# Lions - a young species or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 4, 2002, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lions-a-young-species-or-not/101746 "2002-04-04T11:13:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lions-a-young-species-or-not/101746/1 "2002-04-04T11:13:30Z")
I read several months ago that lions were one of the younger species of mammals, showing up around 75,000-100,000 years ago (making them younger than homo sapiens). I thought this was interesting and thought it may have had something to do with lions being so different from the rest of the great cats (they are different from all the rest in that they live and hunt in groups and show a lot of sexual dimorphism) and the fact that lions were so widespread until recent times. Tonight I was reading some other sites that told a different story - they said that fossil evidence showed that lions were among the first members of genus panthera, and that they had been around for app. 6 million years. So, which is it, and why are there such different opinions on this matter - some saying they are the oldest of the big cats, some saying the newest? ---
**Author:** ![Mephisto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@Mephisto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mephisto)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lions-a-young-species-or-not/101746/2 "2002-04-04T12:42:23Z")
I don’t have a cite for this, but I’ve heard of an “ancestral lion” out there whose exact relationship to modern lions is in dispute among the experts. Perhaps part of your confusion is due to you getting your information from people on different sides of the argument? While looking for a cite about the aforementioned mystery cat, I came across [this site](http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/agarman/bco/evolution.htm), which says, “Fossil records show that the lion appeared on the scene considerably more recently than the other members on the genus Panthera. The earliest known records date back to around 750,000 years ago and stem from Western Africa. From here lions spread north into Asia and Europe, were the Cave lion (Panthera spelaea) and Tuscany lion were found in the Balkans and Northern Italy respectively. The ancestral lion also crossed from Asia into north America and the American lion (Panthera atrox) spread south as far as Peru.” So maybe your confusion is due to the fact that different writers mean different things when they say “lion.” Sort of like when you read about the history of mankind, you’ll sometimes find mention of a hominid that looked nothing like you or me refered to as “an early human.” Perhaps one expert is refering to all the aforementioned animals as lions, while another is just refering to the modern version. Just a thought. Sorry this isn’t much of a response. I thought I’d have more hard information for you when I started writing this, but sometimes Google isn’t your friend. There really is a prehistoric animal that some scientists want to call a lion, though. I’m (pretty) sure of it! ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lions-a-young-species-or-not/101746/3 "2002-04-04T15:22:23Z")
I believe it’s simply a matter of how the writer is using the word “lion.” From [this site:](http://www.sciam.com/2000/0400issue/0400wonders.html) > [@](#): > > The late Björn Kurtén, Helsinki paleontologist and a brilliant writer, examined the fossil distribution of lions from their first appearance. Lions of our modern species, differing over time by subspecies distinctions that do not make them unrecognizable, have been at home over a very wide range. The first lions in the record—in those days lion and tiger were still one—are found near Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania and in South Africa, just as they are today, around three million years ago. They spread slowly to Europe, at first “outsize, even for cave lions,” then eastward to the Pacific. At least one is known from the cave of Peking man. More than a dozen fossil finds of lion are present in Siberia, and their trail extends across the land bridge to Alaska and the Yukon. By the time of the tar pits, lions were roaming the open country of our own continent everywhere south of the ice. So according to this, three million years ago, lions and tigers had apparently not diverged. Whether this creature should actually be called a “lion” would be a matter of opinion. Likewise for any earlier ancestor, such as the six-million year old form you mention. Perhaps these ancestral forms were closer in morphology to lions than they were to other members of _Panthera_, which may be why some authors refer to them as 'lions." Likewise exactly when the “modern” lion emerged depends on whether you accept fossil forms (_spelea_ and _atrox_) as species separate from _Panthera leo_, or merely as subspecies of _Panthera leo_.