Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[Charger01]

(03-04-2022, 02:33 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: @"Khan85" Your reply is probably outdated ever since i shared you a another study but neverthless i never ignored the other details. The samples for those datas were small and in a other study the distal extremety width was just 6.28 cm for 5 adult indian tigers (most males). Neverthless i said that the difference is insignificant. The lion as i said has the thicker shaft both in total and proportionally. Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed that but as i said we have the studies in terms of robusticity and once you are widening the spectrum the overall conclusion is the opposite. But i dont want to debate it as the difference is insignififcant. For lions i got 32.63% (n=24) and for tigers 30.88% (n=29) at Humerus Circumference. In a sample one tiger had a shaft of 158mm at 315mm humerus length, which is impossible (i looked at all datas and the graphs). I think it had been a respectful discussion. At the points were disagreements happens one have to stay calm and not in a fight. Also your conclusion as i said before is partly wrong (the combination of email and the one datas from your side).

Im still widening the collection i have now. And will upload it soon.... they will be really similar so no suprise.

Reply isn´t outdated. There is more data, for example, the research study ¨Anatomical Study on Humerus of Tiger (2014)¨. Just for the records, distal width here was 9.65 cm. 

If lions have thicker shaft both proportionally as well, then why is the shaft circumference relative to shaft-only length much higher in tigers than in lions? 

Enough of the words, lets use the actual numbers. 

1. Shaft circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length
- Lions = 32.61 % (n = 24)
- Tigers = 32.13 % (n = 32)

2. Shaft circumference vs Humerus Shaft Length
- Lions = 48.04 % (n = 4)
- Tigers = 57.54 % (n = 5)

3. Proximal extremities of Humerus
   a. Proximal circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length
    - Lions = 58.58 % (n = 4)
    - Tigers = 74.76 % (n = 5)
   b. Proximal width vs Humerus Greatest Length
    - Lions = 29.33 % (n = 4)
    - Tigers = 33.53 % (n = 10)

4. Distal extremities of Humerus 
   a. Distal Articular Width of Humerus
    - Lions = 26.4 % (n = 17)
    - Tigers = 26.6 % (n = 19)
   b. Distal circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length
    - Lions = 48.16 % (n = 4)
    - Tigers = 81.17 % (n = 5)
   c. Distal width vs Humerus Greatest Length
    - Lions = 25.80 % (n = 4)
    - Tigers = 24.80 % (n = 10)

Small sample size shouldn´t even be used as an argument by you after you force everyone to take the cortical thickness of bone in sample size of 2 lions and 2 tigers to be conclusive.

Quote:Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed that

Wow. 

This discussion shouldn´t even happen after Dr. Per Christiansen´s reply on the topic of robusticity of felids.  Reply