There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
06-01-2015, 04:30 PM( This post was last modified: 06-01-2015, 07:05 PM by chaos )
The consistency and accuracy appearing for the estimated average Serengeti Plains male lions body mass does not at all implicate the average suggested for Ngorongoro Crater male lion is similarly accurate. The true (unknown) average could be either lower or higher then 212 kg even by a significant margin perhaps -15 kg to + 15 kg (unlikely).
What we do know is that the correct (in the sense of how it should have been printed and not in the accuracy of the prediction) regression equation predicts an average of 212 kg, that the equation shown in the paper has a typo and that Packer has provided in a personal communication a range of chest girth for lions in Ngorongoro Crater of 1270-1340 mm (supposedly referring to the adult age male class as highlighted above).
The estimate provided by Brown et al (1991) of 212 kg as average body mass for the N=6 sample of Ngorongoro Crater adult male lions is therefore perfectly included in my estimated range 205-220 kg. I therefore believe this estimate of 212 kg from Brown et al. (1991) reflects with good level of accuracy the likely average actual body mass of those 6 individuals in that sample (that will never be known) in spite of the typo in the equation appearing in their paper.
The estimate provided by Brown et al (1991) of 212 kg as average body mass for the N=6 sample of Ngorongoro Crater adult male lions cannot be discarded and, as an estimate, is very much valid.
What I'm seeing here, paints a different picture, my friends. Now as far as I'm concerned, the issue remains quite clouded. Either way it reflects the larger size of craters in general. Nowhere near enough info to get an accurate gauge. Its been a pleasure engaging you guys. Your overall knowledge and use of data is quite
worthy, and that's complimentary in terms, not provocative. Please do carry on.