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.
The clavicle, also known as collar bone or clavicula is the bone that connects rib cage and arm (from Sternum to Scapula), serving as strut. The Deltoid, the Trapezius, the Pectoralis Major as well as several muscles of the throat are attached to it. Bigger muscles attached to the clavicle necessitate overall larger clavicle size which will, in return, limit flexibility of the arm. That means strength and flexibility of the arms develop inversely and that animals with larger clavicles likely have stronger pectorals and shoulders while animals with smaller clavicles are more flexible.
The results regarding lions and tigers are suprprising on the one hand but as expected on the other hand. The study included 9 lions (5 males, 1 female and 3 unsexed specimens) and 7 tigers (6 females and one unsexed).
When compared to lions' clavicles that of tigers are smaller as well as more straight/not as bended.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Here's the average sizes of the claviculae measured:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Not only was the lion's clavicle a third longer (78.6 mm/58.8 mm=1.3367), it was also broader at midshaft, overall and relatively to maximum length ((6.8 mm/78.6 mm)100=8.65% for lions vs (4.7 mm/58.8 mm)100=7.99% for tigers), at the acromial end (overall; 11.6 mm/10.1 mm=1.1485) and at the sternal end (overall and relative to maximum length; (6.1 mm/78.6 mm)100=7.76% for lions vs (2.7 mm/58.8 mm)100=4.59% for tigers). At sternal end the lion's clavicle was even broader than that of the fossile cats.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now, the difference is biased by different genders. While almost all the lions were males, all the (known) tigers were female. However, the differences were way too large to be linked only to sexual dimorphism:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Between average sized adult males and average sized adult females the difference in bone size (length, at least) is about 10-15%, depending on the bone. Assuming this, the male tiger's clavicula would, on average, still not be as large and thick as that of the male lion (and it was mentioned that the only female lion's clavicle still belonged to the largest of the sample.) That suggests greater strength in the lion's Pectoralis Major as well as in the deltoid (on fair bone sizes, latter may be rather equal, though) while the tiger has an advantage in flexibility of shoulders. Even if the claviculae of lions and tigers were equally long and equally broad, the lion's muscles still would likely be stronger as it provides a larger surface area due to it being curved meaning higher muscle attachment area.
Nothing conclusive. We don't know if those specimens were wild or captive. Also the study did not confirm the subspecies of the tigers, which is crucial to know if that people were comparing Sumatran tigers with African lions.
The clavicle, also known as collar bone or clavicula is the bone that connects rib cage and arm (from Sternum to Scapula), serving as strut. The Deltoid, the Trapezius, the Pectoralis Major as well as several muscles of the throat are attached to it. Bigger muscles attached to the clavicle necessitate overall larger clavicle size which will, in return, limit flexibility of the arm. That means strength and flexibility of the arms develop inversely and that animals with larger clavicles likely have stronger pectorals and shoulders while animals with smaller clavicles are more flexible.
The results regarding lions and tigers are suprprising on the one hand but as expected on the other hand. The study included 9 lions (5 males, 1 female and 3 unsexed specimens) and 7 tigers (6 females and one unsexed).
When compared to lions' clavicles that of tigers are smaller as well as more straight/not as bended.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Here's the average sizes of the claviculae measured:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Not only was the lion's clavicle a third longer (78.6 mm/58.8 mm=1.3367), it was also broader at midshaft, overall and relatively to maximum length ((6.8 mm/78.6 mm)100=8.65% for lions vs (4.7 mm/58.8 mm)100=7.99% for tigers), at the acromial end (overall; 11.6 mm/10.1 mm=1.1485) and at the sternal end (overall and relative to maximum length; (6.1 mm/78.6 mm)100=7.76% for lions vs (2.7 mm/58.8 mm)100=4.59% for tigers). At sternal end the lion's clavicle was even broader than that of the fossile cats.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now, the difference is biased by different genders. While almost all the lions were males, all the (known) tigers were female. However, the differences were way too large to be linked only to sexual dimorphism:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Between average sized adult males and average sized adult females the difference in bone size (length, at least) is about 10-15%, depending on the bone. Assuming this, the male tiger's clavicula would, on average, still not be as large and thick as that of the male lion (and it was mentioned that the only female lion's clavicle still belonged to the largest of the sample.) That suggests greater strength in the lion's Pectoralis Major as well as in the deltoid (on fair bone sizes, latter may be rather equal, though) while the tiger has an advantage in flexibility of shoulders. Even if the claviculae of lions and tigers were equally long and equally broad, the lion's muscles still would likely be stronger as it provides a larger surface area due to it being curved meaning higher muscle attachment area.
Did some research about the Tiger specimens used in this study.
Although I could not find information about tigress CM-18227 and CM-59939 (UC Museum of Vertebrate Zoology) I may email the curator for information. About the other tigers (the mentioned subspecies maybe wrong as the records are over 100 years old) -
1. USNM - A49773 is a Malayan tigress (Panthera tigris corbetti [jacksoni]) from a zoo.
2. USNM - 174981 is also a Malayan tigress (Panthera tigris corbetti [jacksoni]) from a Malaysia zoo.
3. USNM - 396137 is of unknown subspecies and a young captive born tigress (the record says she was stillborn).
4. USNM - 49740 (49728) - is another Malayan tigress (Panthera tigris corbetti [jacksoni]) taken from Malaysia.
5. FMNH - 60760 is a tigress (Panthera tigris tigris) of unknown origin and age.
Again, because these records are decades old in the minimum and as much as 130 years old, the subspecies listed as Panthera tigris corbetti are WRONG because back then, the classification was different. Since these 3 of these tigresses belong to Malaysia, these will be classified as Panthera tigris jacksoni when done correctly.
And regardless of them being smaller subspecies of females used we need to understand the benefits of a smaller clavicle. The smaller clavicle allows for more mobility without compensating the Tigers muscle mass in it's forequarters. Being an ambush hunter the Tiger needs to be strong and agile as well as carrying it's head low compared to a Lion which holds it's head high and generally goes on a longer, more sustained hunts.
Obviously the clavicle isn't going to impact muscle mass in the forequarters since Tigers have chest girths equal or greater than any lion which is the same in their forelimbs.
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.)
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.
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.
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 %)
As i said before the results i got were different because of the device i used. I did it now in perfection with paint 3D and i got for the tiger 120.6% and for the lion 119.98%. So thats identical and not "However, values are still in favor of tigers" sounds a bit fanatic to me if i am being honest.
(03-15-2022, 04:43 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: 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.
I am not convince about that. If you check an African lion (male or female) of over 130 kg, it will definitelly have bigger bones in every sense agains a Malayan tigress of about 99 kg.
Unless you can compare similar sized especimens, from the same sex and about the same age, those results are not conclusive at all.
(03-13-2022, 11:09 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: The clavicle, also known as collar bone or clavicula is the bone that connects rib cage and arm (from Sternum to Scapula), serving as strut. The Deltoid, the Trapezius, the Pectoralis Major as well as several muscles of the throat are attached to it. Bigger muscles attached to the clavicle necessitate overall larger clavicle size which will, in return, limit flexibility of the arm. That means strength and flexibility of the arms develop inversely and that animals with larger clavicles likely have stronger pectorals and shoulders while animals with smaller clavicles are more flexible.
Can you show the sources, studies or pictures were it describe all this, please? I mean, where it mentions those specific muscles in cats and also the conclution about strength and flexibility.
(03-15-2022, 04:43 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: 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.
I am not convince about that. If you check an African lion (male or female) of over 130 kg, it will definitelly have bigger bones in every sense agains a Malayan tigress of about 99 kg.
Unless you can compare similar sized especimens, from the same sex and about the same age, those results are not conclusive at all.
The thing isnt only the length but also the relative numbers and the fact that the bone is curved. I read somewhere that Dr Dale Miquelle talked about this topic but cant find the mail rn. He said its least impressive among the biggest tigers. In terms of length i understand your point (the diff is most likely not 33%). But the bone was significantly more curved and broader(relatively, not only in total). Though again therefore the tiger has more flexibility in the shoulders.
In relative numbers the smaller subspecies are of use. In total numbers it is "useless".
03-15-2022, 11:48 PM( This post was last modified: 03-15-2022, 11:50 PM by SpinoRex )
(03-15-2022, 11:33 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(03-13-2022, 11:09 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: The clavicle, also known as collar bone or clavicula is the bone that connects rib cage and arm (from Sternum to Scapula), serving as strut. The Deltoid, the Trapezius, the Pectoralis Major as well as several muscles of the throat are attached to it. Bigger muscles attached to the clavicle necessitate overall larger clavicle size which will, in return, limit flexibility of the arm. That means strength and flexibility of the arms develop inversely and that animals with larger clavicles likely have stronger pectorals and shoulders while animals with smaller clavicles are more flexible.
Can you show the sources, studies or pictures were it describe all this, please? I mean, where it mentions those specific muscles in cats and also the conclution about strength and flexibility.
For some "basic" things i cant find studies but i am 100% sure it is like that. Dr Dale Miquelle said it as well. As i said it already... i think i will contact him to be sure. But for what tigers should have straighter and "smaller" collar bones? It must have to do with flexibility. All in all i would say tigers have a bit smaller collar bones and lions bigger ones. Although the difference isnt big i think (but it is def big compared to other body part differences)
03-16-2022, 12:33 AM( This post was last modified: 03-16-2022, 12:33 AM by Charger01 )
(03-15-2022, 11:48 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-15-2022, 11:33 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(03-13-2022, 11:09 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: The clavicle, also known as collar bone or clavicula is the bone that connects rib cage and arm (from Sternum to Scapula), serving as strut. The Deltoid, the Trapezius, the Pectoralis Major as well as several muscles of the throat are attached to it. Bigger muscles attached to the clavicle necessitate overall larger clavicle size which will, in return, limit flexibility of the arm. That means strength and flexibility of the arms develop inversely and that animals with larger clavicles likely have stronger pectorals and shoulders while animals with smaller clavicles are more flexible.
Can you show the sources, studies or pictures were it describe all this, please? I mean, where it mentions those specific muscles in cats and also the conclution about strength and flexibility.
For some "basic" things i cant find studies but i am 100% sure it is like that. Dr Dale Miquelle said it as well. As i said it already... i think i will contact him to be sure. But for what tigers should have straighter and "smaller" collar bones? It must have to do with flexibility. All in all i would say tigers have a bit smaller collar bones and lions bigger ones. Although the difference isnt big i think (but it is def big compared to other body part differences)
(03-13-2022, 11:09 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: The clavicle, also known as collar bone or clavicula is the bone that connects rib cage and arm (from Sternum to Scapula), serving as strut. The Deltoid, the Trapezius, the Pectoralis Major as well as several muscles of the throat are attached to it. Bigger muscles attached to the clavicle necessitate overall larger clavicle size which will, in return, limit flexibility of the arm. That means strength and flexibility of the arms develop inversely and that animals with larger clavicles likely have stronger pectorals and shoulders while animals with smaller clavicles are more flexible.
Can you show the sources, studies or pictures were it describe all this, please? I mean, where it mentions those specific muscles in cats and also the conclution about strength and flexibility.
For some "basic" things i cant find studies but i am 100% sure it is like that. Dr Dale Miquelle said it as well. As i said it already... i think i will contact him to be sure. But for what tigers should have straighter and "smaller" collar bones? It must have to do with flexibility. All in all i would say tigers have a bit smaller collar bones and lions bigger ones. Although the difference isnt big i think (but it is def big compared to other body part differences)
(03-16-2022, 12:33 AM)Khan85 Wrote: Dr. Dale Miquelle actually said that larger tigers lack the least in size and robusticity of clavicles when compared to other panthera
May you share the document or communication about this, please?
03-16-2022, 02:57 AM( This post was last modified: 03-16-2022, 02:59 AM by GuateGojira )
(03-15-2022, 11:48 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: For some "basic" things i cant find studies but i am 100% sure it is like that. Dr Dale Miquelle said it as well. As i said it already... i think i will contact him to be sure. But for what tigers should have straighter and "smaller" collar bones? It must have to do with flexibility. All in all i would say tigers have a bit smaller collar bones and lions bigger ones. Although the difference isnt big i think (but it is def big compared to other body part differences)
Thank you for the quote of Brakefield. However my question was not about tiger and lion collarbones. Check the post again, I am asking about this that you said:
"The clavicle, also known as collar bone or clavicula is the bone that connects rib cage and arm (from Sternum to Scapula), serving as strut. The Deltoid, the Trapezius, the Pectoralis Major as well as several muscles of the throat are attached to it. Bigger muscles attached to the clavicle necessitate overall larger clavicle size which will, in return, limit flexibility of the arm. That means strength and flexibility of the arms develop inversely and that animals with larger clavicles likely have stronger pectorals and shoulders while animals with smaller clavicles are more flexible."
Because what Brakefiled says in the book that you quote contradict this, as horses had huge chests and pectorals but they lack collarbones. So, reduction of collarbone may be related with something more than just cursorial life, after all lions are more cursorial than tigers, apparently.
Other point, you mention this series of muscles attached to the clavicle and I will like to see your source for this claim, because from the images that I have saw, collarbone is attach only to two muscles:
*This image is copyright of its original author
This from an ocelote
Now, this from a domestic cat (sorry for the low resolution, but you can see the clavicle area):
*This image is copyright of its original author
If that is the case, the size of the clavicle do not means more strength, which the article that you originally posted do not suggested, but is more related with flexibility, but just that.
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
