are male african Lion more muscular and robust than the Tigers?

[Night Wolf]

does anyone know if it is true that male african Lions are robust than the Tigers? what studies support this claim?

Anatomy of lion:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Anatomy of Tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Balam]

This analysis was authored by the Tapatalk user Reddole a long time ago, I happen to agree with most of it, so I'm mirroring here because there are some interesting insights to go over here:

---

"The following study details carnivore limb bone lengths and widths, which we can use to infer both limb and overall body robusticity.

Source: Bertram and Biewner, "Differential Scaling of Limb Bones in Terrestrial Carnivores and Other Mammalia", Journal of Morphology: 204: P 157-169: 1990

For years posters have debated the overall strength of individual species. Commonly people post pictures of individual animals that purport to show that one species is stronger than another. Unfortunately, these picture comparison are unscientific in that the individual animals could have thick fur, the pictures can be taken at flattering or unflattering angles, or the photos may be photoshopped.

A more scientific approach involves limb bone dimensions. Scientists have found that limb lengths and widths (especially humerus or upper arm bone and femur or upper leg bone) correlatate strongly with body mass. Of the two, limb bone width is generally the better measure because wider bones can support more body mass. Thus, an animal with relatively wider bones is usually a stockier and therefore more powerful animal (although individual muscles may not be).

This study details humerus, femur, radius (forearm bone), and tibia (lower leg bone) lengths and two measures of width - anterioposterior diameter (AP diameter) and mediolateral diameter (ML diameter). Another study in which Ursus and I have posted extracts before found that animals that run fast (cursors and ambushers to a lesser extent) tend to have relatively wide AP diameters in their limb bones compared to animals that run at lower speeds or less often (i.e bears, mustelids, etc.). Here is the relavant extract:

*This image is copyright of its original author

For example, the cheetah has relatively robust limbs if we use AP diameter, but rather gracile limbs if we use ML diameter. As a result, I think ML diameter is the better measure because it leaves out limb bone thickening due to high speed running.

The humerus and radius robustness measures are also interesting from a grappling perspective. Animals that grapple with heavy prey tend to develop a relatively more robust humerus and radius to handle the high stresses involved in handling large prey. In fact humerus and radius robustness were two key morphological traits of cats that kill large vs,. small prey in the feline grappling study I posted a few months back.

The study used several mature adult specimens with roughly equal numbers of each sex when possible. I do not think sexual dimorphism should play much of a role since another study of feline limb bone dimensions did not show much change in relatively limb robusticity between sexes of each species.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another thing to note is that animal limb bones become slightly more robust as they get larger all else being equal. The trend is not too significant until animals reach about 100-300 KG.

Below is the raw data. Also, note we can calculate radius/humerus and tibia/femur (i.e. mechanical advantage of the forearm and lower leg - lower values mean stronger forearms and more stable rear legs all else being equal) from this data.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here are some general observations - mostly based off of ML diameter of the humerus (i.e. ML diameter of humerus/humerus length) unless otherwise noted.

1) The maned wolf is an extremely gracile animal as most folks already know. It has the most slender humerus ,5.75%, of any cat or dog (see below) and likely any other carnivore.

2) All of the badgers, including the wolverine, are extremely robust. Some of these measurements are as follows:

Honey Badger: 8.9%
Wolverine: 8.4%
American Badger: 10.56%
Eurasian badger: 10.04%

3) The bears are extremely robust, even the smaller species, which should not have extreme thickening of the limb bones that larger species do. Most have humerus's as or more robust (based off of ML diameter) than any big cat.

Sun Bear: 9.6%
Sloth Bear: 11.67%
Black Bear: 9.7%
Giant Panda 9.7%

4) Lion Vs. Tiger

The lion has a more robust humerus and femur based on both ML and AP diameter

Lion: 8.92%; 12.78%

Tiger: 8.57%; 11.37%

The lion has a more robust radius and tibia based off of ML diameter while the tiger's radius and tibia is more robust based off of AP diameter.

As most already know, the tiger has the lower (i.e. more advantageous) radius/humerus and tibia/femur ratios.

4) The spotted hyena has very robust limbs - 9.3% humerus ML diameter and 12.94% AP diameter. The only cats that exceed it in ML diameter robusticity are the jaguar and cougar (only slightly). The spotted hyena's AP diameter robusticity is greater than any big cat. Given this data and some skull size data I've seen, I think I now favor the spotted hyena over both a male leopard and the gray wolf - although I have to admit some of its real-life performance (i.e. killing methods, lack of lethal aggression towards many other predators) is not too impressive.

5) The bush dog is extremely robust with a humerus ML diameter robusticity of 9.18%. The only cats that exceed it are the cougar and jaguar.

6) Most small cats are not small versions of big cats. Over the years, many people have argued that most small cats are significantly different than big cats. Small cats often need slender bones to reduce weight and enhance agility in killing small prey. As a result, they trade off a significant amount of grappling ability. The following tables show all of the felid and canid species ranked by humerus ML diameter robusticity, AP diameter robusticity, and total humerus robusticity (AP diameter + ML diameter/humerus length). As mentioned before, I think ML diameter is the most relevant measure since some high speed runners, i.e. the cheetah, may have inflated AP diameter to withstand the stress from high speed running.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

A clear example of the difference between big cat vs. canid and small cat vs. canid is the comparison of the cougar and gray wolf vs. the coyote and eurasian lynx and caracal. The cougar's humerus ML diameter robusticity is 9.39% and the gray wolf's is 7.85%. This indicates that the cougar is a significantly more robust animal, and can overpower a wolf when grappling and kill the wolf. The case with the coyote and the eurasian lynx and caracal is completely different with the corresponding robusticity figures below:

Eurasian Lynx: 6.67%
Caracal: 7.55%
Coyote: 8.05%

Given this data, I have a hard time believing the either of these cats will overpower the coyote and restrain it to make a killing bite. Cats require a good degree of control to kill opponents with their precise and deadly killing bite. As such, IMHO a cat species must be a good deal stronger than its opponent to win (with certain exceptions being extremely slow animals). There are quite a few cat species that have less robust humerus's than canid species, even at the same body size.

The two small cat species with impressive humerus robusticity are the ocelot and the fishing cat - both of which are forest species."

7) The clouded leopard is extremely impressive grouping in the middle of the big cats. As a comparison, the CL's humerus ML diameter robusticity is 9.01% while the Eurasian Lynx is 6.67% and the wolverine's is 8.4%.

---

"Here is a comparison of two extinct sabertooths - the nimravid, Barbourofelis Loveorum (much smaller than a likely less robust than Barbourfelis Fricki) and the feline, Nimravides Galiani.

Barbourofelis Loverum AP diameter robusticity is:

13.94% (37.7/270.5)

Nimravides Galliani's AP diameter robusticity is:

14.6%

This compares with some extant species:

Ursus Arctos: 11.8%

Panthera Leo: 12.78%

Panthera Tigris: 11.37%

Panthera Onca: 12.8%

Nimravides may have been more cursorial than Barbourofelis Loverum and higher speed running may have led to a thickening AP diameter. Unfortunately, ML diameter is unavailable. However, the transverse diameter's at midshaft are about equal and the ends ("proximal" and "distal" "width" and "diameter") of the humerus are more robust for Barbourofelis.

Barbourofelis also has a relatively more robust ulna than Nimaravides based on numerous width/diameter measures divided by ulna length.

Barbourofelis also has a much more robust radius than Nimarvides based on numerous width and diameter measures divided by radius length. Unfortunately, we can't compare these with extant species as AP and ML diameters at midshaft were not measured. However, both species have low radius/humerus ratios with Barbourofelis having a remarkable figure:

Nimravides: 81.2%

Barbourofelis Loverun: 69.1%

This compares with some extant species:

Ursus Arctos: 75.7%

Panthera Leo: 90.1%

Panthera Tigris: 80.6%

Panthera Onca: 78.5%

*This image is copyright of its original author

" Reply

[Hello]

(01-14-2021, 06:03 AM)Night Wolf Wrote: does anyone know if it is true that male african Lions are robust than the Tigers? what studies support this claim?

Anatomy of lion:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Anatomy of Tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

To an average person who doesn't know about these cats would say lions are more muscular and robust than tigers because lions have bigger chests on average with tucked up bellies and shorter body lengths hence they appear taller plus they have shorter fur but fur length entirely depends on climate and genetics while tigers appear less muscular due to longer body fur so its very difficult to describe a tiger's body description. In reality, muscularity is basically the same for tigers and lions and strictly depends on the individual. On average tigers have more impressive forearms, biceps and triceps while lions have impressive shoulders and chests. Albeit, it STRICTLY DEPENDS ON INDIVIDUALS. Reply

[johnny rex]

(01-14-2021, 08:32 AM)Balam Wrote: This analysis was authored by the Tapatalk user Reddole a long time ago, I happen to agree with most of it, so I'm mirroring here because there are some interesting insights to go over here:

---

"The following study details carnivore limb bone lengths and widths, which we can use to infer both limb and overall body robusticity.

Source: Bertram and Biewner, "Differential Scaling of Limb Bones in Terrestrial Carnivores and Other Mammalia", Journal of Morphology: 204: P 157-169: 1990

For years posters have debated the overall strength of individual species. Commonly people post pictures of individual animals that purport to show that one species is stronger than another. Unfortunately, these picture comparison are unscientific in that the individual animals could have thick fur, the pictures can be taken at flattering or unflattering angles, or the photos may be photoshopped.

A more scientific approach involves limb bone dimensions. Scientists have found that limb lengths and widths (especially humerus or upper arm bone and femur or upper leg bone) correlatate strongly with body mass. Of the two, limb bone width is generally the better measure because wider bones can support more body mass. Thus, an animal with relatively wider bones is usually a stockier and therefore more powerful animal (although individual muscles may not be).

This study details humerus, femur, radius (forearm bone), and tibia (lower leg bone) lengths and two measures of width - anterioposterior diameter (AP diameter) and mediolateral diameter (ML diameter). Another study in which Ursus and I have posted extracts before found that animals that run fast (cursors and ambushers to a lesser extent) tend to have relatively wide AP diameters in their limb bones compared to animals that run at lower speeds or less often (i.e bears, mustelids, etc.). Here is the relavant extract:

*This image is copyright of its original author

For example, the cheetah has relatively robust limbs if we use AP diameter, but rather gracile limbs if we use ML diameter. As a result, I think ML diameter is the better measure because it leaves out limb bone thickening due to high speed running.

The humerus and radius robustness measures are also interesting from a grappling perspective. Animals that grapple with heavy prey tend to develop a relatively more robust humerus and radius to handle the high stresses involved in handling large prey. In fact humerus and radius robustness were two key morphological traits of cats that kill large vs,. small prey in the feline grappling study I posted a few months back.

The study used several mature adult specimens with roughly equal numbers of each sex when possible. I do not think sexual dimorphism should play much of a role since another study of feline limb bone dimensions did not show much change in relatively limb robusticity between sexes of each species.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another thing to note is that animal limb bones become slightly more robust as they get larger all else being equal. The trend is not too significant until animals reach about 100-300 KG.

Below is the raw data. Also, note we can calculate radius/humerus and tibia/femur (i.e. mechanical advantage of the forearm and lower leg - lower values mean stronger forearms and more stable rear legs all else being equal) from this data.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here are some general observations - mostly based off of ML diameter of the humerus (i.e. ML diameter of humerus/humerus length) unless otherwise noted.

1) The maned wolf is an extremely gracile animal as most folks already know. It has the most slender humerus ,5.75%, of any cat or dog (see below) and likely any other carnivore.

2) All of the badgers, including the wolverine, are extremely robust. Some of these measurements are as follows:

Honey Badger: 8.9%
Wolverine: 8.4%
American Badger: 10.56%
Eurasian badger: 10.04%

3) The bears are extremely robust, even the smaller species, which should not have extreme thickening of the limb bones that larger species do. Most have humerus's as or more robust (based off of ML diameter) than any big cat.

Sun Bear: 9.6%
Sloth Bear: 11.67%
Black Bear: 9.7%
Giant Panda 9.7%

4) Lion Vs. Tiger

The lion has a more robust humerus and femur based on both ML and AP diameter

Lion: 8.92%; 12.78%

Tiger: 8.57%; 11.37%

The lion has a more robust radius and tibia based off of ML diameter while the tiger's radius and tibia is more robust based off of AP diameter.

As most already know, the tiger has the lower (i.e. more advantageous) radius/humerus and tibia/femur ratios.

4) The spotted hyena has very robust limbs - 9.3% humerus ML diameter and 12.94% AP diameter. The only cats that exceed it in ML diameter robusticity are the jaguar and cougar (only slightly). The spotted hyena's AP diameter robusticity is greater than any big cat. Given this data and some skull size data I've seen, I think I now favor the spotted hyena over both a male leopard and the gray wolf - although I have to admit some of its real-life performance (i.e. killing methods, lack of lethal aggression towards many other predators) is not too impressive.

5) The bush dog is extremely robust with a humerus ML diameter robusticity of 9.18%. The only cats that exceed it are the cougar and jaguar.

6) Most small cats are not small versions of big cats. Over the years, many people have argued that most small cats are significantly different than big cats. Small cats often need slender bones to reduce weight and enhance agility in killing small prey. As a result, they trade off a significant amount of grappling ability. The following tables show all of the felid and canid species ranked by humerus ML diameter robusticity, AP diameter robusticity, and total humerus robusticity (AP diameter + ML diameter/humerus length). As mentioned before, I think ML diameter is the most relevant measure since some high speed runners, i.e. the cheetah, may have inflated AP diameter to withstand the stress from high speed running.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

A clear example of the difference between big cat vs. canid and small cat vs. canid is the comparison of the cougar and gray wolf vs. the coyote and eurasian lynx and caracal. The cougar's humerus ML diameter robusticity is 9.39% and the gray wolf's is 7.85%. This indicates that the cougar is a significantly more robust animal, and can overpower a wolf when grappling and kill the wolf. The case with the coyote and the eurasian lynx and caracal is completely different with the corresponding robusticity figures below:

Eurasian Lynx: 6.67%
Caracal: 7.55%
Coyote: 8.05%

Given this data, I have a hard time believing the either of these cats will overpower the coyote and restrain it to make a killing bite. Cats require a good degree of control to kill opponents with their precise and deadly killing bite. As such, IMHO a cat species must be a good deal stronger than its opponent to win (with certain exceptions being extremely slow animals). There are quite a few cat species that have less robust humerus's than canid species, even at the same body size.

The two small cat species with impressive humerus robusticity are the ocelot and the fishing cat - both of which are forest species."

7) The clouded leopard is extremely impressive grouping in the middle of the big cats. As a comparison, the CL's humerus ML diameter robusticity is 9.01% while the Eurasian Lynx is 6.67% and the wolverine's is 8.4%.

---

"Here is a comparison of two extinct sabertooths - the nimravid, Barbourofelis Loveorum (much smaller than a likely less robust than Barbourfelis Fricki) and the feline, Nimravides Galiani.

Barbourofelis Loverum AP diameter robusticity is:

13.94% (37.7/270.5)

Nimravides Galliani's AP diameter robusticity is:

14.6%

This compares with some extant species:

Ursus Arctos: 11.8%

Panthera Leo: 12.78%

Panthera Tigris: 11.37%

Panthera Onca: 12.8%

Nimravides may have been more cursorial than Barbourofelis Loverum and higher speed running may have led to a thickening AP diameter. Unfortunately, ML diameter is unavailable. However, the transverse diameter's at midshaft are about equal and the ends ("proximal" and "distal" "width" and "diameter") of the humerus are more robust for Barbourofelis.

Barbourofelis also has a relatively more robust ulna than Nimaravides based on numerous width/diameter measures divided by ulna length.

Barbourofelis also has a much more robust radius than Nimarvides based on numerous width and diameter measures divided by radius length. Unfortunately, we can't compare these with extant species as AP and ML diameters at midshaft were not measured. However, both species have low radius/humerus ratios with Barbourofelis having a remarkable figure:

Nimravides: 81.2%

Barbourofelis Loverun: 69.1%

This compares with some extant species:

Ursus Arctos: 75.7%

Panthera Leo: 90.1%

Panthera Tigris: 80.6%

Panthera Onca: 78.5%

*This image is copyright of its original author

"

I believe in these studies, they only compare some lions to some tigers. So, it means lions are not necessarily more robust than tigers. It simply means the lions used in these studies happened to be much more robust than the tigers that were used in these studies.

So, if I understand you, an animal with more robust limbs will have more advantage at grappling over an animal with more gracile limbs. Reply

[Charger01]

(01-14-2021, 06:03 AM)Night Wolf Wrote: does anyone know if it is true that male african Lions are robust than the Tigers? what studies support this claim?

Anatomy of lion:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Anatomy of Tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Might wanna read this - https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-comparing-cats-a-discussion-of-similarities-differences?pid=130542#pid130542 Reply

[Acinonyx sp.]

Front Limb Segment Ratio
(Shorter front limbs are very useful for grappling with your opponent; lower score is better)

Humerus/Radius:
1. Jaguar - 81.9%
2. Tiger - 82.4%
3. Cougar - 82.7%
4. Leopard - 83.1%
5. Lion - 89.5%
(Smilodon Fatalis - 78.9%)

Humerus/MTC 3:
1. Jaguar - 32.8%
2. Tiger - 34.0%
3. Leopard – 34.9%
5. Lion – 35.0%
4. Cougar - 36.5%
(Smilodon fatalis - 25.2%)

Humerus/Ulna (the precise value here is unknown; so I'll list them in their order):
1. Xenosmilus Hodsonae
2. Smilodon Fatalis
3. Jaguar
4. Tiger
5. Cougar
6. Lion
7. Leopard
8. Homotherium aerum
9. Homotherium ischyros

Proximal Paw Width
In addition, large prey specialists have proportionally large proximal paw widths (PAW). The width of the proximal paws facilitates a stronger, more stable grip on large prey animals during the initial attack, as it would in gripping substrate (Watkins, 2003) or while climbing (Cartmill, 1985), and allows the force to be distributed more evenly across the entire paw.

1. Tiger – 79.95%
2. Jaguar – 79.81%
3. Lion – 79.73%
4. Snow Leopard – 78.46%
5. Clouded Leopard – 77.09%
6. Leopard – 73.01%
7. Cougar – 68.01%
(Smilodon Fatalis - 100%)

Brachial Index (lower value is better in this case)
With regards to brachial index (BI), Iwaniuk et al. (1999) and Gonyea (1976a) also found similar results. Arboreal felids have shorter radii relative to humeri, and therefore a smaller brachial index (BI) because shortened distal limbs increase the mechanical advantage of forelimb flexors and extensors, allowing arboreal species to climb more effectively. Shorter limbs also lower the centre of gravity for arboreal cats favouring the ability to balance on high, narrow tree branches (Cartmill, 1985).

1. Clouded Leopard – 79.90%
2. Jaguar – 83.33%
3. Leopard – 84.87%
4. Cougar – 85.35%
5. Tiger – 85.56%
6. Snow Leopard – 89.01%
7. Lion – 91.13%

Humerus Robusticity Index
The results of this study suggest that large prey specialists have relatively robust forelimbs when compared with smaller prey specialists. Both the humerus (HRI) and radius (RRI) diaphyses were found to be consistently robust. This increased robusticity functions to protect against bending and torsion when under increased stress (Ruff and Hayes, 1983; Lanyon and Rubin, 1985), such as that encountered when grappling with large prey. The increased robustness in the humeri and radii of large prey specialists may also translate into a proportionally thicker cortical area of the humerus diaphysis, a possibility that will be explored in a future study.

1. Jaguar - 8.81%
2. Tiger - 8.53%
3. Lion - 8.44%
4. Snow Leopard - 8.15%
5. Leopard/Snow Leopard - 7.98%
6. Cougar - 7.64%

Humeral - Epicondylar Index
The humeral epicondylar index (HEI) was larger in large prey specialists. The humeral epicondyles serve as the origin for many muscles that stabilize the wrist during prey capture, such as: m. pronator teres, m. extensor carpi radialis, m. extensor carpi ulnaris, m. flexor carpi radialis, and m. flexor carpi ulnaris (Hebel and Stromberg, 1976;Schaller, 1992). The humeral epicondyles are also the point of origin of many of the digital flexor and extensor muscles that facilitate grasping of large prey during capture, such as: m. extensor digitorum communis, m. extensor digitorum lateralis, m. flexor digitorum superficialis, m. palmaris longus, and m. flexor digitorum profundus, in part (Hebel and Stromberg, 1976; Schaller, 1992). These larger epicondyles allow for larger originations and thereby larger muscles.

1. Tiger – 25.98%
2. Lion – 25.55%
3. Jaguar – 25.52%
4. Clouded Leopard – 24.11%
5. Snow Leopard – 24.10%
6. Leopard – 22.50%
7. Cougar – 21.57%

Olecranon Index
As found by Iwaniuk et al. (1999), the olecranon process of the ulna was relatively larger (OI) in large prey specialists. The triceps muscles insert on the olecranon process and are used primarily in arm extension. Increased size of these muscles would proffer a greater ability to push prey to the ground and hold them down while they position themselves for a killing bite.

1. Tiger – 22.47%
2. Snow Leopard – 21.19%
3. Lion – 20.78%
4. Jaguar – 19.92%
5. Leopard – 18.73%
6. Clouded Leopard – 18.07%
7. Cougar – 17.56%

Radial Robusticity Index
This measures radius mediolateral diameter at midshaft divided by radius length. As mentioned above for humerus robusticity, a robust radius resists stresses on bones during fights and increases resistance to bites to the forelimb.

1. Jaguar - 10.16%
2. Clouded Leopard - 9.69%
3. Tiger - 9.45%
4. Lion - 9.15%
5. Cougar - 8.99%
6. Leopard - 8.89%
7. Snow Leopard - 8.82%

Manus Proportions
Small prey specialists also have elongated phalanges relative to metacarpals (MCP), which again shows distal elongation. Distal elongation likely provides a velocity advantage for catching small, elusive prey.

1. Clouded Leopard – 60.53%
2. Snow Leopard – 56.04%
3. Tiger – 48.91%
4. Jaguar – 47.36%
5. Lion – 39.01%
6. Cougar – 29.33%
7. Leopard – 27.19%

Radial Articular Area
In addition, large prey specialists differed significantly from both of the other groups in having relatively broader paws (PAW), and larger distal radial and metacarpal articular surface areas (RAI, RAA, and MC3RAA).

1. Tiger – 13.11%
2. Jaguar – 12.19%
3. Clouded Leopard – 11.47%
4. Cougar – 11.38%
5. Lion – 11.30%
6. Snow Leopard – 11.18%
7. Leopard – 11.00%

Humeral Condylar Index
The distal articulation of the humerus (HCI) is also relatively larger in large prey specialists. Andersson (2004) also found increased distal articular area of the humerus in forelimb grappling carnivorans. This portion of the humerus articulates with the ulna and is responsible  for unilateral extension of the forearm and pronation and supination of the antebrachium. A larger articular area would provide more stability for antebrachial extension and non-parasagittal movements (Gonyea and Ashworth, 1975; Gonyea, 1978; Andersson, 2004), a wider range of motion for forearm positioning and prey grappling and also an increased ability to better distribute large loads (Ruff, 1988).

1. Lion – 18.00%
2. Jaguar/Tiger – 17.21%
3. Clouded Leopard – 16.63%
4. Snow Leopard – 16.43%
5. Leopard – 15.38%
6. Cougar – 14.35%

Metacarpal 3 Robustness Index
This measures the robusticity of metacarpal 3 or longest finger/digit. More robust metacarpal 3 may assist with grappling or stresses exerted with feet on ground during a fight.

1. Jaguar – 13.41%
2. Lion – 12.52%
3. Clouded Leopard – 12.19%
4. Tiger – 12.09%
5. Snow Leopard – 12.08%
6. Leopard – 11.95%
7. Cougar – 11.30%

Humeral Distal Articular Area
Andersson (2004) also found increased distal articular area of the humerus in forelimb grappling carnivorans. This portion of the humerus articulates with the ulna and is responsible for unilateral extension of the forearm and pronation and supination of the antebrachium. A larger articular area would provide more stability for antebrachial extension and non-parasagittal movements (Gonyea and Ashworth, 1975; Gonyea,1978; Andersson, 2004), a wider range of motion for forearm positioning and prey grappling and also an increased ability to better distribute larger loads (Ruff, 1988).

1. Tiger – 17.61%
2. Lion – 17.17%
3. Jaguar – 16.25%
4. Snow Leopard – 15.51%

Radial Articular Area
Even if the same scaling processes that act on the skull do not act on the forelimbs, negative allometry in limb bone lengths and positive allometry in muscle attachment sites and articular areas helps to reinforce the forelimbs against the stresses encountered by large, struggling prey.


1. Tiger – 13.11%
2. Jaguar – 12.19%
3. Clouded Leopard – 11.47%
4. Cougar – 11.38%
5. Lion – 11.30%
6. Snow Leopard – 11.18%
7. Leopard – 11.00%

Metacarpal 3 Distal Articular Area
Proximal paw width (PAW) and the distal articular area of the third metacarpal (MC3RAA) differed significantly among prey size and locomotor groups. Both variables would confer an advantage while climbing. As in large prey specialists, a wider paw would increase the surface area of the manus while climbing and increase frictional resistance (Cartmill, 1985). Greater distal articular area of the metacarpals would increase the range of motion in the digits to assure a better grip while climbing on thinner branches (Ruff,1988).

1. Jaguar – 13.41%
2. Lion – 12.52%
3. Clouded Leopard – 12.19%
4. Tiger – 12.09%
5. Snow Leopard – 12.08%
6. Leopard – 11.95%

Canine ML Diameter
(Basically, measures the robusticity of the canines using a length/width - ratio)

1. Tiger - 18.26
2. Lion - 17.07
3. Jaguar - 13.43
4. Leopard - 11.27
5. Cougar - 9.84
6. Clouded Leopard - 8.50
7. Snow Leopard - 5.93
(Panthera atrox - 21.28)
(Smilodon fatalis - 18.80)

Source:https://carnivora.net/felid-species-grappling-ability-study-t2680.html Reply

[dominusforti]

The main differences betweeb lions and tigers all relate to locomotion; the tiger is a typical, closed habitat felid that retains the basic morphology is a specialized ambush predator. The lion is adapted to more open habitats and so deviates slightly from this plan, by being slightly more cursorial. So the two represent slightly different locomotor types among pantherines, with the tiger being more typical ambush predator and the lion being more of a compromise between being an ambush predator like other pantherines, and being slightly more cursorial.

Any differences in "grappling ability" are probably secondary and the byproduct of their different locomotor types. The olecranon/ulna ratio for example doesn't control for the fact that leo has a relatively elongated ulna compared to tigris, and thus a lower value in leo may not represent smaller triceps but rather just a longer ulna. Olecranon/humerus may better control for the distal elongation of limb segments in leo, and more accurateky compare relative size of the triceps, independent of different limb proportions. Reply

[Rafido]

National geographic said that lions have the highest percentage of muscle among all mammals.

https://twitter.com/natgeowild/status/67...81/photo/1 Reply

[LonePredator]

(12-24-2021, 12:13 PM)Rafido Wrote: National geographic said that lions have the highest percentage of muscle among all mammals.

https://twitter.com/natgeowild/status/67...81/photo/1

Please STOP BELIEVING Nat Geo. Nat Geo is a TERRIBLE source of information. They always keep giving out WRONG information.

First of all African male lions were only compared with 40 other mammal species and Tigers were NOT among those 40. So the lions only had more muscle percentage than those 40 species. And also Tigers and Jaguars are the most robust while Lion comes at number 2 according to all the ACTUAL studies.

And Nat Geo also said that Siberian Tigers are 400cm long, nearly 6 feet tall and weigh upto 300kg. And ALL OF THIS IS FALSE!

No Siberian Tiger (or Bengal) in the history of earth has ever been 400cm long or 6 feet tall. NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF EARTH! And no wild Siberian Tiger (at least in the 21st century) has ever been weighed in at 300kg.

Here is the ridiculously stupid information that was posted by NatGeo on their YouTube channel in a video called 'Tigers 101'. You can also see it in their own video at 0:59 timestamp in the link below

https://youtu.be/FK3dav4bA4s @ 0:59

This is what they showed in it:

    Reply

[LonePredator]

(01-20-2021, 08:58 AM)johnny rex Wrote:

(01-14-2021, 08:32 AM)Balam Wrote: This analysis was authored by the Tapatalk user Reddole a long time ago, I happen to agree with most of it, so I'm mirroring here because there are some interesting insights to go over here:

---

"The following study details carnivore limb bone lengths and widths, which we can use to infer both limb and overall body robusticity.

Source: Bertram and Biewner, "Differential Scaling of Limb Bones in Terrestrial Carnivores and Other Mammalia", Journal of Morphology: 204: P 157-169: 1990

For years posters have debated the overall strength of individual species. Commonly people post pictures of individual animals that purport to show that one species is stronger than another. Unfortunately, these picture comparison are unscientific in that the individual animals could have thick fur, the pictures can be taken at flattering or unflattering angles, or the photos may be photoshopped.

A more scientific approach involves limb bone dimensions. Scientists have found that limb lengths and widths (especially humerus or upper arm bone and femur or upper leg bone) correlatate strongly with body mass. Of the two, limb bone width is generally the better measure because wider bones can support more body mass. Thus, an animal with relatively wider bones is usually a stockier and therefore more powerful animal (although individual muscles may not be).

This study details humerus, femur, radius (forearm bone), and tibia (lower leg bone) lengths and two measures of width - anterioposterior diameter (AP diameter) and mediolateral diameter (ML diameter). Another study in which Ursus and I have posted extracts before found that animals that run fast (cursors and ambushers to a lesser extent) tend to have relatively wide AP diameters in their limb bones compared to animals that run at lower speeds or less often (i.e bears, mustelids, etc.). Here is the relavant extract:

*This image is copyright of its original author

For example, the cheetah has relatively robust limbs if we use AP diameter, but rather gracile limbs if we use ML diameter. As a result, I think ML diameter is the better measure because it leaves out limb bone thickening due to high speed running.

The humerus and radius robustness measures are also interesting from a grappling perspective. Animals that grapple with heavy prey tend to develop a relatively more robust humerus and radius to handle the high stresses involved in handling large prey. In fact humerus and radius robustness were two key morphological traits of cats that kill large vs,. small prey in the feline grappling study I posted a few months back.

The study used several mature adult specimens with roughly equal numbers of each sex when possible. I do not think sexual dimorphism should play much of a role since another study of feline limb bone dimensions did not show much change in relatively limb robusticity between sexes of each species.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another thing to note is that animal limb bones become slightly more robust as they get larger all else being equal. The trend is not too significant until animals reach about 100-300 KG.

Below is the raw data. Also, note we can calculate radius/humerus and tibia/femur (i.e. mechanical advantage of the forearm and lower leg - lower values mean stronger forearms and more stable rear legs all else being equal) from this data.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here are some general observations - mostly based off of ML diameter of the humerus (i.e. ML diameter of humerus/humerus length) unless otherwise noted.

1) The maned wolf is an extremely gracile animal as most folks already know. It has the most slender humerus ,5.75%, of any cat or dog (see below) and likely any other carnivore.

2) All of the badgers, including the wolverine, are extremely robust. Some of these measurements are as follows:

Honey Badger: 8.9%
Wolverine: 8.4%
American Badger: 10.56%
Eurasian badger: 10.04%

3) The bears are extremely robust, even the smaller species, which should not have extreme thickening of the limb bones that larger species do. Most have humerus's as or more robust (based off of ML diameter) than any big cat.

Sun Bear: 9.6%
Sloth Bear: 11.67%
Black Bear: 9.7%
Giant Panda 9.7%

4) Lion Vs. Tiger

The lion has a more robust humerus and femur based on both ML and AP diameter

Lion: 8.92%; 12.78%

Tiger: 8.57%; 11.37%

The lion has a more robust radius and tibia based off of ML diameter while the tiger's radius and tibia is more robust based off of AP diameter.

As most already know, the tiger has the lower (i.e. more advantageous) radius/humerus and tibia/femur ratios.

4) The spotted hyena has very robust limbs - 9.3% humerus ML diameter and 12.94% AP diameter. The only cats that exceed it in ML diameter robusticity are the jaguar and cougar (only slightly). The spotted hyena's AP diameter robusticity is greater than any big cat. Given this data and some skull size data I've seen, I think I now favor the spotted hyena over both a male leopard and the gray wolf - although I have to admit some of its real-life performance (i.e. killing methods, lack of lethal aggression towards many other predators) is not too impressive.

5) The bush dog is extremely robust with a humerus ML diameter robusticity of 9.18%. The only cats that exceed it are the cougar and jaguar.

6) Most small cats are not small versions of big cats. Over the years, many people have argued that most small cats are significantly different than big cats. Small cats often need slender bones to reduce weight and enhance agility in killing small prey. As a result, they trade off a significant amount of grappling ability. The following tables show all of the felid and canid species ranked by humerus ML diameter robusticity, AP diameter robusticity, and total humerus robusticity (AP diameter + ML diameter/humerus length). As mentioned before, I think ML diameter is the most relevant measure since some high speed runners, i.e. the cheetah, may have inflated AP diameter to withstand the stress from high speed running.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

A clear example of the difference between big cat vs. canid and small cat vs. canid is the comparison of the cougar and gray wolf vs. the coyote and eurasian lynx and caracal. The cougar's humerus ML diameter robusticity is 9.39% and the gray wolf's is 7.85%. This indicates that the cougar is a significantly more robust animal, and can overpower a wolf when grappling and kill the wolf. The case with the coyote and the eurasian lynx and caracal is completely different with the corresponding robusticity figures below:

Eurasian Lynx: 6.67%
Caracal: 7.55%
Coyote: 8.05%

Given this data, I have a hard time believing the either of these cats will overpower the coyote and restrain it to make a killing bite. Cats require a good degree of control to kill opponents with their precise and deadly killing bite. As such, IMHO a cat species must be a good deal stronger than its opponent to win (with certain exceptions being extremely slow animals). There are quite a few cat species that have less robust humerus's than canid species, even at the same body size.

The two small cat species with impressive humerus robusticity are the ocelot and the fishing cat - both of which are forest species."

7) The clouded leopard is extremely impressive grouping in the middle of the big cats. As a comparison, the CL's humerus ML diameter robusticity is 9.01% while the Eurasian Lynx is 6.67% and the wolverine's is 8.4%.

---

"Here is a comparison of two extinct sabertooths - the nimravid, Barbourofelis Loveorum (much smaller than a likely less robust than Barbourfelis Fricki) and the feline, Nimravides Galiani.

Barbourofelis Loverum AP diameter robusticity is:

13.94% (37.7/270.5)

Nimravides Galliani's AP diameter robusticity is:

14.6%

This compares with some extant species:

Ursus Arctos: 11.8%

Panthera Leo: 12.78%

Panthera Tigris: 11.37%

Panthera Onca: 12.8%

Nimravides may have been more cursorial than Barbourofelis Loverum and higher speed running may have led to a thickening AP diameter. Unfortunately, ML diameter is unavailable. However, the transverse diameter's at midshaft are about equal and the ends ("proximal" and "distal" "width" and "diameter") of the humerus are more robust for Barbourofelis.

Barbourofelis also has a relatively more robust ulna than Nimaravides based on numerous width/diameter measures divided by ulna length.

Barbourofelis also has a much more robust radius than Nimarvides based on numerous width and diameter measures divided by radius length. Unfortunately, we can't compare these with extant species as AP and ML diameters at midshaft were not measured. However, both species have low radius/humerus ratios with Barbourofelis having a remarkable figure:

Nimravides: 81.2%

Barbourofelis Loverun: 69.1%

This compares with some extant species:

Ursus Arctos: 75.7%

Panthera Leo: 90.1%

Panthera Tigris: 80.6%

Panthera Onca: 78.5%

*This image is copyright of its original author

"

I believe in these studies, they only compare some lions to some tigers. So, it means lions are not necessarily more robust than tigers. It simply means the lions used in these studies happened to be much more robust than the tigers that were used in these studies.

So, if I understand you, an animal with more robust limbs will have more advantage at grappling over an animal with more gracile limbs.

I think you misinterpreted the study. This study actually showed Tigers to be more robust than Lions. See what's written above, lower means better.

So according to this study, Tigers/Jaguars are the most robust (Jaguar better in humerus/radius ratio while Tiger better in AP diameter robusticity) while Lions come at number 3 in both Reply