Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Yusuf]

(09-26-2020, 09:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(09-26-2020, 05:54 AM)Yusuf Wrote: So we dont know how long the lion really was. But he said in his book that the lion measured 10ft 4 inches between pegs. Can you send me the source again where he said that the lion was 10ft 7 over curves? Why its impossible that he would have 10ft 4 between pegs? Its a difference of 8cm from the curve measurement. I kniw its mostly 10cm or more but not always.

So if we listen to Frederick he said clearly that the lion measured 10ft 4 inch. between pegs. Why he didnt said then 10ft 1 inch instead of 10ft 4inch? anyways he didnt said that the lion was 10ft 1inch. We got that info from the seperated datas and if we ad them together. But there is maybe a possibilty that something where not included or anything.

If the book would not come from himslef i would accept that the length was probably 10ft 1 inch.

best regards.

We? It is you who don't want to accept the real length of these individual lion.

Ok, how can I explain this to you? Brander and Hewett concluded that the difference between the measurements "over curves" and "between pegs" may range between 8 to 13 cm (3 to 5 inches) on tigers, with the maximum of up to 17 cm reported by the Maharaja of Cooch Behar's biggest tigers. In lions the difference is between 13 to 28 cm, based in the specimens measured by no other than Vaugan Kirby himself. Now, what all the hunters and old zoologist knew is that the bigger the animal, bigger is the difference of the measurements.

So, knowing this, how is possible that a lion of these dimentions, the biggest in all the records that I ever saw, is going to have a difference of ONLY 8 cm? Honestly, do you believe this? I think that any person with a little of logic will conclude that it is not possible that a giant lion will had only a difference of 8 cm between the two methods. Also knowing that Kirby himself measured and reported at least six lions measured with both methods, "between pegs" and "over curves", and that with the measurements that he presented we know that the difference in the methods is between 13 to 28 cm (bigger than in tigers, by the way), it is clear that this giant lion actually had only a total length of 307 cm "between pegs" based in the more detailed table from the book of 1899. So, the explanation is that the number "4" in the book that you presented is definitelly a typo and that it was actually the number "1", and that will match the size reported by him in 1899, which is 10 ft 1 in total length "between pegs".

Now, for any other person that want to corroborate the measurements of the six lions of Kirby measured with both methods, here are the tables:

Kirby, 1896 - Pg 412 - In Haunts of Wild Game:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Kirby, 1899 - Pg 547 - In Bryden (1899) : Great and Small Game of Africa:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now you understand my point?

Thanks for the pictures.
No matter what we believe or not now, it won't change reality anyway.  So, if I can't find any more information, I'll just accept for now.


I have a question about the Namibian Lions. 
Which data did you use and which data are still published? And can you direct me to the SOURCE, AVERAGE WEIGHT and Sample Size that you used for the Namibian lions for you table n=29?

I know that you included Huberry(17 × 194.8 kg) and the 3 Hobatere lions(3 × 219kg) but the other datas... I couldn't find them...
Did you included to the 29 Namibian lions the 217.5 kg male lion from the documentarie, the two lions from the etosha national park(195 kg and the other 189 kg) and the 215 kg from the lionwhisperer and the 190kg lion shenzi...?


Best regards. Reply