Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[Charger01]

(02-28-2022, 11:28 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(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. 

@"Khan85" First of all the sample was on 4 individuals per study(because you combined it with the email) and once you look at it again it becomes clear that lions do have really the thicker bone than tigers(sample for both is very high), which may be the reason for the weight difference. But the muscle attachements will mainly depend on individuals . 

The studies where PC worked as the author or Co-Worker are showing the advanatage to the lion(Ml, AP, girth) combined with the other studies. Overall the ML Diameter for lion and tigers is of 8.59%(leo) and 8.64%(tigris) and the AP Diameter 11.9%(Leo), 10.7%(Tigris) with good sample sizes showing there is basically not a difference. Those in AP CC, ML CC were significant but the sample wasnt large

Quote: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.

You're all over the board and it's hard to keep track of what your saying, it doesn't really have anything to do with reading carefully.
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"

Quote:Yeah but sadly "empty stomach" isnt normal in weight datas.

But you're quickly shown that Smuts specifically mentions that over half of his culled Lions were empty so the idea of baselessly adding 10kg's to their verified weights is wrong.

Quote:These arent interpretations really. Quoting this weight it should be always remembered that the lions were ADJUSTED for stomach content which puts them therefore at around 197 kg unadjusted (looking at the calculations and the protocol by bertram). Therefore i am not a fan of empty stomach weights especially in such datas as they tend to underestimate the weight automatically.

Now in regards to this

Quote:@Khan85 First of all the sample was on 4 individuals per study(because you combined it with the email) and once you look at it again it becomes clear that lions do have really the thicker bone than tigers(sample for both is very high), which may be the reason for the weight difference. But the muscle attachements will mainly depend on individuals . 

What exactly are you looking at that it becomes clear?
Because the actual studies posted by Khan certainly don't show that at all.
Also I'm curious how the muscle attachments depend on the individual yet the other measurements do not? 

Quote:The studies where PC worked as the author or Co-Worker are showing the advanatage to the lion(Ml, AP, girth) combined with the other studies. Overall the ML Diameter for lion and tigers is of 8.59%(leo) and 8.64%(tigris) and the AP Diameter 11.9%(Leo), 10.7%(Tigris) with good sample sizes showing there is basically not a difference. Those in AP CC, ML CC were significant but the sample wasnt large

Can we see these actual studies, I'd also like to see where Dr. Christiansen told @khan85 that "tigers had more robust bones (although difference was very slight) but in muscle attachments, the difference was very significant"

Upon request, he went through all of his data to give me a proper conclusion.

¨I've taken the time to take a look at my database provided by multiple zoological collections and this is what I found: 

The ranking as per the forelimb bones: 
1. Panthera onca 
2. Panthera Spelaea 
3. Neofelis 
4. Panthera tigris 
5. Panthera leo 

The difference between Onca and the Cave lion was limited, and the former showed slightly more developed muscle attachment. The difference in between Panthera tigris and panthera leo was very little, but the former had muscle attachments that exceeded the latter by a sizeable amount. 

Panthera onca had the widest ribcage followed by panthera spelaea. 

The difference between hindlimb robusticity was barely noticeable between the 5 species. 

Bengal tigers showed slightly bulkier builds than siberian tigers but they did not have more robust bones. 

Best regards 
Per¨

------------------------------------------------------

¨I am not allowed to disclose the exact sample sizes but i can tell you that all of them combined into one would normally result in over 60 specimens.  

Per¨ Reply