Yamaguchi & Haddane (2002) made a good investigation about this lion, check it:
“How big was a Barbary lion? The famous French
zoologist Cuvier measured a six-year-old captive-reared male Barbary lion,
which had head and body length of 5 pieds 2 pouces (= c. 1.58 m), tail length c.
66.1 cm, height of forequarters c.
83.6 cm and of hindquarters c.
83.6 cm (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). This lion was caught in
eastern Algeria in 1795 at about one year old and died at ten years old in the
Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Although the live lion may not have given Cuvier
accurate measurements, the animal seems to have been very small for a male
lion. It is, however, doubtful whether captive Barbary lions, usually captured
as cubs and kept in menageries during the 18th or 19th centuries, attained the
full body size. Cuvier himself referred to undesirable captive conditions at
the menagerie (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). Cornish (1899)
reported that big cats only lived, on an average, for two years in London Zoo
in the mid-1800s. Gérard (1856) also expressed his concern about the captive
condition of lions at the Jardin des Plantes. On the other hand, he described a
big wild Barbary lion he shot with the comment `This lion, compared to the
finest of those which are exhibited in our menageries, or at the Jardin des
Plantes, was what a horse is to a donkey. . .' There is, however,
no credible record of body measurements of wild Barbary lions. Gérard
(1856) described the size of wild male Barbary lions as c. 2.3 m from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail, which
measured c. 90 cm, and their
weight as c. 270–300 kg. If
this had been true, Barbary lions would indeed have been big amongst lions.
However, the methods of obtaining these measurements (e.g. straight or along
the curve) were not specified, and the accuracy of the measurements themselves
may be questionable, as Gérard made them in the field. Although Pease
(1899, 1915) suggested that North African lions might have become very heavy
because they fed on mutton so much, regarding the body length he seems not
to have believed what he himself quoted – an Algerian lion whose head and
body length was c. 2.5 m and
the tail length 75 cm.”
“The largest Barbary lion skull so far measured, which is partly broken,
has an estimated greatest length of c.
360 mm (Mazák, 1970; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Although 360 mm is not small,
big skulls of sub-Saharan lions easily reach a maximum length of over 380 mm,
and some even over 400 mm (Hemmer, 1974; Best, 1981; Yamaguchi, unpublished).
Does this mean Barbary lions were not particularly big? Due to such a small
sample size, we have to wait until more specimens may become available. The big
lion Gérard shot in Algeria was presented to the Duchess of Orléans (Gérard,
1856), but the current whereabouts of this specimen and other wild-shot Barbary
lions which decorated Gérard's Paris residence are not known.”
Conclusion of Yamaguchi: there are no reliable
sizes of wild Barbary lions, nor any weights. Yamaguchi, the “god” of
hard-core-lion-fans presents a good case where he states that there is no
evidence or at least enough specimens to say that this lion was larger than any
other population. In fact, if we follow the new genetic evidence and with the
presented sizes, we can conclude that this lion was of the same size and weight
than modern Indian and West African lions, which incredible, reach the same
sizes despite the large geographical distance.