Panthera leo europaea (European Lion)

[Melanie]

last described ca. AD 100 (other sources 80 - 100 AD)

forest communal carnivore ranged from France(?) to Balkans

no specimens or fossils

disappeared after hunting, and outcompeted by feral dogs

[Melanie]

The South European lion that became extinct at the beginning of the Christian era, could have been the connecting link between the North African and Asiatic lions.

source: www.il-st-acad-sci.org/mammals/cat1002a.html

[david]

As for the Lion, the latest data for the lion in northern Europe was in the Netherlands from a place called Lathum, the date ws called remarkable, and was a carbon data of 10 670 b.p. He does how ever say the Lion could just possibly have survived in Southern Europe much later.

Peter Wrote:
Never knew that the European or Eurasian Cave lion (Panthera leo spelea) survived the longest time in the Netherlands. Interesting. But you're right it apparently went extinct about 10,000 years ago, during the Wisconsin glaciation, though there are some indications it may have existed as recently as 2,000 years ago, in the Balkans. Although the Asian Lion (Panthera leo persica) is also know to have occured in the Balkans in 80-100 AD. So it might not have been the Cave lion.

I still don't no if the lions in Europe 2000 years ago were:
Panthera leo spelea- (the species would have decreaed in size)
Panthera leo persica- (the nearest lion subspecies around today, with many websites claiming it as the one)
Panthera leo europaea- (compleatly different subspecies. Maybe the cave lion dawarfed)
Panthera leo leo- (the Barbary lion, moving north from Africa as the contanent warmed.)

I can't find the answer so now it's just personal opinion to me. I hope it's the cave lion dawarfed.

[Peter]

While searching for new information on the Barbary Lion project, I found the following:

Is the Barbary more closely related to the African or Asian lion in its evolutionary origins? While the answer to that question is not known for sure, the results of a study done in 1968 (one of the only studies done to this day involving Barbarys!) did provide us with a theory. The study showed that when studying skulls of the Barbary, Cape, Asian, and African lions, the same skull characteristics - the very narrow postorbital bar - existed in only the Barbary and the Asian, showing that there may have been a closer relation between the lion populations of Northernmost Africa and those of Asia. It is also believed that the South European lion that became extinct at the beginning of the Christian era, could have represented the connecting link between the North African and Asiatic lions. It is believed that Barbary lions possess the same belly fold (hidden under all that mane) that appears in the Asian lions today.

www.barbarylion.com/Barbary_Lions.htm

[david]

Yes I also saw that website, but the words used concern me:
It is also belived- by how many, who, thats not saying we have proof this is it.
could have- just as I thought, it's a theory, and the subject is open.

[Melanie]

At the one hand we are knowing that it was the Barbary lion(Panthera leo leo) which was used at the Colosseum bloodsports (see www.awf.org/news/25). But at the other hand there were Panthera leo europea and Panthera leo persica. So couldn't it be that Panthera leo europea was perhaps an invalid subspecies (because fossils were never found) and the very last lions which have survived in Europe during the Christian era were either escaped Barbary lions or of the Persion lion subspecies?

www.awf.org/news/25 Page no longer there

[sordes]

The colosseum picture above is in fact no antique print, it was drawn an the late middle-age or even later, you can see it for example on the armour, which is drawn in a typical way, late medievel illustrators thought antique armour had looked like. There are some other true antique paintings and mosaics, which show animals in gladiator-fights.
By the way, the European lions in "Walking with beasts" had long tails on TV, but short, lynx-like tails in the book of the documentation.

[Bucardo]

Panthera leo europaea is an invalid subspecies. the lions that inhabited Europe during the last Ice Age were cave lions, that extinct c. 8000 bC. In recent times, lions only occurs in Europe in Greece and SE Balkans; this animals were asian lions (Panthera leo persica) that colonized the area before the Sea of Marmara formed (5600 bC).



Notice that the lion in this greek medallion have a short mane that reaches along the stomach to the loins. Only the asiatic lion and the Barbary lion (longer mane in this) have this type of mane.



"It is also believed that the South European lion that became extinct at the beginning of the Christian era, could have represented the connecting link between the North African and Asiatic lions."

What? Barbary and asiatic lions were perfectly connected; Barbary lion were distribute in ancient times as far east as Egypt, and asiatic lion reached the Sinai Peninsula.

[Peter]

Thanks for the information. I think too that the European lions were Panthera leo persica, and not a link between the Asian and Barbary. You're right about that they were connected in their distribution area.

[david]

There is no definate answer. But you are probally right. I never thought they represented a new subspecies, but the websites still sometimes use it. The Cave Lion definatly retreated south, but the chances they are them is very slim. But don't consider the subject closed.

[Yottalex]

Panthera leo europaea is an invalid subspecies

I (strongly) dissagree with that! Even if we dont have yet any fossil remains discovered there are a lot of other facts that prove that the european (balkan) lion was a subspecies. Pliny the Elder ( 1 century CE) in his book Natural History says:
Lions are found in Europe only between the rivers Achelous and Mestus; these lions are stronger than those of Syria and Africa.
bestiary.ca/beasts/beast78.htm
Achelous and Mestus are the nowadays Aliakmon and Nestos rivers located in northen Greece. Lions of Syria are asiatic lions and those of Africa are the Barbary ones (because the sub-Saharan Africa was vaguely known at that time). Pliny underlines the strength of the european lion, that means undoubtely that they were even bigger than the other two (and remember, the size is one of the primary motives of classifying subspecies)

In recent times, lions only occurs in Europe in Greece and SE Balkans; this animals were asian lions (Panthera leo persica) that colonized the area before the Sea of Marmara formed (5600 bC).

It is the first time for me reading an exact date of a sea-forming (even lagoons takes centuries to form!!!). Despite of that, how much time do you think is needed for a subspecies being born? Do you know that the balkan lynx and the carpathian lynx have no more that 200 years of being isolated from each other with no possibility of genetic exchange and nowadays the balkan population is considered a separate subspecies. And that there are fools that claim to have "created" a new subspecies of european bison in 20 years (which are in fact only hybrids american x european bison) and they even call him bison bonasus montanus... Let's make it clear that I don't agree with the latter, I only took it as an example. We can't just throw away 5000 years.

What? Barbary and asiatic lions were perfectly connected; Barbary lion were distribute in ancient times as far east as Egypt, and asiatic lion reached the Sinai Peninsula.

Now, you have a disagreement with yourself. You say that the Barbary and the Asiatic were perfectly connected with each-other, and it is internationally recognized that they were distinct subspecies. Meanwhile you don't accept the fact that the european lion was a separate subspecies even if it had more than 5000 years (as you claim) of being isolated from the asiatic population. It's a little weird... don't you think...!
Just for information the barbary and the asiatic weren't as much connected as it seems. The Nile delta (the only "passable" point) became densely populated 5000 years ago, and I don't think that the lions could just walk it over without being noticed by the egyptians. And here is another paradox: The barbary subspecies is the largest known lion of our days meanwhile the asiatic one is the smallest. If there is so much difference in body size I would not define their connection as "perfect".
I can't say that the european lion was 100% a separate subspecies (until we have fossil confirmation). But I have good reasons to belive that. Many ancient greek authors describe it as bigger and "wilder" than the other two (that means that it was even bigger than the barbary, which is the larger known). Just to mention Herodotes (500 bc), who says that the camels of Xerxes army were attaced by lions while passing through Macedonia. It takes a lot of courage for a lion to attack camels surrounded with soldiers... Also the big size of the eurolion can be confirmed when you take a look at his main prey at the time. There weren't antelopes or gazelles in the Balkans, but there were deer, bison and of course... aurochs... You needed to be big to put down these colosses.
Panthera leo europaea... let's wait for the bones

[Peter]

yottalex, welcome to the forum! Interesting to read, you've made some good points!

[Yottalex]

Thanx Peter!
To throw some more light on the eurolion:
www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Gods/NemeanLion.html

[david]

You have raised good points but look at humans they are all the same subspecies but there are many differences. Also that thing about the lions been stronger could be a plain boast. And what would be the advantage of a Lion being big in Ancient Greece. I'd have said logically they would have been smaller if different at all.

[Bucardo]

yottalex said:

Panthera leo europaea is an invalid subspecies

I (strongly) dissagree with that! Even if we dont have yet any fossil remains discovered there are a lot of other facts that prove that the european (balkan) lion was a subspecies. Pliny the Elder ( 1 century CE) in his book Natural History says:
Lions are found in Europe only between the rivers Achelous and Mestus; these lions are stronger than those of Syria and Africa.
bestiary.ca/beasts/beast78.htm
Achelous and Mestus are the nowadays Aliakmon and Nestos rivers located in northen Greece. Lions of Syria are asiatic lions and those of Africa are the Barbary ones (because the sub-Saharan Africa was vaguely known at that time). Pliny underlines the strength of the european lion, that means undoubtely that they were even bigger than the other two (and remember, the size is one of the primary motives of classifying subspecies)

Pliny the Elder wrote in his books about mermaids and ape-men in the Atlas mountains, too. Are these creatures real animals? I don't believe it. ;D Moreover, when Pliny wrote that text, the last european lion had died perhaps 200 years before. Without bones or other rests, only with ancient fantastic descriptions as base of his comments, I don't think that the work of Pliny were a valid zoological treatise.

If I must accept a new lion subspecies, I need scientific proofs. Pliny was a great historian and writer, but not an authority on Taxonomy.

It is the first time for me reading an exact date of a sea-forming (even lagoons takes centuries to form!!!). Despite of that, how much time do you think is needed for a subspecies being born? Do you know that the balkan lynx and the carpathian lynx have no more that 200 years of being isolated from each other with no possibility of genetic exchange and nowadays the balkan population is considered a separate subspecies. And that there are fools that claim to have "created" a new subspecies of european bison in 20 years (which are in fact only hybrids american x european bison) and they even call him bison bonasus montanus... Let's make it clear that I don't agree with the latter, I only took it as an example. We can't just throw away 5000 years.

Three things:

1) The Sea of Marmara formed with a great velocity because it were the result of a violent irruption of water from the Mediterranean at the end of the last glaciation. Some events happen in few minutes, other need million of years. But, yes, I said this year as an approach. The sea could formed on 1 day or 100 years, but this isn’t important in terms of geological time or evolution.

2) There isn’t a “standard” time to formed a subspecies. An animal can evolution in few time, or a lot of time. I don’t claim that the formation of a new subspecies is impossible in 5000 years, you said this. I only wanted to say that is not strange the presence of asiatic lions in ancient SE Europe, because this territory were connected with Anatolia during many time, nearly always.

3) Bison bonasus montanus? This is crazy. XD I don't think that scientific community accept that.

What? Barbary and asiatic lions were perfectly connected; Barbary lion were distribute in ancient times as far east as Egypt, and asiatic lion reached the Sinai Peninsula.

Now, you have a disagreement with yourself. You say that the Barbary and the Asiatic were perfectly connected with each-other, and it is internationally recognized that they were distinct subspecies. [/quote]

Perfectly geographically connected, therefore, it’s false that European lions were a virtually “missing link” between these animals, like the preceding text says. Of course, they are different subspecies. I don’t claim the contrary.

Meanwhile you don't accept the fact that the european lion was a separate subspecies even if it had more than 5000 years (as you claim) of being isolated from the asiatic population. It's a little weird... don't you think...!
Just for information the barbary and the asiatic weren't as much connected as it seems. The Nile delta (the only "passable" point) became densely populated 5000 years ago, and I don't think that the lions could just walk it over without being noticed by the egyptians. And here is another paradox: The barbary subspecies is the largest known lion of our days meanwhile the asiatic one is the smallest. If there is so much difference in body size I would not define their connection as "perfect".

Well, size is a small issue, it changes very fast. Giant Kodiak bear is more related to tiny Atlas bear than polar bear. The great gaur is closely related to domestic cattle, but not to American bison.

There other best characteristics to determine the relationship in animals. Asiatic and Barbary lions are the only two lions that have some unique characteristics in its skull, according to Wikipedia (that mention one anatomical study of 1968 above different lion subspecies skulls, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Lion)
And, finally, DNA tests show that Barbary an Asiatic lions were the latest present subspecies to separated, perhaps 100000 years ago.

I can't say that the european lion was 100% a separate subspecies (until we have fossil confirmation). But I have good reasons to belive that. Many ancient greek authors describe it as bigger and "wilder" than the other two (that means that it was even bigger than the barbary, which is the larger known). Just to mention Herodotes (500 bc), who says that the camels of Xerxes army were attaced by lions while passing through Macedonia. It takes a lot of courage for a lion to attack camels surrounded with soldiers... Also the big size of the eurolion can be confirmed when you take a look at his main prey at the time. There weren't antelopes or gazelles in the Balkans, but there were deer, bison and of course... aurochs... You needed to be big to put down these colosses.
Panthera leo europaea... let's wait for the bones

What is the relationship between the courage and the size? In 1896, only two young lions frightened hundreds of men during the construction of a railway bridge in East Africa, and killed 130 people along nine months, although the construction were supervised by dozens of armed guards. This lions weren’t giants, only hungry savannah lions. XD Besides, I don’t think that complete Xerxes army were watching their camels all the time. Lions probably predate over the latest animals in the march, don’t you think?

Moreover, deer, aurochs and european bison lived in the Caucasus and NW Persia in Ancient Times, too, and they were also in the diet of asiatic lions of this regions. Why? Because lions are social animals and hunt in packs. The union is the force!

In conclusion, yes, let’s wait for the bones…. before to name a new subspecies. Is the most parsimonious posture.

[Yottalex]

but look at humans they are all the same subspecies but there are many differences

Dear david
You have entered a dark temple, from which is better to stay away. I'm not going deep on this, cauz I think it will open a huge (problematic) discussion and above all, this is not the purpose of this topic. I'll ask you only one question, hoping that you will understand me at once:
DO YOU REALLY THINK THERE IS ONLY ONE HUMAN SUBSPECIES???
Belive me some things are not said, are just thought, for the problems that they'll cause if done so. Taxonomic classification is not always scientifically based, sometimes it is politically based. The asiatic and the african lion have less genetic difference than human races have between each-other. But "strangely" the lions are divided in subspecies meanwhile the humans are not (fortunately). Imagine what will happen in the human society if done otherwise. I hope everybody understands what I'm trying to say... So, dear david, I don't think that the comparison lion-human is the right one...
Anyway, back to the lions...

Also that thing about the lions been stronger could be a plain boast.

When talking about some animal from which we do not have anything more than a bunch of graphics, fairy tales and doubtful histories, everything said can be a plain boast, a perfect lie or the wrong impression. But it also can be the perfect truth. The way of thinking in these cases is dependant on how can you manage all the "slim" facts (there are no "hard" ones), gather them, mix up with a good doze of imagination, and extract from there the directon on which to walk, hoping that is the right one.
But there will be always people (and I'm not talking for somebody in particular), which lack the above capacities, and will ask with force for real facts saying that Pliny's work aren't real zoological treaties (like we don't know that!!!)
The world has space for everyone...
A propos, the barbary has always been a solitary animal (it did not hunt in pack...)

[david]

Dear yottalex,
I made a thread recently asking what made a subspecies a subspecies, I suggest you read it:
extinctanimals.proboards22.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=1127324289
Where is your evidence for the Barbary Lion been a solitary animal. Lions hunt in packs. It is a way of life.

[Peter]

descriptions and stories from ancient times are not always very accurate that is true. They can over-exaggerate. Beside these stories we need evidence from fossil/ subfossil remains. And not just from a few individuals. That could prove or rebunk the different European Lion subspecies.

There is indeed no fixed time for subspecies to develop. Many so-called subspecies are now rebunked and proven invalid after genetic research. Even very differently varieties can still be genetically not distinct, a good example is the Dawson's Caribou. This former island subspecies is not yet genetically a subspecies. More time is needed, which can not be given as it is extinct now.

Well, Barbary lions were indeed solitary like the other cat species, or occasionally lived in pairs. This was because food was not abundant. Females raised their cubs until maturity (about 2 years) and then separated from them. (Preservation Station, 2005) Asiatic lions also hunt in very small groups, not like in sub-Saharan Africa.

About the human subspecies. Todays humans are genetically very alike. It is not possible to classify todays humans in subspecies. Our appearance can differ, but our genetics are very alike! We have also made a bottleneck (almost extinct, and descended from just a few individuals, which causes that we are all the same genetically). There were however prehistoric subspecies probably, but now extinct (see in the thread David has posted). The Sub-Saharan lions can probably also all grouped in just one subspecies, genetically seen.

[david]

Lions are not my fortay so i'll go with you.

[another specialist]

temujin said:

In Europe lions used to live in the Balkanic Peninsula(Greece,
Macedonia,Albania,Bulgaria,Servia,European Turkey),and they become extinct in the area around 100 d.C.And the balkanic lions were used in Roman arenas along with north african and middle eastern lions.About the reasons of your extinction in this area i read that was caused by excessive hunting,competition from feral dogs and the excessive use in the Roman arenas.Do they have further details about the extinction of the balkanic lion population,for example the place were the last individual died and other things???