Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[SpinoRex]

(03-16-2022, 07:47 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(03-16-2022, 05:02 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.

The options i see here are;

1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)

About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)

Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle.  Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction.  The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula.  The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles.  Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly.  The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group.  The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna.  This muscle flexes the forearm.  The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid.  It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle. 

http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/APlab/Lab-Unit-2...0direction.

That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.

Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)

That is the problem with your assumption, you are assuming that just because the collar bones are "bigger" the lions are "stronger" (which also sounds fanatic to me). But that is not what the document says or intent to say! In fact, they propose that Smilodon fatalis had the smallest clavicle and we know that Smilodon fatalis, with they huge arms and body masses of up to 280 kg, were heavier and stronger than any modern felid despit its body size. So your assumption is contrary to what the document propuse. Other thing, you are basing your arguments in the unfair comparison of captive lions (which we know that develope abnormally ticker bones in captivity) that may weight over 10 kg more than your average wild specimen, agains tiny Malayan tigresses that are also from captivity and that we know that weight less than 100 kg on average.

Other thing, you ignore the fact that the jaguar had smaller collarbones than leopards in that sample too, but nobody mention that, and we know how strong a jaguar is compared with a leopard.

So, there is no argument in saying that an animal is "stronger" than other based in that small bone, with small samples and from captive specimens that are vastly different in size. 

About the musculature, read what your link says, those muscles attached to the clavicle are for directon and extention, which is related with locomotion and not with strength.

Let's take a look on Yamaguchi and what he says:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Plus, what Dr Sunquist says:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So lions, even sustaining the basic body plan, they  are different in some aspects and Sunquist says that they are more specialized in running apparently, and closer to the cheetah based in they cursorial way of living.

Guate,

So as i said i already excluded the length. I was talking about the robustness and curvature. 

I never said the lion is stronger (talking about a certain area then its different). Also besides the curvature you are probably referring to the robustness right? Also robustness is measured relatively and not in total and from various robusticity indexes Malaysia tigers where not behind bengals. The study from Valkenbourgh shows that the most robust humeri bone came from a malaysia tiger. What a larger tension/extension muscle will bring?

I already read the study from Yamaguchi. His expertise on this field is more than that of sunquist as he is specialized on lion and tigers although sunquist stated similar thigs. He said cats with a higher BI are more cursorial but the lion is an exception. And below he states that the limbs are similar to that of tigers and both have limbs that are normal for forest dwelling cats. And as i said before the lion developed minor differences but still has the limbs of a "forest dwelling" cat as said by sunquist(A weapon). Also the comparison between cheetahs and lions should be taken with a graint of salt as the limbs are pretty much different regardless of ratios. Reply