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.
So what seems ripped, muscular and impressive in one pic can easily look uninteresting and "no muscular", even though it's the same individual. It depends a lot on the lighting and the position he's in to "look" muscular.
01-25-2018, 02:38 AM( This post was last modified: 01-25-2018, 02:53 AM by Polar )
Yes, the main thing to take away from these pictures is that lighting, position of the camera, and stance (or general position) of the animal matters a ton.
Tshokwane: mocking response??? No, that is misunderstanding. I made a mistake, i originally wrote "lions for fans" but I wanted to write "lion fans"...and I recognized my mistake. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I definitely did not mean to say anything wrong.
Polar: I know that the males are more muscular, but according to their appearance it seems to me that the females look relatively more muscular than males. Just my impression, nothing more
From my two years of posting here and CarnivoraForums (and reading ancient Yuku threads few years ago), I've noticed many giant-sized lions and tigers (giant tigers of Bandipur/Kaziranga and few Ngorogoro lions) having more musculature in both the shoulder and neck than their average counterparts, now this wouldn't be the case if these felines were average weight (with very few exceptions). So far I have not seen an average-weight cat that has proportionally bigger shoulders than a cat of equal weight, I've only seen this in heavier and more exceptional specimens.
The following 1 user Likes Polar's post:1 user Likes Polar's post • Rishi
(01-25-2018, 03:43 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: In my opinion, the idea that among lions the females are relatively more muscular than males is not entirely absurd
I wouldn't use the word Absurd, but if you're comparing fair examples of each it's impossible for a female of any species to have the same type of mass as a male.
It comes down to Testosterone, females don't produce nearly as much as males, Testosterone is responsible for the functions below:
sex drive
bone mass
fat distribution
muscle size and strength
red blood cell production
Females can be every bit as muscular proportionally but they cannot be as densely muscle packed as males nor have as large of muscles when comparing averages.
Outliers will always exist but comparing the largest of either sex will result in the same observations.
(01-25-2018, 02:55 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: Tshokwane: mocking response??? No, that is misunderstanding. I made a mistake, i originally wrote "lions for fans" but I wanted to write "lion fans"...and I recognized my mistake. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I definitely did not mean to say anything wrong.
Pckts: I do not doubt that among lions, the males are generally more muscular, stronger, bigger, etc. And most of us know something about the effects of testosterone. On the other hand, however, I often see cases where the lioness looks like a relatively more robust animal, while the lion is rather tall and slim. I think it can be influenced by somewhat different roles of males and females. Though I do not want to overestimate these role differences.
Paul Coopoer: rather above average muscular amurs...IMO
