FELIS LEO. 91 



The Cat tribe may be popularly divided into Lions, Tigers, Leopards, 

 Cats, and Lynxes ; which have been, not unfrequently, made by late 

 authors into as many genera, but recently have been retained in one 

 large genus. Blyth divides the Asiatic cats into three groups the 

 Pardine series, with robust skeleton, and rounded and obtuse ear-conch ; 

 Lynxine seires ; and the hunting Cheeta. 



Gen. FELIS, Linn. 



Char. Those of the family. Hind-feet with four toes. 



1st. Lions, Leo, Gray, and others. Unspotted, of large size; pupil 

 round. Lions are distinguished by their enormous heac 1 , maned neck, 

 comparatively weak hind limbs, and a shortish, tufted tail. 



103. Felis leo. 



LINNAEUS. F. (leo) asiaticus of some. F. (leo) gujraten *is, SMEE, 

 Trans. Zool. Soc., with fig. BENNETT, Tower Menagerie, pi. XXI Y. 

 BLYTH, Cat. 171, Synops. 2. Sher, Babbar-sher, H. Untia bdg in 

 Guzrat and Cutch, i.e. the carnel-coloured tiger. Singha, H., in some 

 parts. /Shingal, Beng. 



THE ASIATIC LION. 



Descr. Of a pale tawny colour without spots or stripes; tail tufted; 

 mane scanty in some, well marked in others. 



Length 8 J to 9 \ feet ; 3 \ feet in height ; foot 6J inches in diameter. 

 The weight of one, 8 feet 9 J inches long, was 35 stone. 



The Asiatic lion was long considered to differ from the African one, 

 in being smaller and less powerful, and in wanting the rufous or vinous 

 tinge so general in the African race ; but recent observations tend to 

 confirm the specific identity of lions from Asia and Africa, pale-coloured 

 races being by no means rare in Africa ; but it must be allowed that the 

 African lion has generally a finer mane, as well as a median line of 

 lengthened hairs along the abdomen, which is seldom present in the Asiatic 

 lion ; and, moreover, has a somewhat different physiognomy. The race from 

 Guzrat was considered distinct by Major Smee, of the Bombay army, and 

 it was supposed that the Indian race wanted the mane altogether. It 

 has, however, been clearly shown by Blyth and others, that the absence 

 of the mane in certain specimens was probably accidental, being torn off 

 in the prickly jungles of those districts of India which it still fre- 



