Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws

[GuateGojira]

(02-08-2022, 03:33 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Generally those reserves called having semi-wild individuals (canned hunting and small area) have very few lions and you can easily seperate them between wild ones. The Homob male was weighed in Pilannesberg National Park and was reported that he ate before he have been weighed.

Though Waverider on that regard i think was helpful. The indications from the land rover and his estimate from the skeleton are torwards a large lion without a doubt however he estimated the height to be 100-105 cm. I saw some of your discussions with him so i can judge really as i just read some posts of him.

Is interesting to see where he got the information of the lion skeletons. If you check the litterature, there are several bones reported with they measurements, but only one is tied with a body measurement, a captive lion courtesy of Dr Per Christiansen, and that is all. So if he was guessing based in his appreciation, I will not trust at all on his measurements.

Thank you for the data on the "Homob" lion, can you please put the email here? In my next review on the lion data I will certainly include it.

Now, returning to the size of the 272 kg lion, we do have 5 adult wild males that we can use, measured by scientists in straight line with they skulls, and one big record male from Rowland Ward, which I think may be reliable (I included him in my tables after all, but on the skull, I am not quite sure). I put togheter all the information and here is the final image, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

What we can see is that the inclution or exclution of the Ward male do affect greatly the results. For example, if we use the equation of GSL-TL using RW the relation is somewhat strong (r=0.68) and produce a total length of 2971 mm, but if we use the sample without RW, the relation drop a lot and is no longer significant (r=0.47) but produce a total length of 3000 mm, remember that I am using the figure of 387 mm for the GSL.

Now, for the HB length, if we use RW the relation is again relatively high (r=0.65) and produce a figure of 1969 mm, but if we remouve the RW value, the relation drop incredible and became unreliable (r=0.19) and produce a HB of 1917 mm.

Finally, as the TL - HB relation is high, r=88 with RW and r=0.79 with no RW, I decided to check what could I get if I use these equations with the total length gathered via the first results. I got this:

Using the TL with RW (2971 mm), I got a HB of 1966 with RW and 1938 with no RW.
Using the TL with no RW (3000 mm), I got a HB of 1991 with RW and 1959 with no RW.

These are the results in base of the sample that we have, but interestingly is that in none of these estimations the HB passed the 2000 mm, probably because the sample is too small or maybe a lion with that skull is just scratching that figure. On the total length we reached the 3000 mm, but remember that the relation is low (r=47) so the result should be taken with caution.

A shoulder height of 100 - 105 cm seems reliable to me.


Well, this is what I can get using the few information available, but at least is a reliable for to calculate it, based in facts and no assumptions. Reply