Talk:Lion

Bite force

Hello to all of you. I added information on the biteforce of Panthera leo because other Pantheras have this information. I put it up here to let the three major page contributors—BhagyaMani, LittleJerry, and Casliber—know. As I can personally attest to, readers find this kind of information to be really helpful, so I advise leaving the edit rather than rolling it back. Having been a Wikipedia reader since 2018, I was dismayed to see no mention of bite force on any of my favorite articles. I hope I was able to serve the readers here. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

From dissection of the temporalis and masseter muscles to estimate cross-sectional area, and from in vivo force measurements for opossums (Extrapolated to carnivore mammals), it has been estimated that a lion bites with a force of 1482.6 Newtons in the canines and 4167.6 Newtons in the carnassials.

-Thomason, J. J. (1991). Cranial strength in relation to estimated biting forces in some mammals. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69(9), 2326-2333. LeandroPucha (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Lion distribution map

As discussed in [1], the range of Panthera leo during the mid-Holocene extended as far northwards as Ukraine, which isn't shown on the current distribution map. Perhaps the map could be updated? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I started a map request a month ago here. BhagyaMani would you be able to make a new one? LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Male lion picture upgrade

• 
  Actual image
• 
  New image

Dear users,

I think it is time to upgrade the main picture of the male lion for the following reasons :

• The actual image of the male lion has an extremely low resolution (1280 x 960 pixels) and is very old (2004)
• The actual image of the lion is not very sharp and has very harsh shadows including on the lion face
• The actual image is considered of so low quality that it was unanimously delisted from the Featured picture status in February 2024
• The new proposed image is of much higher resolution (5168 × 3448 pixels), i.e. 14 times more pixels, allowing the animal to be seen in all its detail
• The new proposed image has good lighting
• The new proposed image presents the lion in the same position with whole body visible, but this time including the tail
• The new proposed image was recently unanimously granted the Featured picture status with 24 votes in favor which means that it is considered one of the finest images
• The new picture presents a lion that is quite famous and many articles mention him (including BBC, Whashington Post, etc.) : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, etc.
• The new picture presents a behavior of the lion which has educational value : it is standing on top of a lava rock that allows it to have a clear view of its territory.

The only reason I can see to keep the actual image inside the article (but not as the lead image) is because of it's mane. The actual image could therefore be moved to the "Mane" section of the article where it would be much more relevant.

Pinging BhagyaMani that told me to bring this to the discussion page.

Please vote bellow to support or oppose to this change in the article.

Thank you for your time and I wish you all a beautiful day – Giles Laurent (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support – Giles Laurent (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. For the taxobox image, I think it would be better if trimmed slightly, especially in the horizontal direction.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your message. I think the new image should not be trimmed for the following reasons : 1) the image would be too much suffocating, having a bit of extra spaces let's the subject breath and lead room is appreciable ; 2) the actual crop of the new image gives a bit more context of the place ; 3) trimming at top and bottom would not make the lion appear bigger on thumbnail since picture size is determined by width space in taxobox and not height space, so I really don't see any practical reason to do it either (PS : trimming left and right would also not be good as it would make the picture lack lead room) ; 4) the actual image has just as much space at bottom and top then the new, if not more -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Lion genomic adaptations

Expanded proteins has been found in lions, indicating gene duplication (And overexpression). These include genes related to synaptic transmission (SLC6A16), hair follicle morphogenesis (TMA7), and Cysteine and Taurine biosynthesis (CDO1). This could explain many of the characteristics of the species such as the mane and excellent night vision that allows to lions hunt very well at night. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/549790v1.abstract LeandroPucha (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is an unpublished manuscript, so lets wait until this gets peer-reviewed + published in a journal. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lioness bite force

In a paper published in 2023, we read that a lioness (100-120 kg) bites with a maximum force of 1593.8 Newtons at the incisors.

https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.245255.

This indicates that the highest bite force estimates for carnivorous mammals are the most correct ones to use.

In the case of lions (or rather lionesses here), a maximum force on the canines of 1768 Newtons and 4167.6 Newtons on the carnassials.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564077/.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff-Thomason/publication/237965847_Cranial_strength_in_relation_to_estimated_biting_forces_in_some_Mammals/links/0deec520acce916613000000/Cranial-strength-in-relation-to-estimated-biting-forces-in-some-Mammals.pdf. LeandroPucha (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Lion mane color and genes.

Thanks to a study of the genome of lions at the Addis Ababa Zoo, which have been raised in captivity for 18 generations since 1948 and whose males are distinguished by a dark mane that extends to the abdomen, mutations were found in two potential genes responsible for the colour of their manes (MITF and TYR).

The paper was published in 2024.

https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evae021.

LeandroPucha (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 again

So, BhagyaMani, Casliber, Laser brain, FunkMonk, Jonesey95 and A455bcd9, can we declare this article Satisfactory? It has improved since 2018 and has a new range map cited to the IUCN. LittleJerry (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The maps look good to me. The rest: I can't say. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I tidied up citations to make them more consistent and to bring them into better compliance with MOS, mostly page ranges and author name formats. The only one that stood out to me was this page range: "The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in World Art; publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group; pages=254–560". – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)