Lion Directory

[GuateGojira]

(08-13-2014, 06:08 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Body weight and length are directly correlated, but the correlation is extremely weak in lions for some reason. Tigers have a strong correlation of r^2 = >.75, but the lions I have on record around 0.30, abysmal.  

My main guess to why this occurs in lions and not tigers is food intake at the time of weighing. Tigers are normally consistently baited, where lions it looks are found with either a empty enough stomach (I say "enough" as rarely one will find a truly empty belly animal, so it seems most calculate food intake conservatively to keep things even between gorged and regularly full specimens) or gorged off a recent kill, causing inconsistencies. What do you guys think?

 

In fact, I have some doubts about the relation of size (total length or body length?) and weight in tigers.

For example, the largest Amur tiger captured in Sikhote-Alin measured 208 cm in head-body (309 cm in total length) but weighed only 169 kg! However, on the other side, the largest male captured in Nagarahole measured 204 cm in head-body (311 cm in total length) and weighed 227 kg. Even more impressive, the famous Sauraha from Nepal measured only 197 cm in head-body (310 cm in total length) but weighed 261 kg.

Maybe this are just exceptions to the rule, but even then, it shows that like humans, some tigers are long but light and others are short but heavy. Take in count that none of those three males had stomach content.
  Reply