Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[Charger01]

(02-26-2022, 07:37 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: The "interpretation" i got was sadly from Bertram (The protocol used by smuts and via pers com) and i used the calculation. Therefore i just said that the *note* should be taken intead of just quoting them(this goes torwards especially pcts). Also if you have a problem with your interpretation... it makes no sense that you claimed the 200 kg males to be 190 kg empty. And pcts its no wonder that big cats of that weight will carry more fat than a average but fact is that it was in the moderate stage (no matter which degree now). I think if many of you would just read carefully what i wrote.... half of the discussion would not exist.

@GuateGojira I said i understand you before. But your comparison is out of proportions and the same would look silly using the 193 cm lioness (the asiatic one would be 195-198cm between pegs. Even more so comapring it to a 220cm lioness over curves. My question to you would be when you are really strict in low weights then i am interested why you include the 132 kg and 138 kg males from both smither and wilson. And the one Botswana male from Wilson, which is measurement wise a clear cut subadult.

Also can you show me where its mentioned that these lions were the ones measured by Campbell or the ones published by Roberts? The lions height from roberts sample were measured over curves

About your claims from Brander your correlations makes no sense (obviously because of the measurements you didnt reply to such as length, height and girths from the data) and its a really heavy statement by you with no clear evidence. But honestly it wont make it better to speculate... when those of the bettter areas didnt average noticably more (just by 10-15 kg, unadjusted). Also the smallest male was of 167 kg which again confirms that your opinion isnt correct. The samples from Behaar came from the areas where tigers were known to be big and even so many tigers of smaller dimensional size wasnt included makes the point more clear that it was indeed based on adult males by that logic excluding the gorged ones (or evem better you could adjust them by 20-30 kg and include them as "empty stomach" males). Can you present those 9 gorged specimen? If you tend to ignore those measurements then you should contact those scientists like Jhala. 

@"Khan85" First of all the sample was on 4 individuals per study(because you combined it with the email) and once you look at it again it becomes clear that lions do have really the thicker bone than tigers(sample for both is very high), which may be the reason for the weight difference. But the muscle attachements will mainly depend on individuals . 

The studies where PC worked as the author or Co-Worker are showing the advanatage to the lion(Ml, AP, girth) combined with the other studies. Overall the ML Diameter for lion and tigers is of 8.59%(leo) and 8.64%(tigris) and the AP Diameter 11.9%(Leo), 10.7%(Tigris) with good sample sizes showing there is basically not a difference. Those in AP CC, ML CC were significant but the sample wasnt large

I dont know how you are reaching that conclusion. You dont just take shaft into account for the whole bone and ignore all other important details. 

Formula for HRI aka *Humeral Robusticity Index* has specifically been calculated as [smallest transverse diameter of humerus diaphysis (aka mediolateral ML diameter) divided by total length of humerus] and not anterioposterior diameter or midshaft circumference of humerus instead of mediolateral diameter. 

Tigers have relatively shorter shaft length for total humerus length which is why the shaft circumference vs shaft-only length is greater in tigers (57.54 % vs 48.04 %) but shaft circumference vs total length of humerus is slightly greater in lions (32.61 % vs 32.13 %). 

That was about the shaft of humerus, then there are proximal and distal extremities of humerus. Tigers exceed lions by a significant margin in both proximal and distal circumference and width. Since proximal and distal ends of humerus are the sites for muscle attachment, it explains why Dr. Christiansen said that tigers have significantly larger muscle attachments than lions. 

If it wasn´t a recurring (or average) observation when comparing lions and tigers, Dr. Christiansen would have never said that. Not to mention, he gave advantage to tigers in bones too, although very slightly and I agree to that. 

I am afraid this thread has turned into Lion vs Tiger... Reply