Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[LandSeaLion]

(03-15-2022, 06:13 AM)Khan85 Wrote:

(03-15-2022, 04:43 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:

(03-15-2022, 12:26 AM)Khan85 Wrote:

(03-13-2022, 10:59 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: Forelimb Robusticity (Lion and Tiger) according to the study KILLING BEHAVIOR IN SMILODON FATALIS

*This image is copyright of its original author

Gonyea (1976) determined the robustness of the anterior limb for the felids in a different approach, by plotting the cross-sectional area of the humerus against the length of the latter. He added a regression line for the points of the various taxa and showed that there is a strong correlation (r = 0.958) between these two measurements for the “forest felids”. The data points for the cheetah clearly fall below this regression line, whereas those of Smilodon fall above it.

So basically, Gonyea mentions that humerus length/Log-X Section of humerus concludes overall frontlimb robusticity.



Tigers: 1.19 n=7
Lions: 1.20 n=5

Indicating that these cats must be really close in that regard

Wrong values for both Log-Cross Section vs Log-Humerus Length as well as sample size.  

Lions = 115.9 % (n = 6)
Tigers = 121.0 % (n = 7)

(I multiplied the correct value of the ratios with 100 to represent in % form.)

Wrong


If you cant see the symbols properly please open the document. The sample size for the lions is 5 and for tigers 7. I saw the error by just looking at the graph...

The result was when i did it again around 1.2 (1.201 for lion and 1.197 tiger) for both indicating its nearly identical using my pc. Using my phone i got 1.998 for lion and 1.206 for tiger. The diff in comparison was below 1% (0.8% or something) and in total c.0.5% Without the notes from a scientist these numbers arent 100% accurate, which was the reason i said they are nearly identical, which they are based on various indexes. 

Also about the collar bone.... even if tigers would have "equally" long collar bones, which they most likely dont have.... the lion has the more robust/broader and curved one, which will give an advantage in strength and muscles(that are connected with the bone) but as Pckts mentioned a smaller one will allow more flexibility (shoulders). As i said the real difference in just length will be lower but still cant explain a length diff of 1/3 or more. Also the length isnt the main point as various relative numbers are included. In subspecies i couldnt find any noticable differences in terms of relative numbers. @Pckts Girth is influenced by countless things but bones will give you the potential for a animal. Also again potential depends on other factors if you talk about individualism.

I rechecked it, and yes because of the color I mistook two cougars for lions. 

However, values are still in favor of tigers. 

- Lions = 1.200 (120 %) 
- Tigers = 1.210 (121 %)

(03-13-2022, 10:59 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: Forelimb Robusticity (Lion and Tiger) according to the study KILLING BEHAVIOR IN SMILODON FATALIS

*This image is copyright of its original author

Gonyea (1976) determined the robustness of the anterior limb for the felids in a different approach, by plotting the cross-sectional area of the humerus against the length of the latter. He added a regression line for the points of the various taxa and showed that there is a strong correlation (r = 0.958) between these two measurements for the “forest felids”. The data points for the cheetah clearly fall below this regression line, whereas those of Smilodon fall above it.

So basically, Gonyea mentions that humerus length/Log-X Section of humerus concludes overall frontlimb robusticity.



Tigers: 1.19 n=7
Lions: 1.20 n=5

Indicating that these cats must be really close in that regard

Given the small sample sizes, I would say that it’s probably not a particularly statistically significant difference (I haven’t bothered checking but if you wanted, you could use something like a two sample t-test to test the difference between the means).

By the way, is that figure from the paper pulled directly from Gonyea 1976, or is it a recreation of it? Gonyea 1976 is paywalled for me, so I can’t compare. At any rate, it’s a poorly drawn plot, and looks like it was made in MS Paint instead of proper data visualisation software. The indicators meant to denote each cat are not drawn consistently, ie. some rectangles look bigger than others, have different proportions, etc. It seems like it would be quite annoying to get the actual data points in the absence of an accompanying table…

At the end of the day though, it isn’t really meant to show a direct comparison between any two similar felids - it’s there to illustrate general trends, and I’m not sure why it has become another “lion vs tiger” thing. The takeaway is that pantherine cats (including lions and tigers) roughly follow the trend line, while the gracile cheetah falls below it and the bulky smilodon lies above it. Reply