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 ---

  • 12 Vote(s) - 3.83 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

Indonesia WaveRiders Offline
Member
**

(02-23-2015, 04:26 PM)'peter' Wrote: 2b - Researchers and preference
 
I also think Mazak could have been preferenced to a degree. A few examples. The longest lion skull he measured was in the Zoological Museum Amsterdam (pp. 196 in the German translation). The greatest total length wasn't, as Mazak wrote, 402,00 mm., but 408,00 mm. My measurement was confirmed by the conservator and a few others, all qualified people. I also measured some of the tiger skulls he mentioned in his book. In nearly every case, the result in greatest total length was a bit below Mazak's result. To be sure, I again had all results tested. I didn't tell the others about my result. All confirmed what I had found. 

Maybe the tiger skulls had shrunk with age and maybe the lion skull kept on growing after he had perished? Mazak wasn't the only one who was creative while keeping books. I remember a well-known researcher who wrote Kruger male lion skulls averaged 380,00 mm. in greatest total length. Then J.H. Mazak started measuring lion skulls. The results of his quest were published recently. His average for Kruger lion skulls was 369,00 mm., a difference of 11 mm. (...). The difference wasn't a result of sample size. Maybe the sample was different? Maybe the lion skulls shrunk when they saw Mazak coming in. Who knows? Preference is a powerful drive, but it has a few disadvantages. I can give you more examples.

One would expect preference to have an effect at a higher level of abstraction as well. This, however, is not the case. My conclusions regarding lions, tigers and average size are very close to those of Mazak. Same for many other conclusions Mazak got to. I also agree with Yamaguchi's conclusions on lions, tigers and average size. Preference, therefore, doesn't seem to affect conclusions at a higher level of abstraction. It just increases or decreases the greatest total length in individual skulls at times. I wouldn't worry about it. All researchers mentioned, I think, are both productive and excellent. Mazak in particular is someone I respect. The reason is he opened a lot of doors for me. This will not be forgotten.



 


Your allegation that because V. Mazak appears to have been biased therefore some modern zoologists are likely biased too and in the most stupid and amateur way (cheating on measurements) when and if they concentrate on a particular animal is very bizarre. I would really like to discuss this concept with the kind of Bailey, Ballard, Baryshnikov, Bertram, Bibikov, Blanchard Craighead, Derocher, Goodrich, Herrero, Hoogesteijn, Hornocker, Karanth, Kistchinski, Kitchener, Kolenosky, Kruuk, Mech, Miquelle, Mondolfi, Nowak, Packer, Pulliainen, Rogers, Schaller, Smuts, Stirling, Stringham, Sunquist, Yamaguchi just to mention a few more or less specialists still alive.
 
The well known researcher(s) who wrote Kruger male lion skulls averaged 380,00 mm are Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010). “Then J.H. Mazak started measuring lion skulls” – you meant Mazak (2010) publication - "His average for Kruger lion skulls was 369,00 mm., a difference of 11 mm. (...). The difference wasn't a result of sample size. Maybe the sample was different? Maybe the lion skulls shrunk when they saw Mazak coming in. Who knows?"

I do agree that at first sight a difference of 10.5 mm in the average greatest skull length among lions of the same population may sound wrong, and even more if the two averages come from exactly the same skulls. You pose questions but you did not try to find educated answers and just leave the allegation.
 
Now I will now explain you very simply and quickly how unbiased men of science like I am read and understand what you have superficially interpreted and I will do that without recurring to e-mails and telephone calls, but just analyzing those two papers.


1)   It was not J.H. Mazak who measured the lion skulls reported in the paper. ALL of them have been measured by Vratislav Mazak during the 1960s-1970s or so.
 
2)   To measure hundreds and hundreds of wild lion (or tiger) skulls can take years and not just a few months (it depends from the available time and funds).
 
3)   Kitchener, Yamaguchi and J.H. Mazak are in good professional relationships and their respective research does not blindly contradict and challenge the one of the other. For sure they do not care at all if one found an average greatest skull length for adult male Kruger lions of 380 mm and the other found 367.45 mm for South Africa adult male lions.

4)   Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) specify the skulls come from Kruger NP while Mazak (2010) simply specifies South Africa as country of origin (not to be confounded with Southern Africa). While it is well possible that all the South Africa lion skulls measured by V. Mazak come from Kruger NP too, a difference in greatest length could be partly explained by the fact that according to my info and data Kruger lion skulls are on average generally slightly more elongated then all others, have well developed sagittal crest and are proportionally not particularly wide. I do not have enough data to state if lion skulls from other parts of South Africa are undistinguishable from Kruger lions, but I can suggest that Botswana lion skulls particularly those from Okavango appear to be on average slightly shorter, wider and more massive then Kruger lion skulls.
 
5)   Going into the specific, Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) refer to Yamaguchi et al. (2009) as far as lion skulls examined are concerned. Specimens in Yamaguchi et al. (2009) are not detailed as in Mazak (2010), but If you cross the Museums you will understand that it is unlikely they have measured exactly the same specimens. For instance V. Mazak reports skulls from U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C, while Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) do not. The latter authors report instead skulls from Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Germany, while Mazak does not (surprisingly). Then there are also Museums in Stockolm and Bruxelles visited by V. Mazak only (in Mazak, 2010) and Museums in Oxford, Kent, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Strasbourg visited by Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) only. Although they are supposed to share a significant portion of the skulls (likely all the ones from in the Natural History Museum of London and of the Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale in Tervuren, Belgium) I believe that assuming they measured exactly the same skulls (13 of the 15 vs 13) is pretentious and unlikely.

6)   You measured a single lion skull which had been measured by V. Mazak and found your greatest length measurement 6 mm longer and then you are amazed why measuring not all the same skulls Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) found an average 11 mm longer then what results from V. Mazak data (reported by J.H. Mazak, 2010): Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) are exactly consistent to your result.

7)   If one looks to perform an elementary statistics analysis instead of superficially focusing only on the average 380 vs 369.45 like a layman it is possible to understand that 380 is included in the upper limit of the 95 % Confidence Interval of the mean (382.98) when seen from Mazak data, while 369.47 is included in the lower limit of the 99 % Confidence Interval of the mean (368.51) when seen from Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) average. Furthermore if we add your 6 mm difference to Mazak average reaching 375.45, this figure is well included in the 95% CI of the mean calculated by Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) average. The conclusion is that as the two samples do not appear to be exactly the same and can therefore be considered two different means of the same (or consistent) population, a differences of ca. 10.5 mm or ca. 4.5 mm (following your 6 mm discrepancy) in the means are statistically compatible, plausible and not an absurd bias of professional zoologists.


                    WaveRiders

 

 
2 users Like WaveRiders's post
Reply




Messages In This Thread
RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - WaveRiders - 02-24-2015, 06:43 AM
Demythologizing T16 - tigerluver - 04-12-2020, 11:44 AM
Tiger Data Bank - Apollo - 07-28-2014, 09:54 PM
RE: Tiger Data Bank - Apollo - 07-28-2014, 10:02 PM
RE: Tiger Data Bank - Apollo - 07-29-2014, 12:56 AM
RE: Tiger Data Bank - peter - 07-29-2014, 07:05 AM
Tiger recycling bin - Roflcopters - 09-04-2014, 01:36 AM
RE: Tiger recycling bin - Pckts - 09-04-2014, 02:22 AM
RE: Tiger recycling bin - Roflcopters - 09-05-2014, 01:01 AM
RE: Tiger Data Bank - Apollo - 11-15-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: Tiger Data Bank - Apollo - 11-15-2014, 10:57 PM
RE: Tiger Data Bank - Apollo - 11-15-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: Tiger Data Bank - Apollo - 02-19-2015, 11:25 PM
RE: Tiger Data Bank - GuateGojira - 02-23-2015, 11:36 AM
Status of tigers in India - Shardul - 12-20-2015, 03:23 PM
RE: Tiger Directory - Diamir2 - 10-03-2016, 04:27 AM
RE: Tiger Directory - peter - 10-03-2016, 06:22 AM
Genetics of all tiger subspecies - parvez - 07-15-2017, 01:08 PM
RE: Tiger Predation - peter - 11-11-2017, 08:08 AM
RE: Man-eaters - Wolverine - 12-03-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: Man-eaters - peter - 12-04-2017, 09:44 AM
RE: Tigers of Central India - Wolverine - 04-13-2018, 01:17 AM
RE: Tigers of Central India - qstxyz - 04-13-2018, 08:34 PM
RE: Size comparisons - peter - 07-16-2019, 05:28 AM
RE: Amur Tigers - peter - 05-20-2021, 07:13 AM
RE: Amur Tigers - Nyers - 05-21-2021, 08:02 PM
RE: Amur Tigers - peter - 05-22-2021, 08:09 AM
RE: Amur Tigers - GuateGojira - 04-06-2022, 12:59 AM
RE: Amur Tigers - tigerluver - 04-06-2022, 01:08 AM
RE: Amur Tigers - tigerluver - 04-06-2022, 09:08 AM
RE: Amur Tigers - tigerluver - 04-06-2022, 11:30 PM
RE: Amur Tigers - peter - 04-08-2022, 07:27 AM



Users browsing this thread:
11 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