Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[SpinoRex]

(03-05-2022, 08:13 PM)Khan85 Wrote:

(03-04-2022, 04:08 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:

(03-04-2022, 03:17 AM)Khan85 Wrote:

(03-04-2022, 02:33 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: @"Khan85" Your reply is probably outdated ever since i shared you a another study but neverthless i never ignored the other details. The samples for those datas were small and in a other study the distal extremety width was just 6.28 cm for 5 adult indian tigers (most males). Neverthless i said that the difference is insignificant. The lion as i said has the thicker shaft both in total and proportionally. Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed that but as i said we have the studies in terms of robusticity and once you are widening the spectrum the overall conclusion is the opposite. But i dont want to debate it as the difference is insignififcant. For lions i got 32.63% (n=24) and for tigers 30.88% (n=29) at Humerus Circumference. In a sample one tiger had a shaft of 158mm at 315mm humerus length, which is impossible (i looked at all datas and the graphs). I think it had been a respectful discussion. At the points were disagreements happens one have to stay calm and not in a fight. Also your conclusion as i said before is partly wrong (the combination of email and the one datas from your side).

Im still widening the collection i have now. And will upload it soon.... they will be really similar so no suprise.

Reply isn´t outdated. You are cherry picking data to your liking. For example, you ignored the research study ¨Anatomical Study on Humerus of Tiger (2014)¨. Just for the records, distal width here was 9.65 cm. 

If lions have thicker shaft both proportionally as well, then why is the shaft circumference relative to shaft-only length much higher in tigers than in lions? 

Enough of the words, lets use the actual numbers. 

1. Shaft circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length
- Lions = 32.61 % (n = 24)
- Tigers = 32.13 % (n = 32)

2. Shaft circumference vs Humerus Shaft Length
- Lions = 48.04 % (n = 4)
- Tigers = 57.54 % (n = 5)

3. Proximal extremities of Humerus
   a. Proximal circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length
    - Lions = 58.58 % (n = 4)
    - Tigers = 74.76 % (n = 5)
   b. Proximal width vs Humerus Greatest Length
    - Lions = 29.33 % (n = 4)
    - Tigers = 33.53 % (n = 10)

4. Distal extremities of Humerus 
   a. Distal Articular Width of Humerus
    - Lions = 26.4 % (n = 17)
    - Tigers = 26.6 % (n = 19)
   b. Distal circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length
    - Lions = 48.16 % (n = 4)
    - Tigers = 81.17 % (n = 5)
   c. Distal width vs Humerus Greatest Length
    - Lions = 25.80 % (n = 4)
    - Tigers = 24.80 % (n = 10)

Small sample size shouldn´t even be used as an argument by you after you force everyone to take the cortical thickness of bone in sample size of 2 lions and 2 tigers to be conclusive.

Quote:Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed that

Wow. 

This discussion shouldn´t even happen after Dr. Per Christiansen´s reply on the topic of robusticity of felids. 

I didnt cherry pick but just showed one data that was completely different than the other you mentioned already. I didnt even make averages on that subject. Mind you showing the humerus length / circumference datas per individual here? So we can look how you got your average? Please read what i said before about the cortical thickness datas! You are accusing me without any valid reason in this case. Though you still have to include it (The user will know how conclusive the data base is)

This is what i said before: "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 said the discussion remained respectfully i hope it will do so. Otherwise i wont discuss on this thread as we are just comparing our views on the data with pckts and guate. For now i have nothing to add in weights. Check what i wrote before. Also overall no one was really wrong. Though i disagree on some views it isnt tragic. 

First of all im amazed that you made up various indices(5 actually). Mind showing me the studies for it? As you know some correltions may not make sense or do not correlate together really well. Do you think the number of 157 mm is reliable? Just asking... answer should be clear of you look at the datas carefully. About your reply "Wow" i would like to see the reasons for it. You definetely understand my point.

Looking at various robusticty indexes (AP, ML, AP and ML CC) and other points that measure the stress for example. Even up to weight (based on skull, overall skeleton, scapula and humerus) its all nearly identical. On weights... combining the various bones makes the data a bit more conclusive.

I guess the discussion will be deleted anyways (completely different thread)

Quote:Looking at various robusticty indexes (AP, ML, AP and ML CC) and other points that measure the stress for example.

Non of them are strength indices. I say that because researchers simply didn´t use them under the same category. Cortical bone is important but the sample sizes we have is ridiculous (2 lions and 2 tigers). 

If you want to go strictly as per the MOST important indices according to the researchers, they are as follows - 

1. Humeral Robusticity Index (Mediolateral diameter of humerus divided by greatest length of humerus) 
2. Humeral Epicondylar Index (Mediolateral breadth of humeral epicondyl divided by greatest length of humerus)
3. Radial Robusticity Index (Mediolateral diameter of radius divided by greatest length of radius)
4. Brachial Index (Length of radius divided by length of humerus)
5. Olecranon Index (Length of olecranon process of ulna divided by [Greatest length of ulna minus length of olecranon process])
6. Proximal Paw Width (Sum of mediolateral breadths of metacarpal 2-5 divided by mediolateral breadth of metacarpal 3)

pointing torwards a unsignificant difference also HRI is there in 2-3 forms Reply