В природных условиях лигры не встречаются.

Насчет отложения жира в неволе  я думаю меня правильно поняли! В индии могли львы спариваться с тиграми на воле? В африке помеси леопарда и льва бывают.

Алекс.В принципе такое возможно.В хрониках пишут о помесях азиат.льва и тигрицы в природе.Но сегодня это нереально в силу того,что ближайшие тигры живут 150 км от львов.Это так,для инфы.

American Lion  Статья из википедии ! 25% не линейно , а больше в общем! На основании промеров бедренной кости из 80 образцов, средний размер самца 235кг, самки 175 кг.

American lions (Panthera leo atrox) were among the largest flesh-eating land animals that lived during the Ice Age (Quaternary the last two million years) in America. They ranged from Alaska and Yukon as far south as Peru. Because so many well-preserved specimens (over 80 individuals) have been found in tar pits at Rancho La Brea (Los Angeles, California), we have an excellent idea of their body structure. And unique, vivid glimpses of their past, about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, have been recorded in European caves by our Paleolithic ancestors. Intriguing details in these artistic works suggest that the lions of Eurasia and America differed in some features from the living African lion.

American lions were characterized by their enormous size and relatively long, slender limbs. Males were nearly 25 percent larger than male African lions. According to calculation of body weight based on femoral (thigh bone) size, male American lions would have averaged about 235 kg, females about 175 kg. They were larger than their heavily-built "cousins" the sabretooth cats (Smilodon), yet smaller than the rangy short-faced bear (Arctodus simus) fellow large carnivores of the period. But in features of the teeth and skeleton, American lions strongly resembled modern ones.

Нет,Алекс.Атрокс был больше.Значительно больше.А по этой информации получается атрокс даже меньше крупнейших подвидов тигра.Интересно тогда почему первобытные люди так его боялись и считали сверххищником.Даже Лев Верещагина больше.А Атрокс еще больше.Есть и другая крайность 4м без хвоста и 700кг.Но я и этой инфе не верю.

Ссылаться на Верещагина! сомневаюсь что он изучал останки скелетов атрокса. Я привел конкретные примеры с википедии , хотел-бы также достоверную проверенную инфу с замерами. А так говорить , что атрокс намного больше -это неответ?

Очень хорошая статья про тилаколео, там и про смилодонов есть инфа и немного о тилакосмиле:

Move Over Sabre-Tooth Tiger
By Stephen Wroe
Nature Australia Volume 26, no 10: 44 - 51
Marsupial 'Lions' were extraordinary beasts, distinguished by enormous meat-shearing cheek-teeth and built-in flick-blade-like claws on their thumbs.

It has been claimed that, among Australian marsupial carnivores, none was very large. Indeed, recent authors have described Australia's largest-ever marsupial predator to have been about the size of a large wolf or a Leopard. As I stared into the empty orbits of a Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' (Thylacoleo carnifex) skull - almost 26 centimetres long and 23 centimetres wide - I wondered if those who had made these claims had ever seen fossils of this remarkable beast. Someone must have once considered this animal to have been a truly formidable predator, otherwise it would never have been called a marsupial 'lion'. In fact, my own hunch had long been that T. carnifex was Australia's answer to those paragons of the mammalian carnivore universe - the extinct sabre-toothed 'tigers' (Smilodon) from North and South America.

That Australia was perceived as a continent never graced by large warm-blooded carnivores had always bugged me. In late 1998, reading a review of a colleague's article finally drove me to action. Anna Gillespie, pursuing her PhD at the University of New South Wales, had just submitted a summary of marsupial 'lion' evolution. In it she noted that the family, Thylacoleonidae, included species ranging from the size of a Domestic Cat to that of a Lion. The reviewer took exception to the proposition that any marsupial 'lions' grew to be as big as the 'King of Beasts', observing that most scientists had compared Thylacoleo carnifex to the Leopard. In this the reviewer was right. The problem was, we were convinced that 'most scientists' were wrong.

A review of the literature did nothing to instil confidence in previous estimates of marsupial 'lion' size. In fact, it became clear that none of the estimates amounted to anything more than educated guesswork. In 1984, Peter Murray (Central Australian Museum) reckoned Thylacoleo carnifex may have reached up to 100 kilograms, but in 1991 Tim Flannery (now at the South Australian Museum) suggested 50-70 kilograms for the beast (see Nature Aust. Winter 1991). Tim revised this down further to 40-60 kilograms in his 1994 book, The future eaters. Most recently Esmèe Webb (Yamaji Language Centre) suggested that T. carnifex was a 20-kilogram animal. Clearly, desperate action was needed. At this rate Thylacoleo carnifex seemed fated to disappear altogether! Anna and I, and another two colleagues, Troy Myers (University of New South Wales) and Rod Wells (Flinders University), resolved to settle the matter. As things stood, Australia was the only continent, bar Antarctica, that had never had a bona fide mammalian super-predator, while the biggest thing we had was, evidently, getting smaller by the minute. This had become a matter of more than scientific significance . . . national pride was at stake!

Way back in the Oligocene, over 25 million years ago, the first recognisable ancestors of the Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' began taking their first tentative steps on the road to a fully carnivorous lifestyle. Small, with poorly developed canine teeth and a distinctly vegetarian heritage, any casual observer at the time might well have voted them as the marsupial carnivore family least likely to succeed. But succeed they did. Eight species of marsupial 'lions' are now recognised, and Anna is about to describe at least two more. The pinnacle of marsupial 'lion' evolution was the most recent species, Thylacoleo carnifex, a widely distributed and common find in fossil deposits across the length and breadth of Australia. Precisely when the last died out is unclear, although it was probably within the last 50,000 years or so. Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lions' were extraordinary beasts, distinguished by enormous meat-shearing cheek-teeth (carnassials) and built-in flick-blade-like claws on their thumbs. Their meat-butchering carnassials were the largest of any known mammalian predator, living or extinct. In terms of its dentition, many scientists now believe that T. carnifex was the most specialised mammalian carnivore of all time.

However, this was not always the case. For decades following Sir Richard Owen's description of Thylacoleo carnifex back in 1859, marsupial 'lion' biology was the subject of ongoing controversy (see Nature Aust. Summer 1999). Admittedly Owen, an eminent palaeontologist of the 19th century, made some serious mistakes in his professional lifetime and backed some well-known losers. Posterity may well best remember him for his steadfast and vocal opposition to the theories of one Charles Darwin. But, whatever his shortcomings, Owen certainly possessed a broad knowledge of mammalian anatomy. Examination of the skull and teeth of T. carnifex left him in no doubt that he was looking at an exceptionally large and ferocious carnivore, in his words among the "fellest and most destructive of predatory beasts". Owen's emotive interpretation kick-started a debate that would rage for decades.

Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' anatomy was weird. Certainly it departed from the mammalian carnivore stereotype in a number of important respects. Moreover, as a member of the predominantly herbivorous diprotodontian marsupial radiation (koalas, wombats, kangaroos, possums etc.) Thylacoleo carnifex just didn't seem to have the pedigree required of a true, blue-blooded predator. A supposed clincher for those arguing for herbivory was the animal's conspicuous lack of large canines. Consequently, Owen's original interpretation was brought into question and the matter of diet remained open until 1982, when Rod Wells and others finally settled the argument in favour of a predatory lifestyle. Their work was based on an analysis that related structure to function and convincingly showed that T. carnifex was best adapted to a carnivorous habit. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has suggested otherwise since.

But, with the lifestyle debate put to rest, a major change in Owen's original perception seems to have slipped through, almost unnoticed. Somehow the Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' has shrunk, quietly becoming the Pleistocene Marsupial 'Leopard', without exciting much, if anything, in the way of argument. This 'down-sizing' effects not only our interpretation of the animal's biology, but of the Australian ecology in general. For example, in 1975 Max Hecht (University of New York) argued that the giant goanna Megalania prisca was our continent's supreme terrestrial carnivore during the Pleistocene. At around 5.5 metres long and 620 kilograms in weight, it certainly seemed reasonable that this all-time biggest lizard could have been a major predator of large herbivores. However, accepting and further developing Hecht's views, Tim Flannery argued that this alleged reptilian 'supremacy' was intimately related to Australia's low-nutrient soils. The premise underlying Tim's argument was that reptiles, being cold-blooded, needed much less food per kilogram of body weight than warm-blooded predators. Consequently, they were inherently better adapted to cope with low-productivity regimes than energy-hungry mammalian counterparts.

Exactly how and why this all happened is not quite clear to me. But at least one identifiable factor seems to have been important. Owen's original description of Thylacoleo carnifex was based on a skull only. Little else was known until 1966, when a near-complete specimen was found in Moree, New South Wales. From this new material it was obvious that the Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' had a rather short body - closer in length to that of a Leopard than a Lion.

Of course length is, at best, a very rough indicator of weight. A big Leopard (Panthera pardus) is longer than an American Black Bear (Ursus americanis), yet the Black Bear can be three times heavier than the biggest of Leopards (270 versus 90 kilograms). Similar disparity can be found within the cat family (Felidae). Historically, the largest sabre-toothed 'tigers' (Smilodon) have been compared to the Lion (Panthera leo), based on gross similarity in form. However, recent analyses suggest that the best-known species, Smilodon fatalis, was 1.5-2 times heavier than the average Lion (around 170 kilograms). Still, with not much else to go on at the time, the downward revision of Thylacoleo carnifex to 'Leopard-sized' was perhaps reasonable. However, increasingly sophisticated means of estimating the weight of extinct animals have become available in recent years. One simple but accurate method was forwarded by John F. Anderson (University of Florida) and others in 1985. By adding together the minimum mid-shaft circumferences of the femur and humerus (upper bones of the back and front legs) and plotting these data against known weights for a wide range of extant animals, the scientists demonstrated that the two variables were closely correlated. On the assumption that these underlying principles apply to fossil species as well, this was a boon for palaeontologists, enabling reliable estimation of weight for extinct animals based only on data from two leg bones. William Anyonge (University of California at Los Angeles) employed a similar methodology in 1993 to provide a means of estimating the weight of placental carnivores.

Although shorter than the biggest of living cats, there is no doubt that Thylacoleo carnifex was exceptionally robust, far more so than any Leopard (30 to 90 kilograms). With this in mind, we decided to obtain weight estimates for the Moree Thylacoleo using the equations provided by Anderson and colleagues, as well as that of Anyonge. We were confident that these would give higher figures than estimates based on head-body length.

Even so, the results were surprising. Depending on whose methodology we used, the weight estimates came out at a whopping 112 and 143 kilograms. On the basis of skull dimensions, the Moree Thylacoleo was not the largest. In fact, four of the 13 skulls known were significantly larger, and at least one of these was a subadult or juvenile! Even if we take the lower figure of 112 kilograms, then the biggest specimens must have been very big. How big? Well, mass increases geometrically with length. Although the precise relationship between mass and length is debated, most agree that length cubed is proportional to mass. Assuming that other Thylacoleo were of a similar shape to the Moree specimen, then the biggest weighed in at as much as 164 kilograms. This is larger than the average female weights for Tigers (Panthera tigris) and Lions (130 and 150 kilograms respectively). Our average weight estimates for T. carnifex were 101 to 130 kilograms. No matter how you look at it, this is big for a specialist mammalian meat-eater.

Among specialist living carnivores, only Lions and Tigers fall into this mammalian predator 'super-league'. Moreover (and it comes as a surprise to many), even if we 'dig' into the fossil record, only a handful of big cat-like mammals are thought to have ever exceeded average weights of 100 kilograms. For example, from the well-known and intensively researched North American fossil record of the last 40 million years, only four or five felid or 'felid analogues' are known to fall into this 100-kilogram-plus category. Among marsupial carnivores, only one species, the South American Marsupial Sabre-tooth (Thylacosmilus atrox), comes even close. Powerfully built, with upper canines over 15 centimetres long, Thylacosmilus was the ultimate mammalian predator of its day in Plio-Pleistocene South America. Still, at around 116 kilograms for the largest known individual, it didn't hold a candle to a big Thylacoleo.

These new weight estimates have major implications regarding the interpretation of lifestyle for Thylacoleo carnifex. No-one has ever suggested that the animal ran its prey down in wolf-like fashion. Most have argued it was a stalk-and-ambush killer, possibly even surprising its victims by aerial assault from the trees. Given the size suggested by our results, we agree that T. carnifex was simply too bulky to have run down anything except perhaps for the most ponderous of herbivores, although it was probably capable of short, explosive bursts of speed. It also seems unlikely that adults would have habitually climbed trees. This leads us to an interesting subject. Just what was the preferred diet of T. carnifex?

A number of palaeontologists have drawn analogies between the Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' and the sabre-tooth 'tigers' (Smilodon). The three species of Smilodon varied in size. The smallest, S. gracilis, had an average weight of around 80 kilograms. The other two, S. fatalis and S. populator, were more robust and much heavier - as noted above, perhaps up to twice the weight of modern Lions. Despite this variation, it is widely held that all were specialised hunters of big game. Like S. fatalis and S. populator in particular, Thylacoleo carnifex was extremely robust, with tremendously powerful forelimbs. From examination of attachment sites on its bones, there can be no doubt that T. carnifex positively rippled with muscles that would make any body-builder green with envy. It also had an even shorter snout and more elaborate carnassial teeth than the sabre-tooth 'tigers'. A short snout enables a more powerful killing bite and well-developed carnassials are typical of all mammalian specialist big-game hunters.

Further evidence supports the idea that, like Smilodon, T. carnifex was a meat-specialist (as opposed to bone-cruncher). Blunt, conical tooth cusps, especially pronounced in the Spotted Hyena (Crocuta crocuta), are smaller but present in most cats. Such dental modifications are indicative of at least some tendency to crack bones. However, the teeth of Smilodon and the Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' have absolutely none. They evidently extracted all their nutritional requirements from flesh and other soft tissue alone. In 1981, following a study that showed a high proportion of Thylacoleo tooth marks left on fossilised herbivore rib bones, David Horton (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies) and Richard Wright (Sydney University) even went so far as to argue that, like Smilodon, Thylacoleo concentrated on eating internal organs. And still other evidence places T. carnifex at the scene of some of Australia's all-time biggest 'murder' cases. At least two studies have identified Thylacoleo's distinctive tooth marks on the fossilised remains of the world's largest marsupial, Diprotodon australis. Overall, the picture of Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' biology indicated by these findings is of a muscle-bound, 'purpose-built' ambusher, wrestler and dispatcher of large prey. This beast probably didn't waste time taking out small fry.

Admittedly, to date, the evidence for 'Thylacoleo the giant-slayer' remains circumstantial, and while features shared with species of Smilodon and Thylacoleo are highly suggestive, they don't constitute proof that the two occupied similar niches. But, taken together with upward revision of weight, I believe that the prima-facie case is strong; certainly grounds enough to warrant more thorough investigation.

On the issue of deciding which was the most significant predator of terrestrial mammals in Pleistocene Australia - Thylacoleo carnifex or the out-sized goanna Megalania priscaóa few points need mentioning. First, the Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion' has, as mentioned, been strongly implicated in the killing of mega-herbivores, whereas Megalania has not. Second, Megalania fossils are very rare, while T. carnifex fossils are relatively common. Third, because it was 'cold-blooded', even a 620-kilogram Megalania would not have required as much food as an average-sized (100-130-kilogram) Thylacoleo. Consequently, my colleagues and I have argued that, unless Megalania was much more common than the fossil record indicates, then it was a far less significant predator of big mammals than Thylacoleo.

In conclusion, if the Marsupial 'Lion' is to be compared with placental cats, then the strongest analogies are with the species of Smilodonódespite the conspicuous lack of sabre-like canines in the marsupial. Although the largest Smilodon was certainly bigger, our new estimates of weight suggest that Thylacoleo carnifex would have been more than a match for Smilodon gracilis, and few would suggest that S. gracilis was anything less than a large and fearsome predator. Certainly it seems high time that Australians stopped short-changing themselves regarding the size and ferocity of their largest mammalian carnivore. Sir Richard Owen may have backed the wrong horse on the subject of Creation versus evolution, but regarding the Pleistocene Marsupial 'Lion', the big man of 19th-century palaeontology got it right from the start. The enigmatic fossil species he described in 1859 really was one of the "fellest and most destructive of predatory beasts".

Причём о фаталисе. Я темой ошибься, щас опубликую там где надо. Но тут пусть тоже висит.

У тигра до 7,5 см.

У леопарда где-то 4-5.

Алекс :

Хорошая статья, но в тему сумчатые львы! да и о смлодоне приятно написано - в два раза тяжелее льва!

Очень может быть. А вот атрокс, хоть и мог, при всей своей длиннолапости быть относительно тяжелее "южанина", но не более,чем в 1.2 раза.

Алекс :

Внешний вид. Статья из википедии! Средний вес льва самца 180кг, атрокса 235, длина тела льва 220см, атрокса 250см, высота в холке льва до 110см, атрокса 130см он был более высоконогим. Это и есть 25% больше!Неисключено наличие переростков как и у всех видах!

Алекс, длина 220 см, даже для значительно более длинного тигра, редкость, (Владимир давал ссылки на таблицы, так современные крупные тигры из индийских нац. парков весом в 250-270 кг, всего 220-225 см длиной.  Для "питбулеобразного" льва - 220 см - видимо это рекорд, а нормальный максимум - 190 см. Так что, учитывая пропорции скелетов, длина тела взрослого самца атрокса скорее была 220 - 240см,(250 - это уже 48-сми головый переросток) при росте 120 - 130см и весе 235-350кг. Предвосхищая негодование, повторюсь: 400-450кг лигры - высокие, ДЛИННЫЕ и ЖИРНЫЕ! Атрокс был мощным, ВЫСОКИМ, НЕ длинным и НЕ жирным, а потому не весил ПОЛТОННЫ даже пр черепе 48см.