Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Pckts]

(03-17-2022, 02:34 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:

(03-16-2022, 10:27 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(03-16-2022, 08:09 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:

(03-16-2022, 06:30 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(03-16-2022, 05:02 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:

(03-16-2022, 02:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(03-15-2022, 11:48 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: For some "basic" things i cant find studies but i am 100% sure it is like that. Dr Dale Miquelle said it as well. As i said it already...  i think i will contact him to be sure. But for what tigers should have straighter and "smaller" collar bones? It must have to do with flexibility. All in all i would say tigers have a bit smaller collar bones and lions bigger ones. Although the difference isnt big i think (but it is def big compared to other body part differences)

But found this here: 
https://books.google.com/books?id=szBm5k...3F&f=false

Thank you for the quote of Brakefield. However my question was not about tiger and lion collarbones. Check the post again, I am asking about this that you said:

"The clavicle, also known as collar bone or clavicula is the bone that connects rib cage and arm (from Sternum to Scapula), serving as strut. The Deltoid, the Trapezius, the Pectoralis Major as well as several muscles of the throat are attached to it. Bigger muscles attached to the clavicle necessitate overall larger clavicle size which will, in return, limit flexibility of the arm. That means strength and flexibility of the arms develop inversely and that animals with larger clavicles likely have stronger pectorals and shoulders while animals with smaller clavicles are more flexible."

Because what Brakefiled says in the book that you quote contradict this, as horses had huge chests and pectorals but they lack collarbones. So, reduction of collarbone may be related with something more than just cursorial life, after all lions are more cursorial than tigers, apparently.

Other point, you mention this series of muscles attached to the clavicle and I will like to see your source for this claim, because from the images that I have saw, collarbone is attach only to two muscles:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This from an ocelote

Now, this from a domestic cat (sorry for the low resolution, but you can see the clavicle area):

*This image is copyright of its original author

If that is the case, the size of the clavicle do not means more strength, which the article that you originally posted do not suggested, but is more related with flexibility, but just that.

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)

You literally have chest measurements available, obviously either collar bones don’t contribute to a larger chest in panthera, Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions. 

First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.

For me at least when it comes to tigers it seems pretty simple, Tigers longer hind legs need a long stride but being a solitary hunter and forest dweller they don’t need sustained speed, just a quick burst with good agility then the tools to bring down large prey. Which is why they’re far better grapplers than chasers.

I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.

Quote:Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions. 

Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve. 

Quote:First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.

Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall. I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).

Quote:I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.

Answered what specifically?

And what's no comparable to a skeletal observation? 
If you knew the body measurements of the animal I guarantee their skeletal structure we represent that too. *Larger individuals would = Larger skeletal structures*

My point was that no matter the skeletal differences you may try to interpret, the real life data doesn't support either Tiger/Lion having a more powerful muscle composition. Chest girth and arm girth are real life measurements, there is no Lion who's body length to chest girth ratio outshines a Tiger. Both generally have fairly equal measurements in that area, there is more of a difference in forelimb girth though, generally speaking the Tiger will possess a bit more mass there. 

Quote:Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve. 

There's nothing heavy about it and the evidence again is in real life data. We have 100s of verified cats measured and weighed, not a tiny sample size of captive cats, females v males and small sub species. Again you can look through all the wild individuals you like, there is no correlation of Lions being more powerfully built or vice versa. 

Quote:Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall. 

Again, there is nothing "heavy" about it. As Guate has shown, you did make claims about implied advantages. 
You also make numerous assumptions based off of sample sizes that are almost nothing or comparisons of females to males, etc.

Quote:I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).

And the Tiger should a slight advantage there but you use the term "almost equal" then proceed to say the Lion had a "higher" humeri circumference but no mention of the Tigers much more exaggerated Distal and Proximal ends. 
Again making assumptions off of the most limited data base and comparing male to female.  
@khan85 also provided a larger data base from Dr. Christiansen in which he mentions the more robust Tiger humerus compared but again noting it's nothing significant while the Distal/Proximal ends are the most exaggerated between the two. And those being used specifically for muscle attachments would play a role. 


Point being that you have a tendency to look for advantages in the Lion compared to the Tiger while dismissing disadvantages or making them seem meaningless.

Pckts i said before why girth = not skeleton. Its completely different. Lions are said to have proportionally larger chests from what i have heard .

Do you know why i didnt mention it? Because the difference in shaft is visible and that constantly while those infos about distal and proximal ends are from a small sample and based on asiatic lions. Additionally more questionable when even in bengal tigers the measurements in the end differed 50% in the distal extremities. The datas i have collected are based on all of christiansens studies and from others as well. Note the tigers used in his studies were by a great margin heavier and more were captive ones(can be seen in the following table).

For what is the whole shaft important, which is by far the biggest bone on the humerus? Additionally the shaft consists of compact bone while the ends are spongy bones. This having the larger shaft by (6-7% on average) will give you the heavier and stronger humerus bone overall due to having the bigger shaft. The compact bone is the main structure in the body for support, protection, and movement. Due to the strong nature of compact bone, compared to spongy bone, it is the preferred tissue for strength. And beside the fact it will give you of course benefits in muscle mass as you basically have the thicker bone.

Here you have various measurements of the humerus bone for various animals. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

So i hope you understood why i didnt mentioned that. One can mention the CC AP, ML which are exaggerated as well.

Humerus was rather equal while tigers were visibly more robust in the ulna bone and radius was similar.

This may be interesting as well (2nd from left; Tiger, 2nd from right; Lion). Humerus, Ulna ad Radius

*This image is copyright of its original author

So for some results i would like to see further datas. So talking bout clavicle will waste our time.

Quote:Pckts i said before why girth = not skeleton. Its completely different. Lions are said to have proportionally larger chests from what i have heard .

"Heard" from who?
There is no Lion chest girth that isn't matched or exceeded by a Tiger. No matter what body length you compare, proportionally a Tiger can and has matched or exceeded any Lion. 

Quote:Do you know why i didnt mention it? Because the difference in shaft is visible and that constantly while those infos about distal and proximal ends are from a small sample and based on asiatic lions. Additionally more questionable when even in bengal tigers the measurements in the end differed 50% in the distal extremities. The datas i have collected are based on all of christiansens studies and from others as well. Note the tigers used in his studies were by a great margin heavier and more were captive ones(can be seen in the following table).

How exactly is it visible and the distal/proximal ends are not? And there is no specifications of whether it's an Asiatic or African Lion used but regardless the ends are the major difference between the two. And making an excuse that it's an Asiatic Lion but not using the same excuse that it's a Tigress compared to a Male Lion is questionable at best. 

And once again, you have Christiansen specifically stating the Tiger has a more robust Humerus. And no doubt they are heavier since you're comparing them with Small, Malaysian females. Not to mention, the average in the Table shown mentions 130kg which again would be female Tigers.

Quote:For what is the whole shaft important, which is by far the biggest bone on the humerus? Additionally the shaft consists of compact bone while the ends are spongy bones. This having the larger shaft by (6-7% on average) will give you the heavier and stronger humerus bone overall due to having the bigger shaft. The compact bone is the main structure in the body for support, protection, and movement. Due to the strong nature of compact bone, compared to spongy bone, it is the preferred tissue for strength. And beside the fact it will give you of course benefits in muscle mass as you basically have the thicker bone.

The Ends aren't spongy, I'm not sure where you got that. The tendons that connect the muscle to the bone at the end will be spongy so you should correct that claim. And proportionally a shorter shaft with similar density will be stronger than a longer shaft of similar density, not to mention the exaggerated ends that produce larger muscle attachments. It only makes sense for the bone to withstand more force when it's wielder produces more force. 

Quote:Here you have various measurements of the humerus bone for various animals.

Again, you're comparing an averaged Cat of 130kg (female) to 174kg (male) not to mention no real sample size mentioned. On top of that, you have the actual author of that study specifically saying the Tigers humerus would top the list between the two.

Quote:This may be interesting as well (2nd from left; Tiger, 2nd from right; Lion). Humerus, Ulna ad Radius

Once again, Age, sex, subspecies and captivity status all lacking. Reply