calculate the mean and standard deviation (the spread) for both lions and tigers (and if both sexes are involved, for males and females of each species). It's not enough to choose a single lion and a single tiger, because strengths vary from individual to individual, just as it does with people.

6) Decide on a good, plausible theory that seems best to fit the facts, whether it be based on the lion's larger sagittal crest, or the tiger's wider jaw structure. Report your results, and make sure that other scientists can replicate your experiment, should they wish to validate or challenge your findings.

7) An alternative approach is to test captive lions and tigers, rather than wild specimens (this is the easier approach). However, the same goes about testing sufficiently large samples of healthy full-grown animals though, and also about ensuring that the sample has a good distribution (ie. so the tiger group doesn’t consist just of the biggest or the smallest examples you could find! Same for lions).

Now, if this has all actually been undertaken in a valid and unbiased experiment, please by all means show me the mean and standard deviation of the results. I'd like to see some figures, please.

Same goes for the 10 fights for both lions and tigers in a lifetime assertion (and it's not correct to say that lions rarely die in battle, whereas tigers fight to the death - death by injuries caused by defending the pride against intruder males is one of the most common causes of death in male lions, and the reason why they do not generally live longer than 10 years in the wild. Both male and female tigers (and female lions) live longer on average than male lions in the wild, for this reason). Alphard08 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, tigers only live slightly longer, usually about 12 or 13 years, while lions up to ten. This might be normal because tigers are genetically buit to live a couple of years longer than lions, and this is also seen in captivity, where lion males live about 17 years vs. 19 years of male tigers.

You have a good point when you say that the subspecies can make a difference and without any doubt individual personality is a factor. For example, an African lion would have a much better chance of winning against a Samatran tiger than against a Siberian tiger. On the other hand, a male tiger of, let's say, Bengal subspecies, would easily beat a lioness. However, when a tiger-lion fight is debated, like here, it's meant in either one of the following ways: 1) male African Lion (with mane) vs. male Bengal Tiger or 2) male African Lion (with mane) vs. male Siberian Tiger.

As for the bite pressure, I can't go out there in the wild and capture dozens of lions and tigers to measure them, but other people have done this in the past, and their results show that indeed tigers, on average, have greater bite force, though the difference is slight.

In general, I would say that the lion has a bigger chance of winning because of the tactic advantage; Siberian tigers outgrow lions 140 to 220 pounds, while Bengal tigers of the north outgrow lions 10 pounds, since a large lion weighs in at 550 pounds, some of them up to 589 pounds, yet some others only weigh in at 300 pounds. lion has a better chance to win because of better fight tactics for example a lion if you watch the clips on you tube dodges itself to avoid any hard blow and usually when a lion hits it does it with a larger force than a 10% more stronger tiger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.48.123 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the lion would win because even if tigers are considered more of a threat to humans but we should not forget what happened at tsavo. even if tiger is powerful but lion is courageous.Smartpotatoe (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of changing the section in Physical Characteristics that talks about the average weights of lions. It's fairly good as it is, but it could be better - for instance, it doesn't mention that lions in southern Africa tend to be bigger than elsewhere.

My primary source that I'm using is "Big Cat Diary: Lion", by Jonathon and Angela Scott. It reports weights of 175 kg (385 pounds) for males and 120 kg (265 pounds) for females in East African, and weights around 5% larger for southern Africa, ie. about 185 kg (410 pounds) for males and 125 kg (275 pounds) for females.

To add this in, I'd probably include the weight range of 150-240 / 120-180 kg (male/female) that's currently stated, but then delete the reference by Nowell and Jackson and include the information above, since these weights are similar, but give a bit more detail. What does everyone else think? Alphard08 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly regional weight variations sounds good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is good as it is, and regional differences are mentioned, so why bother do something new.

I'm not sure that lions can average 420 lb. even though you may have a souce, that's because multiple of other websites say that lions (males) on average weigh circa 350 pounds. While the female is ranged between 200 lb. and 300 lb. but much closer to 200 lb. They usually average 220 as the difference of male lion and lioness is 130 pounds.

I suggest we all work on the tiger article to make it a featured one, since the lion article is already very good. Any changes we make here aren't really much necessary.--96.232.52.59 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, websites are often incorrect, and I think the errors can then get compounded as more and more people repeat them, trusting web-based sources alone. Jonathon Scott, on the other hand, has lived in Africa for more than 30 years, and observed lions in the Masai Mara as a naturalist for almost as long, so I'd much rather trust his and Angela's book.

I agree this article is already fantastic (I absolutely love it) but including more information that helps to lift it above other websites shouldn't hurt (as long as it's not too lengthy) Thanks for your input, Casliber and 96.232.52.59 (sorry I don't know your username!) - I'll make the change for now, but it can always be reverted back if lots of people disagree. Alphard08 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. I ended up deleting the range of male lions of 150-210 kg and the female range of 123-160 kg, since the "trek photos" source wasn't that reliable, and the female weight range conflicts with the average stated in numerous sources of 120 kg. Trouble is, there really are a lot of conflicting weight ranges around! Does anyone have a copy of textbooks by George Schaller or Craig Packer? They're meant to be good Alphard08 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

PPS. Just discovered there are copies of Rudnai and Schaller books at a nearby library, will rent them out when I get the chance! Alphard08 (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey: On page 30 of Schaller:

"Five lionesses from Kenya, weighed by Meinertzhagen (1938), ranged from 122 to 182 kg (mean 151 kg) in weight and 14 males from 150 to 189 kg (mean 172 kg)...Two lionesses from Rhodesia weighed 137 and 145 kg...four males weighed 167, 171, 176, and 184 kg, respectively (Wilson, 1968). One pregnant adult lioness with 9 kg of buffalo meat in her stomach weighed 126 kg (267 Ibs) when she died as a result of having been tranquilized...An adult male which died in a fight weighed 168 kg (369 Ibs), including 12.7 kg of zebra meat in his stomach. One male that was shot near the park boundary weighed 196 kg, including 2.8 kg of stomach contents."

Judging by this, we seem to have an average of around 140 kg for lionesses and 175 kg for lions. Then, however, on page 210 of Schaller:

"An adult lioness averages about 120 kg in weight and a male about 170 kg"

The male weight is about right, but the female weight somewhat contradictory. Rudnai quotes Meinertzhagen's findings, so we have 122-182 kg for females and 150-189 kg for males again, wihch isn't any new information.

All in all, this goes to show that lions can exhibit quite a large spread in weights. When people give average weights, they seem to prefer giving a value towards the lower end of the weight range. Also, even though lions in East Africa in general are said to be smaller than lions in southern Africa, lions in Ngorongoro crater in Tanzania are said to be bigger on average than even those lions in southern Africa, with weights of over 220 kg for males being not uncommon (I didn't manage to get Craig Packer's book, but this is a result I've read elsewhere), suggesting that weight can vary with altitude also.

To avoid confusing people, I think perhaps I'll undo my previous edits, bringing back the weight range of 120-160 kg for lionesses and 150-210 kg for lions (and the averages as reported by Newell and Jackson, of about 126 kg and 181 kg), and then add a comment that average weights are vary with range and environment, with lions in the south generally being bigger than lions in the east, leading to the wide spread in sizes. Alphard08 (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If this article is going to cite something as astonishing as a cow killing a lion in front of spectators, then it needs to show its references. Since this article is semi-protected, I cannot put the citation needed in there. By the way I also heard that a pet parakeet defeated a lion. Please add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.223.80 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ussually lionesess are doing the hunting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.47.9 (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Without the aid of male lions, female ones are unable to take down large prey like buffalos or giraffes. Lots of male lions live in bachelor groups and therefore need to hunt on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.216.170 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been around here in a while, what happened to the old featured-picture pictures of Lions that were once in the taxa box? --Cody Pope (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. No idea, as it has been a little while since I looked. These ones aren't bad in some ways, though I do think the old female picutre was better definitely. Question is, is there a policy about featured pictures being preferred? I'll have a ferret around later on. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I prefer the original photo of the male lion (it featured a lion lying on the ground partly facing to the left, with a half-blond half-dark mane, and a backdrop of golden grass) to the one that's displayed now, although I rather like the current picture of the lioness. Alphard08 (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned at the start of the article that the lions hunt the largest game of ANY land animal. Since they have been known to bring down giraffes (heavier than a gaur which tiger hunts), hippo, and even fully grown African elephants (largest land animal) it makes it a record. Well worth saying that, "Since they live in groups, lions hunt the largest prey of any other terrestrial predator". 63.161.203.11 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate. Adult bull giraffes weigh up to 1,800 pounds, whereas a full-grown male water buffalo reaches a maximum weight of circa 2,200 pounds. Gaurs are even larger. And considering the fact that tiger hunts alone, I'd say that their prey is considerable larger. Now, there has been one single case of lions killing an adult elephant, which probably was a 6,000-pound female, however, the pride was rather large (composed of 30 members) and this doesn't happen often at all, so adult elephats cannot be considered normal ptry. Plus, tigers too hunt rhinos... alone--Pgecaj (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong on the matter. The fact is that a hippo is heavier than ANYTHING the tiger has been documented in actually hunting. The rhino story you refer to was never proven. Meaning the condition of the female rhino that was killed before the tiger attack was unknown. A rhino is far too well armored to be taken down by a sinle tiger. The statement is correct. "Since they live in groups, lions hunt the largest prey of any other terrestrial predator". This is a fact! The tiger has never been documented brinding down anything larger than what lions hunt. Nothing on land is bigger than an African elephant. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The case of a rhino being killed by a tigress has been proven. I don't know who gave you the idea that the rhino was first shot - that's silly! Also, there have actually been many other cases where eyewitnesses have observed tigers killing adult rhonos. Are they all lies? In fact, even sub-adult elephant are taken on occasion. And I still don't get it though, how does a sigle case of 30 lions prove that ALL lions hunt elephants.

Hopefully the following information may shed some light on this debate, and clarify some misconceptions made by both sides.

Note: it is actually quite difficult to ascertain an overall picture of the general prey percentages taken by lions and tigers, since the percentage of prey species taken by each animal varies within particular regions. For instance, in Manyara Park, which has a very high density of Cape buffalo, buffaloes make up to 65% of the lion’s diet, whereas in the Serengeti, they only make up about 15%. Prey availability and density is a very important factor here.

Most of this information was taken from George Schaller’s “The Serengeti Lion” and “The Deer and the Tiger.”

Lions

Prey animals and their sizes

In Africa:

Grant Zebra (175-300 kg)

Wildebeest (140-280 kg)

Cape buffalo (500-900 kg)

Hartebeest (120-200 kg)

Greater Kudu (120-270 kg)

Lesser Kudu (50-100 kg)

Hippopotamus (1,300 – 3,400 kg)

Topi (70-150 kg)

Warthog (50-150 kg)

Giraffe (700-1700 kg. Note: the largest recorded giraffe was 2000 kg. The largest of the gaurs, the southeast Asian gaur, may weigh in excess of 1700 kg, but I haven’t found any reliable sources that cite a gaur weighing as much as the before-mentioned giraffe)

In India:

Domestic water buffalo (300-600 kg)

Domestic cattle (350-400 kg)

Chital (30-75 kg)

Sambar (160-260 kg)

Nilgai (120-240 kg)

Wild boar (70-90 kg)

Largest prey

African elephant (3,600-6,800 kg)

Usual prey size ranges from 15 – 1000 kg. Solitary lions have a tendency to prey on animals in the range 50-300 kg, although on occasion, solitary lions have been observed attacking buffalo in the weight range 425 – 850 kg, although obviously it is more usual that these animals are taken down cooperatively. Lions do not specifically target calves, but will kill buffaloes of all ages – in fact, in Kruger park, of 292 buffaloes killed by a sample of lions, 84% were adults. Amongst older animals, lions tend to target the bulls rather than the females, since old males tend to live in small bull herds and are thus easier to target.

In the Serengeti, lions prey on wildebeest, zebra, buffalo and topi. Kafue lions prey on buffalo, hartebeest, zebra and warthog, Kruger lions prey on wildebeest, impala, kudu and waterbuck, Nairobi lions prey on wildebeest, zebra and hartebeest, and finally the Manyara lions on buffalo and zebra.

Giraffes are not usually attacked by lions hunting alone, although obviously lions in prides have a much better chance of succeeding in hunting them (as some videos on the internet can attest). The problem with tackling giraffes is their shape – since their necks are so far above the ground, they are probably much harder to be brought down than an animal of a roughly equivalent mass, such as a gaur.

Additionally, in Albert National Park, young hippopotami are attacked and killed regularly (making up around 19% of prey animals), whereas in Gorgongoza park, adult hippopotami are occasionally consumed.

In India, the diet of Asian lions consists mostly of domestic cattle and buffalo, although they may also prey on sambar, chital, nilgai and wild boar.

The largest prey tackled by lions is the African elephant. This has actually occurred more than once. For instance, at the Savuti river, lions have actually specialised in hunting elephants, and occasionally take down fully grown individuals. They typically attack in groups of 20-30 in order to bring down such a large animal. David Attenborough’s documentary Planet Earth had footage of such an incident, in which a female was brought down by a pride consisting of roughly 30 members. I have sometimes wondered, though, whether a lion pride of 20-30 members is actually required for lions to be able to physically take down an adult elephant, or whether their ability to take down large prey is actually connected to their confidence level, which would surely increase with a bigger pride size (ie. a smaller pride of lions may be able to accomplish the same task, but not have the confidence to try it).

Bengal tigers

Prey animals and their sizes

Chital (30-75 kg)

Sambar (160-260 kg)

Barasingha (170-180 kg)

Domestic water buffalo (300-600 kg)

Domestic cattle (350-400 kg)

Hog deer (50-110 kg)

Barking deer (20-30 kg)

Gaur (650-1,700 kg – the weights of these animals vary quite a lot)

Langur (15 kg)

Wild boar (70-90 kg)

Blackbuck (20-40 kg)

Nilgai (120-240 kg)

Note that the following data was collected mostly from analyses of tiger faeces and the skeletons of prey animals, rather than witnessed hunts.

Frequency of occurrence of prey remnants in tiger faeces in Kanha Park

Chital: 52%

Sambar: 10%

Barasingha: 9%

Gaur: 8%

Langur: 6%

Domestic cow: 6%

Porcupine: 3%

Domestic buffalo: 2%

Domestic and wild pig: 1%

Frequency of occurrence of prey remnants in tiger faeces in Corbett National Park:

Chital: 55%

Domestic buffalo: 17%

Hog deer: 17%

Sambar: 11%

An estimate of prey proportions based on the skeletons of tiger kills in Kanha park:

Chital: 38%

Barasingha: 26%

Sambar: 18%

Gaur: 11%

Wild pig: 4%

Blackbuck: 3%

Langur: 2%

Porcupine: 1%

Note that the above data is more likely to be skewed in favour of larger prey such as gaur, since the skeletons of smaller animals such as chital fawns are almost completely devoured and thus hard to discover.

Largest prey

Indian rhinoceros (1,600-3,000 kg)

Asian elephant (3,000-5,000 kg)

Bengal tigers have indeed attacked and killed adult gaur.

In the past, tigers have seldom preyed on the Indian rhinoceros. However, in the Kaziranga National Park, tigers have begun to attack rhinos, although the majority of the animals taken are calves (at least 20 a year), which tend to wander away from their mothers. 419 rhinos have been killed by tigers in this park in the past 30 years.

As for the rare cases in which adult rhinos have been brought down by tigers (although, the number of these incidents is starting to increase), the only detailed description of such an incident I could find was here:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080313/jsp/northeast/story_9012303.jsp

This article describes an incident in which an adult rhino was killed by three tigers, not one (although I did find it amusing that the tiger’s offspring were called “calves” by whoever wrote this article)! In addition, it also states that a pregnant rhino was killed by tigers – note the plural.

There have been reports of tigers attacking elephants in India, although it should be noted that Indian elephants are somewhat smaller than those in Africa. I haven’t been able to find out whether or not these tigers managed to take the elephants down single-handedly, or whether they worked in groups, and I don’t know whether or not the elephants were ever fully grown. I personally don’t think that a solitary tiger would be able to take down a fully-grown Asian elephant, though - tigers do have their limitations, after all, and elephants are very massive creatures!

In summary: this data seems to indicate that lions do indeed hunt larger prey than tigers on average, and, since the biggest prey killed by either cat is the African elephant, the maximum size of their prey is greater. This isn’t so surprising, really, given that they generally hunt in groups. I find it quite impressive that tigers have even tried to take on elephants at all, really. Alphard08 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bengal tigers and lions, leopards rarely not chasing; blackbuck, the antelopes Asia extremely speed 52 mph (84 km/h) / 800 meters, with the peak 70 mph (110 km/h) / 150 meters.

Lions, tigers and leopards speed max 35 mph (57 km/h) on average 100 meters distance, with a peak - 52 mph (84 km/h) on 20 meters. Angel310 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel310 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This article (citing George Shaller and Craig Packer) says that lions are not very effective group hunters. Quite contrary to the "precise and complex teamwork" touted in the lead.--Dodo bird (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Any hope of adding information about the Ethiopian Black Lions, an endangered sub-species or breed now found only in the Harar Wildlife Sanctuary -- if any still exist? (Someone stuffed some information into the article Black Lion, which needs to be moved to a more appropirate article.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys need to print out that stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.171.219 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lions have manes which protect against any attack to the neck and have stronger forelimbs+ taller body+ more experienced. Tigers are stronger, quicker and bigger.

I'd say that a bengal tiger vs african lion- the lion would just grab a victory. However, the Barbary lion, which is now severely endangered should be able to beat a bengal tiger quite easily. It is the same size as the bengal tiger so it has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages. Not to mention it also has a thicker mane which also runs down its stomach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britain999 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The size stated for the barbary lion is incorrect. There is no evidence that this subspecies had reached the 310 kg. Mazak (1970) and Patterson (2004) had stated that the real size of this males was about the same size that the males of the east of Africa, wicht are about 270-290 cm. long and 180-230 kg in weight. Please correct this paragrah. The reference is:

• Patterson, Bruce D. 2004. The Lions of Tsavo: Exploring the Legacy of Africa's Notorious

Man-eaters. McGraw-Hill Professional. 2004. 324 pp. See the page 110 and 145. --AmbaDarla (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

'The Barbary Lion, Atlas lion or Nubian lion (Panthera leo leo) is a subspecies of lion that has become extinct in the wild. There are around 40 in captivity in Europe, with fewer than a hundred in zoos around the world.

The Barbary lion formerly ranged in North Africa from Morocco to Egypt. The last known Barbary lion in the wild was shot in the Atlas Mountains in 1922.[1] The Barbary lion was believed to be extinct in captivity as well. However, possible Barbary lion individuals or descendants have been located in zoos and circus populations within the last three decades. There is a possible Barbary Lion located at G.W. Exotic Animal Park in Wynnewood, Oklahoma.

The Barbary lion is often considered to be the heaviest of the lion subspecies; the calculated weight for the males is 420-690 lb (190 to 310 kg) and females 290-400 lb (130 to 180 kg), approximately the weight of Bengal tigers.'

This is an extract from wikipedia. Most big cat experts around the world agree that the barbary lion is the size of a bengal tiger.91.84.230.14 (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

                                       Звезди    
                                   Звездни групи
Звездитежне са разпръснати безразборно из ВСЕЛЕНАТА.Гпупирани са ж галактики,жсяка от който съдърйа милиарди звезди.

нашето Слънце е малка частица от галактиката,наречена "Млечен път".

                                         Галактики
галактиките имат различни форми.Наи-често срещани са спиралата,двоината спирала,елипсата и неправилната форма  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raqn98 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 

"Citation Needed" indeed - I'm fairly sure that the wolf was the most widespread large land animal during the timeframe mentioned, unless they are counting all species of lion, which hardly seems fair. I'd fix this but the article is protected for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement is made in the article "Barnett, R., Yamaguchi, N., Barnes, I. and Cooper, A., 2006, "The origin, current diversity and future conservation of the modern lion (Panthera leo)", in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, published online. It doesn't attempt to classify whether at this time it was only one species, but that the progenitor of the modern lion species was widespread, of which arguably there is only one, all other lions are subspecies. Other Panthera species are not lions, but leopards, jaguars and tigers. Whereas with the wolf there are about 7 species, although the gray wolf is by far the most widespread and probably garners this title today. I'm not much of a wiki'er, so if you would like give this statement a citation please use this one above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaharilion (talk • contribs) 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Gray Wolf article here on Wikipedia, several animals that were once considered different species under Canis are now considered subspecies of canis lupus:

"Wolves and dogs are subspecies of Canis lupus. The Eurasian Grey Wolf (Canis lupus lupus) differs significantly in appearance from such wolves as C. l. pallipes, C. l. arabs, or C. l. chanco, which are probably more similar to the wolf that was the modern dog ancestor.[1]

Some other Canis taxa that were at one time considered separate species are also now considered subspecies of Canis lupus. These include the dingo (C. l. dingo) from Australia and the red wolf (C. l. rufus) from North America.[2]"

Considering that canis lupus existed throughout Eurasia and North American (where the various subspecies of panthera leo existed) AND also existed in Australia, which never had any kind of lion, it is fairly clear that canis lupus was far more widespread than panthera leo. I would fix this myself but this article is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lions are also prevalent throughout most of Africa as well, which is a far larger continent than Australia. Also, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica website:

"With the exception of humans and the lion, the gray wolf once had a larger distribution than any other land mammal."

However, it does seem that various sources offer conflicting information on this point. I do think that lions were more widespread than wolves 10000 years ago, however. Alphard08 (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The new map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-Panthera_leo.png does not cite the source of information used to create it, while the old map does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lion_distribution.svg It's important we use reliable information since this is a featured article.

The old map is also in SVG format, thus preferable over raster images like the new one.--98.232.98.144 (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to remove from lead as (although interesting) I never saw any scholarly discussion on the subject. If it gets referenced it can be reintroduced to the aritlce. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

lions are very different from white lions. white lions (also known as albino lions) are very majestic creatures. lions are used many different ways. Like symbols and references and parables. lions are used with lebron james even jesus who is the labm of god and the lion of god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmael23 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N68bXyMAQk proves that the mane helps in fact for defense and save male lions in fightings. Please include this into the article. TIA --84.56.225.236 (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

user:83d40m made a "light edit" of the article which not only removed introduced spelling errors and original research but also modified categories and several interwiki links which were relevant.

Looking at the diff here we can see a number of problems.

At the bottom we see numerous relevant national symbol categories removed. Some may not be cited but are verifiable; presentation of all uses would disrupt the article flow. Some interwikis have been removed. These are relevant stubs and rated as FAs by that wiki; we are not here to judge other wikis' quality control.

Claims such as "Recent studies of Singapore indicate that lions have never lived there, and the beast seen by Sang Nila Utama was more likely to have been a tiger." and "Until the late Pleistocene (about 10,000 years ago), the lion was the most widespread land mammal aside from humans." really do need a citation rather than a fact tag.

Some formatting like non-break spacing had been removed without reason, spelling errors have been created from correct text (alone to "along", preferred to "peferred") and wikilinks removed (e.g. "ruff"). A relevant analysis of the lion's skull has been removed. The heading "Etymology" has been named "Naming and Etymology", a tautological edit.

My largest concern are edits to the lead, especially this final paragraph:

"Many images created to represent fierce, large feline animals described as leopards and panthers reveal their identity as lionesses when the tail is examined. The characteristic tuft belongs only to lionesses if there is no mane—no matter what they are called by modern interpreters. The presence of spots may not differentiate them either, since young lions often have spots in a rosette pattern, the tail must be examined to exclude the lioness from many mislabeled images. "

The statement of "no matter what they are called by modern interpreters." is not mentioned in the text and is the editors opinion, which wouldn't demand a mention in the lead anyway. Looking at other edits to the lead we see a bizarre opinionated attempt to insult cultural usage of the male lion—emphasising that the lioness is the real intended image. Wikipedia does not "think" and such comments are conjecture and personal opinion.

Some of the edits were relevant and useful (perhaps in some cases because an automatic tool was used) but overall this is pushing the article away from its featured standard and I found a revert to be necessary. User:83d40m should restore these good edits without including these problematic ones. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 23:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - when working this article up, I found no discussion in reliable sources about paleolithic representations being female. I would be more than happy to note it in the article if there was a reliable reference but none has turned up to date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, 83d40m - we have policies on Original Research - the speculation about Lionesses must have appeared somewhere else. - see Wikipedia:No original research. The reason I reverted is that in a Featured Article, all material must be referenced. Also, the parargaph was a little too detailed for the lead, which is pretty long as is. I am sorry to have to revert but please find the references first. It does sound promising and I would love to see what you find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum I will place themes here and we can chase what sources what and go from there:

The lioness has been recognized, however, as the pinnacle of hunting prowess from the earliest of human writings and graphic representations. The lionesses are the hunters for their pride and capture their prey with precise and complex teamwork. Each lioness develops specific skills for her role in the hunting techniques used by her pride and, generally, assumes that role during most hunts. Depictions of lionesses hunting in groups have existed from the Upper Paleolithic period, with carvings and paintings from the Lascaux and Chauvet Caves.

Many images created to represent fierce, large feline animals described as leopards and panthers reveal their identity as lionesses when the tail is examined. The characteristic tuft belongs only to lionesses if there is no mane—no matter what they are called by modern interpreters. The presence of spots may not differentiate them either, since young lions often have spots in a rosette pattern, the tail must be examined to exclude the lioness from many mislabeled images.

• Some sourcing found by 83d40m:

Double vision: perspectives on gender and the visual arts - Google Books Result by Natalie Harris Bluestone - 1995 - Social Science - 159 pages 43 The poet Theodore de Banville employed the image of a "lioness in search of a ... mane of the male of her species and is very emphatically a female. ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0838635407...

http://books.google.com/books?id=JG3ceLmdnbgC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=mane+on+lioness+image&source=bl&ots=Al1pHISavC&sig=rQg-K2Qv7cEXNoRXYw6K_lGD9cw&hl=en&ei=RkIPSsLMG9rgtgfe54X9Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Well, I think you've got enough to say that "The lioness has been depicted in art as a powerful man-eating predator" but all the rest you've written is still pretty off base. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a start and I am openminded - I would think the Golden Bough might be worth looking at, I remember my high school had the whole 12 volumes or whatever there were..but that was many years ago. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: I notified WP:Ancient Egypt here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt#depictions_of_lionesses_and_links_to_Sekhmet_etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Members of human cultures living among lions in natural habitats have understood this characteristic and often have chosen the lioness to represent their most ferocious war deities and warriors, often naming their male rulers as her "son". Examples drawn from the earliest of written records include the Egyptian pantheon deities of Sekhmet, Bast, Menhit, and Tefnut, and these deities may have had precursors in Nubia and Lybia. Other Egyptian deities are quite complex and assume aspects that may include one as a lioness headed human or a lioness in specific roles.

Many ancient depictions of lionesses have been mislabeled as "panthers" or "leopards" when the details clearly include the tufted tail that readily identifies the correct species and that deliberately was included by the artisans.

The ancient Egyptians usually portrayed their lioness goddesses with a single rosette on the shoulders.

colours lions are usually a golden brown tan colour and the lioness is usually lighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.157.53 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

is "Lionesses do the majority of the hunting for their pride, being smaller, swifter and more agile than the males, and unencumbered by the heavy and conspicuous mane, which causes overheating during exertion. They act as a co-ordinated group in order to stalk and bring down the prey successfully." vs."The second organizational behaviour is labeled nomads, who range widely and move about sporadically, either singularly or in pairs.[54] Pairs are more frequent among related males who have been excluded from their birth pride. Note that a lion may switch lifestyles; nomads may become residents and vice versa. Males have to go through this lifestyle and some never are able to join another pride." Male lions must be pretty good hunters since a male single nomad has to bring down prey on his own. Of course a nomad might scavenge instead, but article says "The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will scavenge if the opportunity arises." which doesn't leave article much of an out. A possibility is adding "necessity" to opportunity in above quote, but we should find out if nomads do extra scavenging before taking that option. Or we could say it's not known or is poss. meaningless to say whether males or females are the better hunters, but in a pride, the male is mainly guarding territory etc.Rich (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the second lion image: File:Okonjima Lioness.jpg. Surely we can find a better one? Timothy the cat (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The lion is often mentioned as an animal that roars but cannot purr. My own personal observations on both lions and leopards seem to confirm this - the "purr" of a lion is different in generation and circumstance than the "purr" of a domestic cat. In domestic cats, the purr is possibly caused by muscular fluctuations in the larynx, the vocal folds not being tensed as they would be for phonation, and thus occurs on inspiration and expiration of the breath, producing a continual roll of sound varying in timbre between inspiration and expiration. It appears to be produced semi- or unconsciously as the animal can produce the sound for minutes on end and usually when relaxed, although some cats will purr when greeting a friendly human or other cat, and may be a low-intensity "all is well" signal between mother and kittens - a cat lullaby!

In lions, what sounds like a deep purr is actually the lower-frequency part of a growl, generated by the vocal folds in the process of phonation. Therefore it occurs only on expiration of the breath, and produces an intermittent sound that stops for each inspiration. The best example is a leopardess soliciting to a male during the courtship process; recordings I have taken demonstrate very well the intermittent nature of the sound. Neither lions nor leopards purr when relaxed as do domestic cats.

While in the Movie Wizard of Oz, the "Dancing Lion" is portrayed as a a happy, cowardly, singing lion, this is not actually true. Lions are actually brave and vicious when provoked, and the Most certainly DO NOT Dance. Instead, they prance and leap upon their folks, viciously murdering when angered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feralfate325 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lionheart001 (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)