Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[GuateGojira]

(02-26-2022, 07:37 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: The "interpretation" i got was sadly from Bertram (The protocol used by smuts and via pers com) and i used the calculation. Therefore i just said that the *note* should be taken intead of just quoting them(this goes torwards especially pcts). Also if you have a problem with your interpretation... it makes no sense that you claimed the 200 kg males to be 190 kg empty. And pcts its no wonder that big cats of that weight will carry more fat than a average but fact is that it was in the moderate stage (no matter which degree now). I think if many of you would just read carefully what i wrote.... half of the discussion would not exist.

@GuateGojira I said i understand you before. But your comparison is out of proportions and the same would look silly using the 193 cm lioness (the asiatic one would be 195-198cm between pegs. Even more so comapring it to a 220cm lioness over curves. My question to you would be when you are really strict in low weights then i am interested why you include the 132 kg and 138 kg males from both smither and wilson. And the one Botswana male from Wilson, which is measurement wise a clear cut subadult.




Also can you show me where its mentioned that these lions were the ones measured by Campbell or the ones published by Roberts? The lions height from roberts sample were measured over curves




About your claims from Brander your correlations makes no sense (obviously because of the measurements you didnt reply to such as length, height and girths from the data) and its a really heavy statement by you with no clear evidence. But honestly it wont make it better to speculate... when those of the bettter areas didnt average noticably more (just by 10-15 kg, unadjusted). Also the smallest male was of 167 kg which again confirms that your opinion isnt correct. The samples from Behaar came from the areas where tigers were known to be big and even so many tigers of smaller dimensional size wasnt included makes the point more clear that it was indeed based on adult males by that logic excluding the gorged ones (or evem better you could adjust them by 20-30 kg and include them as "empty stomach" males). Can you present those 9 gorged specimen? If you tend to ignore those measurements then you should contact those scientists like Jhala. 

I have the documents of Dr Bertram and I don't see any "interpretation" that is even close to what you are saying. So show the parts and the documents that you used for your claims and we will see. 

About the lioness comparison, THAT IS THE POINT! The measurements reported for that Indian lioness are completelly out of proportions and are not realistic. And now, the lioness of 193 cm it make sence, check this image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Not my best draw and my best letter , but there you can see that the largest lioness of Stevenson-Hamilton make sense with a shoulder height a little over 85 cm (a similar sized lioness had a height of 84 cm and still looks realistic). These big lionesses had a morphology close to tigers, long and not so tall, but still make sence as you can see. But check the lioness from India, see that I correct it by 17 cm, a correction just for the biggest tigers according with the Maharaja of Cooch Behar, and even then the lioness looks horrible, imposible, unrealistic in every way! That is not a lioness, is more like a weasel. Plus, even if we assume that the shoulder height is a real standing height, is still incorrect. So, in any form that you want to see it, that lioness is not reported correctly. If we use a length of 195-198 cm as you propuse (for a lioness of less than 80 cm in "real" standing height and a weight of only 110 kg) we will get an even worst lioness and more like a weasel!

*This image is copyright of its original author

But even if after checking the two images you still insist in going agains any logic, I will understand.

About Brander, it is not a claim, is a FACT. Like I said, he even accepted it that is hard to state which are adults and which not. About your complain on girth, length and other data, we don't have it as Brander did not published that, just like Hewet. However, Hewet did provided details on 3 of the 4 small males that shows that were subadults or that were injured. About Cooch Behar, we have all the measurements but only a few have details, even then we can correlate with the information from Dr Jhala. Also, while the smallest male is of 167 kg in Brander's data, that doesn't mean that this was the only small male in the sample, remember that is a SAMPLE and we only know the extremes and the average, not the individual 42 males used, so your complain is futile here. 

On Cooch Behar, we included ALL specimens, no one was excluded, not even the small specimens that at any light are young ones and not fully grow and definitelly less than 3 years old. The only thing that I exluded were the weights are they were gorged so I will avoid to creat a bias in the samples, but no measurement or weight was excluded after that, so I don't understand your complain, or maybe you did not know that, or your "friends" from the other forum are missinforming you.


About this: "Can you present those 9 gorged specimen? If you tend to ignore those measurements then you should contact those scientists like Jhala."

I don't understand, what do you mean with this? Besides I presented you the information of Dr Jhala and the results from tigers studies in Nepal and you just ignored all that. So, again, what do you mean with this? Reply