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.
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
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.
03-16-2022, 05:02 PM( This post was last modified: 03-16-2022, 05:04 PM by SpinoRex )
(03-16-2022, 02:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(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.
Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.
The options i see here are;
1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)
About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)
Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle. Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction. The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula. The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles. Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly. The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group. The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna. This muscle flexes the forearm.The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid. It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle.
That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.
Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)
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
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.
Yes,
I agree with you. If you use the t-test nearly all parameters given for lion and tigers are statistically insignificant. But you can get a rough idea indicating that these cats are really close / or identical and more individual based stuff. The reason i say close rather than "the value still favour the ____"
I used this data more as a small back up as its "confirming" that the humerus bone on these cats is pretty much equally robust looking at various indexes. As suggested by other datas they both have limbs of forest dwelling cats and therefore they must be also pretty identical in most parts with some minor adaptations.
03-16-2022, 06:30 PM( This post was last modified: 03-16-2022, 06:32 PM by Pckts )
(03-16-2022, 05:02 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 02:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(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.
Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.
The options i see here are;
1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)
About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)
Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle. Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction. The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula. The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles. Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly. The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group. The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna. This muscle flexes the forearm.The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid. It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle.
That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.
Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)
You literally have chest measurements available, obviously either collar bones don’t contribute to a larger chest in panthera, Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
For me at least when it comes to tigers it seems pretty simple, Tigers longer hind legs need a long stride but being a solitary hunter and forest dweller they don’t need sustained speed, just a quick burst with good agility then the tools to bring down large prey. Which is why they’re far better grapplers than chasers.
(03-16-2022, 05:02 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.
The options i see here are;
1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)
About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)
Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle. Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction. The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula. The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles. Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly. The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group. The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna. This muscle flexes the forearm.The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid. It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle.
That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.
Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)
That is the problem with your assumption, you are assuming that just because the collar bones are "bigger" the lions are "stronger" (which also sounds fanatic to me). But that is not what the document says or intent to say! In fact, they propose that Smilodon fatalis had the smallest clavicle and we know that Smilodon fatalis, with they huge arms and body masses of up to 280 kg, were heavier and stronger than any modern felid despit its body size. So your assumption is contrary to what the document propuse. Other thing, you are basing your arguments in the unfair comparison of captive lions (which we know that develope abnormally ticker bones in captivity) that may weight over 10 kg more than your average wild specimen, agains tiny Malayan tigresses that are also from captivity and that we know that weight less than 100 kg on average.
Other thing, you ignore the fact that the jaguar had smaller collarbones than leopards in that sample too, but nobody mention that, and we know how strong a jaguar is compared with a leopard.
So, there is no argument in saying that an animal is "stronger" than other based in that small bone, with small samples and from captive specimens that are vastly different in size.
About the musculature, read what your link says, those muscles attached to the clavicle are for directon and extention, which is related with locomotion and not with strength.
Let's take a look on Yamaguchi and what he says:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Plus, what Dr Sunquist says:
*This image is copyright of its original author
So lions, even sustaining the basic body plan, they are different in some aspects and Sunquist says that they are more specialized in running apparently, and closer to the cheetah based in they cursorial way of living.
(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.
Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.
The options i see here are;
1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)
About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)
Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle. Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction. The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula. The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles. Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly. The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group. The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna. This muscle flexes the forearm.The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid. It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle.
That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.
Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)
You literally have chest measurements available, obviously either collar bones don’t contribute to a larger chest in panthera, Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
For me at least when it comes to tigers it seems pretty simple, Tigers longer hind legs need a long stride but being a solitary hunter and forest dweller they don’t need sustained speed, just a quick burst with good agility then the tools to bring down large prey. Which is why they’re far better grapplers than chasers.
I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.
Quote:Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve.
Quote:First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall. I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).
(03-16-2022, 05:02 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.
The options i see here are;
1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)
About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)
Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle. Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction. The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula. The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles. Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly. The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group. The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna. This muscle flexes the forearm.The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid. It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle.
That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.
Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)
That is the problem with your assumption, you are assuming that just because the collar bones are "bigger" the lions are "stronger" (which also sounds fanatic to me). But that is not what the document says or intent to say! In fact, they propose that Smilodon fatalis had the smallest clavicle and we know that Smilodon fatalis, with they huge arms and body masses of up to 280 kg, were heavier and stronger than any modern felid despit its body size. So your assumption is contrary to what the document propuse. Other thing, you are basing your arguments in the unfair comparison of captive lions (which we know that develope abnormally ticker bones in captivity) that may weight over 10 kg more than your average wild specimen, agains tiny Malayan tigresses that are also from captivity and that we know that weight less than 100 kg on average.
Other thing, you ignore the fact that the jaguar had smaller collarbones than leopards in that sample too, but nobody mention that, and we know how strong a jaguar is compared with a leopard.
So, there is no argument in saying that an animal is "stronger" than other based in that small bone, with small samples and from captive specimens that are vastly different in size.
About the musculature, read what your link says, those muscles attached to the clavicle are for directon and extention, which is related with locomotion and not with strength.
Let's take a look on Yamaguchi and what he says:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Plus, what Dr Sunquist says:
*This image is copyright of its original author
So lions, even sustaining the basic body plan, they are different in some aspects and Sunquist says that they are more specialized in running apparently, and closer to the cheetah based in they cursorial way of living.
Guate,
So as i said i already excluded the length. I was talking about the robustness and curvature.
I never said the lion is stronger (talking about a certain area then its different). Also besides the curvature you are probably referring to the robustness right? Also robustness is measured relatively and not in total and from various robusticity indexes Malaysia tigers where not behind bengals. The study from Valkenbourgh shows that the most robust humeri bone came from a malaysia tiger. What a larger tension/extension muscle will bring?
I already read the study from Yamaguchi. His expertise on this field is more than that of sunquist as he is specialized on lion and tigers although sunquist stated similar thigs. He said cats with a higher BI are more cursorial but the lion is an exception. And below he states that the limbs are similar to that of tigers and both have limbs that are normal for forest dwelling cats. And as i said before the lion developed minor differences but still has the limbs of a "forest dwelling" cat as said by sunquist(A weapon). Also the comparison between cheetahs and lions should be taken with a graint of salt as the limbs are pretty much different regardless of ratios.
(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.
Yes, this explains the function of clavicles in cats accurately.
What "spinorex" said about muscle insertions at clavicles is actually applicable for humans only. Yes, the anatomy here is analogous but clavicle is a very different part in cats.
In humans, clavicles are relatively very large and hence act as an anchor for many muscle groups. In felids, however, clavicle is reduced mediolaterally hence it acts as an anchor for some part of shoulder (deltoideus) only. Other larger muscle groups such as pectoralis do not attach to clavicle in cats, unlike in humans.
So far, I think clavicles act as an anchor for following muscles in felids -
1. Clavotrapezius
2. Clavodeltoid
3. Cleidocephalicus
4. Cleidobrachialis
03-16-2022, 09:37 PM( This post was last modified: 03-16-2022, 09:42 PM by GuateGojira )
(03-16-2022, 08:33 PM)SpinoRex Wrote: Guate,
So as i said i already excluded the length. I was talking about the robustness and curvature.
I never said the lion is stronger (talking about a certain area then its different). Also besides the curvature you are probably referring to the robustness right? Also robustness is measured relatively and not in total and from various robusticity indexes Malaysia tigers where not behind bengals. The study from Valkenbourgh shows that the most robust humeri bone came from a malaysia tiger. What a larger tension/extension muscle will bring?
I already read the study from Yamaguchi. His expertise on this field is more than that of sunquist as he is specialized on lion and tigers although sunquist stated similar thigs. He said cats with a higher BI are more cursorial but the lion is an exception. And below he states that the limbs are similar to that of tigers and both have limbs that are normal for forest dwelling cats. And as i said before the lion developed minor differences but still has the limbs of a "forest dwelling" cat as said by sunquist(A weapon). Also the comparison between cheetahs and lions should be taken with a graint of salt as the limbs are pretty much different regardless of ratios.
It doesn't matter if is length or robustness, you are completelly avoiding the point. The development of the animals (captive vs wild) and the subspecies did affect the results. And Valkenbourgh (in which article she focus on clavicles?) did not focus in clavicles as far I know. Again, you are mixing the things, like Pckts says.
Now you state that you never said the lion is stronger, but check what you wrote, twice:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
You are implying it in your posts, and then you say that what Khan85 said on the bones on tigers and lions and his conclutions are from a "fanatic"? Certainly there is a double standard here. I think that is too much of "lion vs tiger" in all this conversation.
And finally, what Dr Sunqusit and Yamaguchi said is basically the same, I don't see why you are overthinking and overinterpreting what they stated which is pretty clear: lions are closer to cheetah based in they cursorial life but they keep the basic body plan with some addaptations. Lions and tigers adapted to they habitat with little modifications in the basic morphology. Simple as that.
03-16-2022, 10:27 PM( This post was last modified: 03-17-2022, 02:14 AM by Pckts )
(03-16-2022, 08:09 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 06:30 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 05:02 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 02:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(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.
Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.
The options i see here are;
1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)
About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)
Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle. Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction. The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula. The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles. Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly. The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group. The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna. This muscle flexes the forearm.The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid. It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle.
That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.
Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)
You literally have chest measurements available, obviously either collar bones don’t contribute to a larger chest in panthera, Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
For me at least when it comes to tigers it seems pretty simple, Tigers longer hind legs need a long stride but being a solitary hunter and forest dweller they don’t need sustained speed, just a quick burst with good agility then the tools to bring down large prey. Which is why they’re far better grapplers than chasers.
I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.
Quote:Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve.
Quote:First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall. I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).
Quote:I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.
Answered what specifically?
And what's not comparable to a skeletal observation?
If you knew the body measurements of the animal I guarantee their skeletal structure would represent that too. *Larger individuals would = Larger skeletal structures*
My point was that no matter the skeletal differences you may try to interpret, the real life data doesn't support either Tiger/Lion having a more powerful muscle composition. Chest girth and arm girth are real life measurements, there is no Lion who's body length to chest girth ratio outshines a Tiger. Both generally have fairly equal measurements in that area, there is more of a difference in forelimb girth though, generally speaking the Tiger will possess a bit more mass there.
Quote:Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve.
There's nothing heavy about it and the evidence again is in real life data. We have 100s of verified cats measured and weighed, not a tiny sample size of captive cats, females v males and small sub species. Again you can look through all the wild individuals you like, there is no correlation of Lions being more powerfully built or vice versa.
Quote:Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall.
Again, there is nothing "heavy" about it. As Guate has shown, you did make claims about implied advantages.
You also make numerous assumptions based off of sample sizes that are almost nothing or comparisons of females to males, etc.
Quote:I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).
And the Tiger had a slight advantage there but you use the term "almost equal" then proceed to say the Lion had a "higher" humeri circumference but no mention of the Tigers much more exaggerated Distal and Proximal ends.
Again making assumptions off of the most limited data base and comparing male to female.
@khan85 also provided a larger data base from Dr. Christiansen in which he mentions the more robust Tiger humerus compared but again noting it's nothing significant while the Distal/Proximal ends are the most exaggerated between the two. And those being used specifically for muscle attachments would play a role.
Point being that you have a tendency to look for advantages in the Lion compared to the Tiger while dismissing disadvantages or making them seem meaningless. At least that's how I interpret what you're saying.
So as i said i already excluded the length. I was talking about the robustness and curvature.
I never said the lion is stronger (talking about a certain area then its different). Also besides the curvature you are probably referring to the robustness right? Also robustness is measured relatively and not in total and from various robusticity indexes Malaysia tigers where not behind bengals. The study from Valkenbourgh shows that the most robust humeri bone came from a malaysia tiger. What a larger tension/extension muscle will bring?
I already read the study from Yamaguchi. His expertise on this field is more than that of sunquist as he is specialized on lion and tigers although sunquist stated similar thigs. He said cats with a higher BI are more cursorial but the lion is an exception. And below he states that the limbs are similar to that of tigers and both have limbs that are normal for forest dwelling cats. And as i said before the lion developed minor differences but still has the limbs of a "forest dwelling" cat as said by sunquist(A weapon). Also the comparison between cheetahs and lions should be taken with a graint of salt as the limbs are pretty much different regardless of ratios.
It doesn't matter if is length or robustness, you are completelly avoiding the point. The development of the animals (captive vs wild) and the subspecies did affect the results. And Valkenbourgh (in which article she focus on clavicles?) did not focus in clavicles as far I know. Again, you are mixing the things, like Pckts says.
Now you state that you never said the lion is stronger, but check what you wrote, twice:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
You are implying it in your posts, and then you say that what Khan85 said on the bones on tigers and lions and his conclutions are from a "fanatic"? Certainly there is a double standard here. I think that is too much of "lion vs tiger" in all this conversation.
And finally, what Dr Sunqusit and Yamaguchi said is basically the same, I don't see why you are overthinking and overinterpreting what they stated which is pretty clear: lions are closer to cheetah based in they cursorial life but they keep the basic body plan with some addaptations. Lions and tigers adapted to they habitat with little modifications in the basic morphology. Simple as that.
Yes,
I never said lions are overall stronger but in a certain area where the clavicle plays a role(same for tigers when it comes to the forearm; Ulna the tiger, radius similar and paws as well). Lets assume that the robustness and length are equal.... alone due to the curvature the lion will have more surface area.
I communicated with Yamaguchi months ago. I read his studies and you can see his note "cats with a higher index are usually more cursorial, but the lion is an exception, while the tiger is a typical forest cat". Based on several studies you may have noticed that lions are except the BI extremely similar to tigers in both robusticity, strength, length and overall limb proportions (backed up by a study and stated by yamaguchi). If you go by BI you are right but if you mean the whole limb you are wrong.
03-17-2022, 02:34 AM( This post was last modified: 03-17-2022, 02:45 AM by SpinoRex )
(03-16-2022, 10:27 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 08:09 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 06:30 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 05:02 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 02:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(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.
Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.
The options i see here are;
1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)
About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)
Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle. Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction. The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula. The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles. Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly. The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group. The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna. This muscle flexes the forearm.The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid. It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle.
That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.
Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)
You literally have chest measurements available, obviously either collar bones don’t contribute to a larger chest in panthera, Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
For me at least when it comes to tigers it seems pretty simple, Tigers longer hind legs need a long stride but being a solitary hunter and forest dweller they don’t need sustained speed, just a quick burst with good agility then the tools to bring down large prey. Which is why they’re far better grapplers than chasers.
I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.
Quote:Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve.
Quote:First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall. I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).
Quote:I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.
Answered what specifically?
And what's no comparable to a skeletal observation?
If you knew the body measurements of the animal I guarantee their skeletal structure we represent that too. *Larger individuals would = Larger skeletal structures*
My point was that no matter the skeletal differences you may try to interpret, the real life data doesn't support either Tiger/Lion having a more powerful muscle composition. Chest girth and arm girth are real life measurements, there is no Lion who's body length to chest girth ratio outshines a Tiger. Both generally have fairly equal measurements in that area, there is more of a difference in forelimb girth though, generally speaking the Tiger will possess a bit more mass there.
Quote:Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve.
There's nothing heavy about it and the evidence again is in real life data. We have 100s of verified cats measured and weighed, not a tiny sample size of captive cats, females v males and small sub species. Again you can look through all the wild individuals you like, there is no correlation of Lions being more powerfully built or vice versa.
Quote:Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall.
Again, there is nothing "heavy" about it. As Guate has shown, you did make claims about implied advantages.
You also make numerous assumptions based off of sample sizes that are almost nothing or comparisons of females to males, etc.
Quote:I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).
And the Tiger should a slight advantage there but you use the term "almost equal" then proceed to say the Lion had a "higher" humeri circumference but no mention of the Tigers much more exaggerated Distal and Proximal ends.
Again making assumptions off of the most limited data base and comparing male to female.
@khan85 also provided a larger data base from Dr. Christiansen in which he mentions the more robust Tiger humerus compared but again noting it's nothing significant while the Distal/Proximal ends are the most exaggerated between the two. And those being used specifically for muscle attachments would play a role.
Point being that you have a tendency to look for advantages in the Lion compared to the Tiger while dismissing disadvantages or making them seem meaningless.
Pckts i said before why girth = not skeleton. Its completely different. Lions are said to have proportionally larger chests from what i have heard .
Do you know why i didnt mention it? Because the difference in shaft is visible and that constantly while those infos about distal and proximal ends are from a small sample and based on asiatic lions. Additionally more questionable when even in bengal tigers the measurements in the end differed 50% in the distal extremities. The datas i have collected are based on all of christiansens studies and from others as well. Note the tigers used in his studies were by a great margin heavier and more were captive ones(can be seen in the following table).
For what is the whole shaft important, which is by far the biggest bone on the humerus? Additionally the shaft consists of compact bone while the ends are spongy bones. This having the larger shaft by (6-7% on average) will give you the heavier and stronger humerus bone overall due to having the bigger shaft. The compact bone is the main structure in the body for support, protection, and movement. Due to the strong nature of compact bone, compared to spongy bone, it is the preferred tissue for strength. And beside the fact it will give you of course benefits in muscle mass as you basically have the thicker bone.
Here you have various measurements of the humerus bone for various animals.
*This image is copyright of its original author
So i hope you understood why i didnt mentioned that. One can mention the CC AP, ML which are exaggerated as well.
Humerus was rather equal while tigers were visibly more robust in the ulna bone and radius was similar.
This may be interesting as well (2nd from left; Tiger, 2nd from right; Lion). Humerus, Ulna ad Radius
*This image is copyright of its original author
So for some results i would like to see further datas. So talking bout clavicle will waste our time.
I feel like there is a lot of bias going on here...on both sides. Nevertheless, I agree with @SpinoRex in that lions and tigers are very similar, they belong to a rather osteologically homogeneous group (Panthera) and are within that group the most similar species to each other.
But, for the clavicles, first I will say that the difference is obviously statistically significant, all the other felids group together (with some variation) but the African lion and, crucially, the American lion, stand out as having significantly higher values. I'm not insinuating this makes them stronger but it's not worth debating the obvious truth that the difference is real and not caused by some kind of sampling error.
Fwiw, larger and more recurved claviculae are typically found in arboreal species, whereas terrestrial (especially cursorial) species tend to have reduced clavicles or lack them altogether.
So, the advantage would be something that helps scansorial taxa use their forelimbs to climb. The cost is a little less clear but it definitely isn't helping in the lion's cursorial habits. Therefore the adaptive reason would need to be something else. Possibly allowing lions to compensate for their general trend toward cursoriality while still needing to stalk, accelerate, and grapple large prey like the other pantherine felids.
03-17-2022, 03:54 AM( This post was last modified: 03-17-2022, 03:55 AM by Pckts )
(03-17-2022, 02:34 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 10:27 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 08:09 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 06:30 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 05:02 PM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(03-16-2022, 02:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(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.
Then it would mean the lion has the larger muscle in that areas. (I see no reason to develope a larger collar bone by just reducing flexibility). The flexibility comes with the size of the collar bone... though as i said before some questioned the size datas. Therefore i used mainly the curve and robustness as a argument, which means even guessing the collar bones are similar in size... the lion would be stronger. Also collar bone isnt the only factor.... so ther animals might have big chests.
The options i see here are;
1. Lions developed larger and stronger collar bones
2. Lions developed stronger collar bones (by guessing there isnt a size difference)
About the clavicle here are some infos (These are just the muscles... the clavicle bone might have other functions as well)
Quote:The clavotrapezius arises from the back of the skull and middorsal line of the neck and inserts on the clavicle. Its action is to extend the humerus in a forward direction. The acromiotrapezius (which arises on the middorsal line of the neck and thorax and inserts on the metacromion and spine of the scapula) adducts the scapula. The spinotrapezius arises from the spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae and inserts on the fascia covering the scapular muscles. Its action is to adduct the scapula and pull it posteriorly. The major muscle group of the shoulder is the deltoid group. The clavodeltoid originates from the clavicle and inserts on the ulna. This muscle flexes the forearm.The acromiodeltoid lies posterior to the clavodeltoid. It arises from the acromion process of the scapula and inserts on the spinodeltoid muscle.
That with the curve is pretty evident. But would like to see some datas about the clavicle length.
Also lions are build pretty much like forest cats with really minor cursorial adaptions but maintaning the overall "strength". Lions may be more cursorial than tigers but they arent cursorial cats as their limbs are pretty normal for forest dwelling cats. (Yamaguchi)
You literally have chest measurements available, obviously either collar bones don’t contribute to a larger chest in panthera, Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
For me at least when it comes to tigers it seems pretty simple, Tigers longer hind legs need a long stride but being a solitary hunter and forest dweller they don’t need sustained speed, just a quick burst with good agility then the tools to bring down large prey. Which is why they’re far better grapplers than chasers.
I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.
Quote:Tigers collar bones are as large or larger than Lions or the sample size is far small to make any conclusions.
Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve.
Quote:First it was the Humerus and now it’s the collar bone after the humerus showed favor to the Tiger. Instead of looking for tiny advantages in the smallest and imperfect samples, what you/we should take from this is that the body works as a whole, deficits or advantages we interpret may not work that way in these cats.
Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall. I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).
Quote:I literally answered to the chest girths. Also its not comparable to a skeleton observation.
Answered what specifically?
And what's no comparable to a skeletal observation?
If you knew the body measurements of the animal I guarantee their skeletal structure we represent that too. *Larger individuals would = Larger skeletal structures*
My point was that no matter the skeletal differences you may try to interpret, the real life data doesn't support either Tiger/Lion having a more powerful muscle composition. Chest girth and arm girth are real life measurements, there is no Lion who's body length to chest girth ratio outshines a Tiger. Both generally have fairly equal measurements in that area, there is more of a difference in forelimb girth though, generally speaking the Tiger will possess a bit more mass there.
Quote:Thats a heavy statement, which needs to be backed up by evidence in the first place. Also i even excluded the length but was just talking about the robustness and curve.
There's nothing heavy about it and the evidence again is in real life data. We have 100s of verified cats measured and weighed, not a tiny sample size of captive cats, females v males and small sub species. Again you can look through all the wild individuals you like, there is no correlation of Lions being more powerfully built or vice versa.
Quote:Again a heavy statement without any evidence behind it. I never looked for advantages nor i claimed a species to be stronger overall.
Again, there is nothing "heavy" about it. As Guate has shown, you did make claims about implied advantages.
You also make numerous assumptions based off of sample sizes that are almost nothing or comparisons of females to males, etc.
Quote:I dont know if Khan85 posted the infos on Diameters but the indexes like ML, AP, HEI, HDA are almost equal, while the lion has the higher humeri circumference vs length (relatively and in total).
And the Tiger should a slight advantage there but you use the term "almost equal" then proceed to say the Lion had a "higher" humeri circumference but no mention of the Tigers much more exaggerated Distal and Proximal ends.
Again making assumptions off of the most limited data base and comparing male to female.
@khan85 also provided a larger data base from Dr. Christiansen in which he mentions the more robust Tiger humerus compared but again noting it's nothing significant while the Distal/Proximal ends are the most exaggerated between the two. And those being used specifically for muscle attachments would play a role.
Point being that you have a tendency to look for advantages in the Lion compared to the Tiger while dismissing disadvantages or making them seem meaningless.
Pckts i said before why girth = not skeleton. Its completely different. Lions are said to have proportionally larger chests from what i have heard .
Do you know why i didnt mention it? Because the difference in shaft is visible and that constantly while those infos about distal and proximal ends are from a small sample and based on asiatic lions. Additionally more questionable when even in bengal tigers the measurements in the end differed 50% in the distal extremities. The datas i have collected are based on all of christiansens studies and from others as well. Note the tigers used in his studies were by a great margin heavier and more were captive ones(can be seen in the following table).
For what is the whole shaft important, which is by far the biggest bone on the humerus? Additionally the shaft consists of compact bone while the ends are spongy bones. This having the larger shaft by (6-7% on average) will give you the heavier and stronger humerus bone overall due to having the bigger shaft. The compact bone is the main structure in the body for support, protection, and movement. Due to the strong nature of compact bone, compared to spongy bone, it is the preferred tissue for strength. And beside the fact it will give you of course benefits in muscle mass as you basically have the thicker bone.
Here you have various measurements of the humerus bone for various animals.
*This image is copyright of its original author
So i hope you understood why i didnt mentioned that. One can mention the CC AP, ML which are exaggerated as well.
Humerus was rather equal while tigers were visibly more robust in the ulna bone and radius was similar.
This may be interesting as well (2nd from left; Tiger, 2nd from right; Lion). Humerus, Ulna ad Radius
*This image is copyright of its original author
So for some results i would like to see further datas. So talking bout clavicle will waste our time.
Quote:Pckts i said before why girth = not skeleton. Its completely different. Lions are said to have proportionally larger chests from what i have heard .
"Heard" from who?
There is no Lion chest girth that isn't matched or exceeded by a Tiger. No matter what body length you compare, proportionally a Tiger can and has matched or exceeded any Lion.
Quote:Do you know why i didnt mention it? Because the difference in shaft is visible and that constantly while those infos about distal and proximal ends are from a small sample and based on asiatic lions. Additionally more questionable when even in bengal tigers the measurements in the end differed 50% in the distal extremities. The datas i have collected are based on all of christiansens studies and from others as well. Note the tigers used in his studies were by a great margin heavier and more were captive ones(can be seen in the following table).
How exactly is it visible and the distal/proximal ends are not? And there is no specifications of whether it's an Asiatic or African Lion used but regardless the ends are the major difference between the two. And making an excuse that it's an Asiatic Lion but not using the same excuse that it's a Tigress compared to a Male Lion is questionable at best.
And once again, you have Christiansen specifically stating the Tiger has a more robust Humerus. And no doubt they are heavier since you're comparing them with Small, Malaysian females. Not to mention, the average in the Table shown mentions 130kg which again would be female Tigers.
Quote:For what is the whole shaft important, which is by far the biggest bone on the humerus? Additionally the shaft consists of compact bone while the ends are spongy bones. This having the larger shaft by (6-7% on average) will give you the heavier and stronger humerus bone overall due to having the bigger shaft. The compact bone is the main structure in the body for support, protection, and movement. Due to the strong nature of compact bone, compared to spongy bone, it is the preferred tissue for strength. And beside the fact it will give you of course benefits in muscle mass as you basically have the thicker bone.
The Ends aren't spongy, I'm not sure where you got that. The tendons that connect the muscle to the bone at the end will be spongy so you should correct that claim. And proportionally a shorter shaft with similar density will be stronger than a longer shaft of similar density, not to mention the exaggerated ends that produce larger muscle attachments. It only makes sense for the bone to withstand more force when it's wielder produces more force.
Quote:Here you have various measurements of the humerus bone for various animals.
Again, you're comparing an averaged Cat of 130kg (female) to 174kg (male) not to mention no real sample size mentioned. On top of that, you have the actual author of that study specifically saying the Tigers humerus would top the list between the two.
Quote:This may be interesting as well (2nd from left; Tiger, 2nd from right; Lion). Humerus, Ulna ad Radius
Once again, Age, sex, subspecies and captivity status all lacking.
(03-17-2022, 02:59 AM)dominusforti Wrote: I feel like there is a lot of bias going on here...on both sides. Nevertheless, I agree with @SpinoRex in that lions and tigers are very similar, they belong to a rather osteologically homogeneous group (Panthera) and are within that group the most similar species to each other.
But, for the clavicles, first I will say that the difference is obviously statistically significant, all the other felids group together (with some variation) but the African lion and, crucially, the American lion, stand out as having significantly higher values. I'm not insinuating this makes them stronger but it's not worth debating the obvious truth that the difference is real and not caused by some kind of sampling error.
Fwiw, larger and more recurved claviculae are typically found in arboreal species, whereas terrestrial (especially cursorial) species tend to have reduced clavicles or lack them altogether.
So, the advantage would be something that helps scansorial taxa use their forelimbs to climb. The cost is a little less clear but it definitely isn't helping in the lion's cursorial habits. Therefore the adaptive reason would need to be something else. Possibly allowing lions to compensate for their general trend toward cursoriality while still needing to stalk, accelerate, and grapple large prey like the other pantherine felids.
How can there be no sampling error when you're comparing all females to mostly males and on top of that, one of the smallest sub species of Tigers, one being a stillborn as well.
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
