Register
There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---
WildFact › Information Section › Terrestrial Wild Animals › Wild Cats › Lion v
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Options
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
13,824 Replies
58 Topics
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 68
#363
03-01-2022, 08:18 PM

(03-01-2022, 06:49 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-01-2022, 04:53 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:
(02-28-2022, 11:28 PM)Pckts Wrote: You have a habit of making claims then not acknowledging those claims to be wrong, instead you just switch course quickly and make a new claim which takes the debate into another direction. 

For instance, your claim about Lions being empty as "not normal"
Perhaps he was referring to the fact that in many samples of weights recorded for lions in most cases the contents of the stomach have an influence on the value of the final value and perhaps for this reason he defined it as "normal" weight, as in many cases stomach content plays a role. 

Obviously this is just what I think to try to make some sense of what SpinoRex claimed here. 
It is obvious that his claim that "a weight derived by stomach content should be considered as normal" is completely wrong and way off in every sense.

The normal weight of an animal is the weight given solely and exclusively by the body mass of the animal between bones, muscles, organs and skin without any external body (such as food) affecting the value.

When we weigh a lion, we have to know the mass of THE LION. Not of the "lion + food". Hopefully he gets it..

Didnt i say i consider "non empty weights" as normal weights because most datas include stomach content? Yes they should be adjusted but they arent generally and therefore in the data base "empty" stomach weights are considered not normal. Out of many samples of no matter what number only 2 datas adjusted their lions (bertram and Smuts).


If you have a data base of 300 samples with stomach content and a sample of 40 without stomach content... what is the "normal" weight for lion according to the data base? No matter what is the right or wrong way.

I never said including stomach content is right but it is the common weight value that is used.

I hope now you understood me

Smuts culled 247 Lions, 53% were empty. It’s the exact opposite, empty was more common. This also isn’t an estimation based off observation or bait eaten, this is confirmed from dissected cats.
Reply




Messages In This Thread



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB