Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[SpinoRex]

(03-09-2022, 01:01 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(03-06-2022, 06:34 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Guate read the mail again. He weighed 3 males and he stated the smallest was 222 kg and the heaviest 237 kg. Though the other lion was definetely havier than the 222 kg and looking at his memeroy he said it was around 230 kg so there is no problem (A wonder itself he remembered those numbers after 30 years). Percentages are completely inaccurate according to Bertram. His stomach shows a lion with c.20 kg looking at Bertrams protocol.

Some scales generally make a 2nd turn so even the bottomed weight can be seen. Generally if a scale is bottomed normally you cant adjust the bed equipment or whatever. So these scales are better than those scales that go to a certain weight and just stop. The same goes for Puyol who weighed with bed equipment 250 kg and minus it 237 kg. ingela in a other email rounds the number to 240 kg. The exact weight by the scale is 237 kg.

One interesting note is that Punchkatta the (c.285 kg male) didnt bottom but broke the scale. That means around 60 kg is needed to break a scale i think.

I couldnt find any pic of the HOMOB coalition sadly

1) Sorry, but your explanation do not provide a valid statement to accept the estimated weight of lion "U". The email clearly says that he is not sure and that was "around", which is an estimation. Around 230 kg could be 233 kg or 227 kg, so we need an exact weight like the other males to use it, if not is useless.

2) I can bet that you have never worked with spring scales, don't you? Do you know how spring scales work? Those scales had a spring that is modulated to a certain capacity. Based in people that actually work with these scales, they say that between 5 to 10 is the maximum, and this depends of how strong or weak is the spring, after all they can be tigth or loose depending of the time and the use. So, a difference of 50 kg suggest that the spring is very loose as is over 25% of the original capacity of the device (200 kg)  and that is why they said that the scale was already imperfect. The more turns the scale made over its capacity, the less reliable is.

So, there is no such thing as an "exact" weight in this case except for the fact that the scale was originally up to 200 kg, and judging by how loose the spring was (25% over its capacity), the real weight of the lion probably was certainly not near to 220 kg adjusted for stomach content.

About the male "Punchkatta", we will need more details about when it was weighed, because while I am aware that this tiger broke the scale used in one of its captures, I will like to know if that was the event when it was calculated to weight 285 kg or if was another capture. Those Kanha tigers were captured several times, as far I know.

Interestingly, if your assumption about scales working over 25% they real capacity is correct (which is ilogic, as scales are principaly made for economic purposes, not to weight tigers/lions, and should be as exact as possible for accuracy and businness reasons), then the two Nepalese tigers of over 272 kg (scale bottomed) could weight up to 322 kg! And adjusting the 10 kg of the net (they do not used metal gear, so this value may be lower) and 19 kg of the bait (assuming they were full of beef), the empty belly weight will be of 293 kg! Of course these values are not realistic, but this is what your assumption suggest.

Guate,

That isnt an good attempt to discard a heavy lion. The scientist was rather exact and i dont need to quote him again. The smallest male was 222 kg and the biggest 237 kg and the other one... he didnt knew the exact number but it was around 230 kg. Wait.... as i know didnt Punchkatta brake the scale instead of bottoming it? Reply