There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
05-28-2022, 06:26 AM( This post was last modified: 05-28-2022, 06:27 AM by LonePredator )
(05-28-2022, 06:13 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-28-2022, 03:39 AM)jrocks Wrote: Hi Guate, i was just curious about if the 16.07 inch skull were to have its weight calculated the same way that 436 kg was calculated for 15.4 inch skull, how much would it have weighed
jrocks
Apart from all the issues with that formula, the main problem is that the formula of Van Valkenburgn (1990) use the Condylobasal length, not the Greatest length (an error that many people made when they use it), and as you already probably know, we don't know the CBL of the giant skull. We can speculate based in the known specimens, but it will be a calculation over an asumption.
This is the formula, by the way, using only felids: log mass = 3.11 * log CBL - 5.38
Do you mean to say that the 15.4 inch was the CBL while the 16.04 inch was the GSL?
And can you please tell me the source of the CBL regression equation which you mentioned?