Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[Pckts]

(02-26-2022, 03:18 AM)Khan85 Wrote:

(02-26-2022, 02:17 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(02-22-2022, 11:37 PM)Khan85 Wrote:

(02-22-2022, 11:33 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(02-22-2022, 11:11 PM)Khan85 Wrote:

(02-22-2022, 01:42 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:

(02-21-2022, 08:23 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(02-20-2022, 11:04 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: I dont think thats the right argument tbh. But anyways as i said its about the same

It is not the same. Old bones lost condition with time, this is showed in all the cases of skulls that when dried and now they weight less with time. Some bones may even shrink or turn to dust if they were not correctly prepared (boiled) and sadly, that is a common factor.

So Khan85 is right, bones may weigh or measure less than they original mass with time, if not correctly prepared. This detail is important in comparison, together with the status of the animal, the age, sex, subspecies/population, origin (wild or captive), health status, and other things that I may forget now.

All i know is that the lion sexes were mixed and subspecies unknown (asiatic or african) and had a humerus length of c.312mm and the Bengal Tigers also (c.314 mm). The heaviest tiger humerus was still in the average range for lions. What i noticed that tigers had constantly heavier left sided bones although the right bones were longer.

Yes you are right. Those studies have most of the time not detailed infos but arent useless. Anyways the difference are basically no differences. I dont know how major those differences are....

The 4 lions were captive and the tigers were unknown, but most probably from deceased wild tigers since they were procured by Department of Wildlife Health and Management.

Do you have the study available?

Anatomical Features of some Forelimb Bones of Lions (March 2021)

Anatomical Study on Humerus of Tiger (March 2014)

Unfortunately there is very little to go off of since the Lions used are averaged and the Tigers are not. That being said, the noticeable difference's I see are in the Head, Proximal and distal measurements. It's interesting to note that in these very limited specimens the Tigers seem very Head, Distal and Proximal heavy. You'll notice that both, Lions and Tigers had similar total length but the actual shaft length is much shorter in the Tiger than the Lion. Everything else is very minimal differences, there is certainly nothing there to make assertions for one over the other. The sample size is almost insignificant, no determination of sub species or wild/captive in the Tigers nor sexes mentioned. But like people, Tigers and Lions can show significant differences amongst individuals, some being more thick or thin boned than others. Some being large or small skulled, etc.

Proximal and distal ends are the location of muscle attachment, and since they are more heavily built in tigers it reflects why even Dr. Christiansen indicated that difference in muscle attachment (pfp) is sizeable

btw in case you didnt know, Dr. Christiansen has a large sample and he told that tigers had more robust bones (although difference was very slight) but in muscle attachments, the difference was very significant

It's very interesting for sure, the tendons have more surface area to attach more muscle which also would allow them to withstand more force. The stronger the rotator cuff the more force it can withstand.
I'd still love to see a real sample size with sexes known as well as where they came from. I'd bet that depending on which part of the wild they came from you could see more pronounced differences. My guess would be anywhere they take larger prey the density and ends would be more exaggerated. Reply