WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
|
Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions
|
 (03-04-2022, 02:33 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: @"Khan85" Your reply is probably outdated ever since i shared you a another study but neverthless i never ignored the other details. The samples for those datas were small and in a other study the distal extremety width was just 6.28 cm for 5 adult indian tigers (most males). Neverthless i said that the difference is insignificant. The lion as i said has the thicker shaft both in total and proportionally. Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed that but as i said we have the studies in terms of robusticity and once you are widening the spectrum the overall conclusion is the opposite. But i dont want to debate it as the difference is insignififcant. For lions i got 32.63% (n=24) and for tigers 30.88% (n=29) at Humerus Circumference. In a sample one tiger had a shaft of 158mm at 315mm humerus length, which is impossible (i looked at all datas and the graphs). I think it had been a respectful discussion. At the points were disagreements happens one have to stay calm and not in a fight. Also your conclusion as i said before is partly wrong (the combination of email and the one datas from your side). Reply isn´t outdated. There is more data, for example, the research study ¨Anatomical Study on Humerus of Tiger (2014)¨. Just for the records, distal width here was 9.65 cm. If lions have thicker shaft both proportionally as well, then why is the shaft circumference relative to shaft-only length much higher in tigers than in lions? Enough of the words, lets use the actual numbers. 1. Shaft circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length - Lions = 32.61 % (n = 24) - Tigers = 32.13 % (n = 32) 2. Shaft circumference vs Humerus Shaft Length - Lions = 48.04 % (n = 4) - Tigers = 57.54 % (n = 5) 3. Proximal extremities of Humerus a. Proximal circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length - Lions = 58.58 % (n = 4) - Tigers = 74.76 % (n = 5) b. Proximal width vs Humerus Greatest Length - Lions = 29.33 % (n = 4) - Tigers = 33.53 % (n = 10) 4. Distal extremities of Humerus a. Distal Articular Width of Humerus - Lions = 26.4 % (n = 17) - Tigers = 26.6 % (n = 19) b. Distal circumference vs Humerus Greatest Length - Lions = 48.16 % (n = 4) - Tigers = 81.17 % (n = 5) c. Distal width vs Humerus Greatest Length - Lions = 25.80 % (n = 4) - Tigers = 24.80 % (n = 10) Small sample size shouldn´t even be used as an argument by you after you force everyone to take the cortical thickness of bone in sample size of 2 lions and 2 tigers to be conclusive. Quote:Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed thatWow. This discussion shouldn´t even happen after Dr. Per Christiansen´s reply on the topic of robusticity of felids.  (03-02-2022, 04:59 AM)Pckts Wrote:(03-02-2022, 04:08 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: @Pckts beside your information that i appreciate remember he weighed overall just 41 adult males in Kruger NP. And even then your assumption isnt right. I have few questions for you. 2) The male was of 4-5 years old and the male lion from ndutu even younger c.4 years old. Both were 244 and 237 kg, which means surpassing 225 kg even empty shouldnt be a problem. About kocks lion he was a healthy lion and not a fat one (Might be the case for constant cattle killers). Pckts i said on a full stomach like some other males he would be 245-255 kg. Sm009 was collared 1.5 years later when when weighed 246 kg kg. And as you can see.... he is far from being fat. A 225 kg lion and an empty stomach is a big cat but not the maximum. If you see that a 5-6 year old male in Etosha reached with normal dimensions 240 kg empty or one in kenya 272 kg.... These 2 famous males from kruger are therefore reasonably at the top.. Some infos are given by the lodges and guides. Then you ask the reserve HQ and then you ask the scientists who was the supervisor. I dont get it how it can be more reliable. Again the 2 males from Timbavati came from Kruger and switched their location many times (Mabande isnt there anymore). I still dont get it why they are linked to be captive ones. Im interested of the birmingham males nowadays are also captive ones. Obviously they arent. Also again Smuts weighed 41 adult males in Kruger NP (overall 344 males from all ages) and therefore the overall number is deceptive. "There are no outside influences when talking about Smuts and Stevenson and their data base is gigantic. Nothing they mention compares to these alleged weights out of a single place in S. Africa, that's what I'm saying." Same goes torwards the kenya male and the etosha male (out of a moderate sample, normal dimensions and could have gained some weight). Pckts i want to know the exact reason why you dont accept these records. Your argumentation is a bit flawed looking at the whole context.  (03-04-2022, 02:35 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Chest Girth of Crater Lions So I was right, the biggest chest girth is of 143 cm. And check that Dr Packer says that they were astonished for that male. Just to make a comparison, from South African lions the biggest chest girth from Smuts was of 134.8 cm, and the biggest two girths from hunting records are of 137.2 cm and 150 cm respectivelly (the last one was a giant and no other lion surpassed the 140 cm in this region). From Zimbabwe, the biggest from Smuts was of 139 cm, while from Namibia the biggest is of 148 cm (Hobatere), exceptional as the next one was 10 cm less. Finally, from East Africa, the biggest chest girth is of 130 cm from a hunted lion (Ward, 1914) while the next biggest one came from a Serengeti lion of 129 cm (Pfefferle et al., 2007). So, it seems that chest girths over 140 cm are very rare in lions, just 3 specimens surpassed this limit from a sample of 117 males: 150 (South Africa), 148 (Namibia) and 143 (Tanzania - Crater). Now a final clarification, these are the biggest five from a larger sample, so for those "fans" out there, do not make an average of only this 5 figures, the real sample is larger and an average of only these specimens will not be valid for comparison. (03-04-2022, 03:13 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: 1) It was a information by a lodge not by the reserve itself (generally reliable of course but not directly from them) and the same thing happened in other scientific records. They were collared by the Research project with Almero. Recently there was a male collared who came from Namibia (Forgot his name) and he was even bigger than ximpoko. The reserve and the scintists there were contacted so there is no debate. 1) There is debate on this as the figures are not officially published and accepted by anyone in the scientific community (just be a few of us and partially as is based in emails from third persons), by the way you did not answered my question, why they don't publish the figures? Only emails and personal communications at some point are not enough. We can use them for backup (which is what we normally do here) but certainly a published document is more usefull. It is weird that they deleted the post about the weight of one of those lions. 2) That lion was in his prime, territorial, and the figure of 240 kg is by no chance a minimum, is a maximum and very extreme, after all the sample of all the males in that area weighed 190 kg on average and unadjusted. Dr Hu Berry provided measurements and a picture and he probably measured in straight line as the shoulder height suggest (he shows both straight and in curves). So proably was straight line and remember that Dr Hu Berry worked with lions long before the people from Hobatere started measuring lions, so they measurement methods are much more different (those from Hobatere are a mess). The lion of 244 kg from Hobatere include stomach content; the lion of 235 kg (not 237 kg) was partially estimate (remember that the scale was bottomed) and includes stomach content which suggest that could weight as low as 200 kg (it seems that you forgot that conversation) so they ages are irrelevant. 3) I am going to search it. It weird that since 1993 we don't have a paper about them. (03-04-2022, 02:58 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Guate everything fine but with all respect a male of 163.9 cm, 172 over curves is defientely not an adult and some males from the other datas from Wilson as well (230 cm over curves). In the other document they wrote m instead of feet. Other than that the book is really accurate. The other botwana male of 183cm over curves isnt a adult most likely. Males of c.170cm are extremely rare/exceptional. Also i was asking for the source if the records mentioned by Pitman are the same as those mentioned by Roberts. Reliability is measured by various points.... That is not what the document states, lions as small as that may be possible, specially by the fact that we don't know to much about the lions in that region. Smiths and partners were specific in saying when animals were youngs or adults. Also, there is no information that says that those hunted lions were not measured "between pegs", except from those from Rosslyn Safari, Matetsi, which came from safari operatiosn and the weights may be inflated. About this: "In the other document they wrote m instead of feet. Other than that the book is really accurate." Interesting opinion, I think that is a good posibility and I will take it like that. About Pitman is simple logic. Lions of 553 lb are certainly not common and the sample provided to Roberst certainly include them. This is the same case with the tigers quoted from Cooch Behar/Assam/Duars area in several documents, it do not say that were hunted by the Maharaja, but by logic we know that came from him and I do not duplicate the samples. I am 100% sure that those 5 lions quoted by Pitman from the magazine "The Field" are included in the sample of 10 provided by Campbell to Roberts. It is interesting that Pitman is a second hand source, that quote a document with no other details than the date, so based in Slagth et al. (2005) that information is менее надежные - less reliable as they do not provided any details and until we can see the real source of the information, which is the magazine itself, or at least confirm it in the table 36 from the book of Roberts, we can't be sure that those figures are actually real or correct. (03-04-2022, 04:08 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I guess the discussion will be deleted anyways (completely different thread) Why is going to be deleted? We are sharing important information and I am using the oportunity to correct several of the false statements presented here that came from people from other forums and that you are using here. (03-04-2022, 09:09 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-04-2022, 02:35 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Chest Girth of Crater Lions I personally think it is influenced by size and weight (Also those of Smuts reached 140cm at 215 kg). Though those chest girths of Ximpoko, Kenya male should be over 140 cm for sure and many heavier lions werent measured (zimbabwe lions from Smithers). Yeah but thats still HUGE(One was of 134 cm as well). (03-04-2022, 10:13 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-04-2022, 04:08 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I guess the discussion will be deleted anyways (completely different thread) Guate i am not copy and pasting the informations of other guys before i can understand the logic behind it. I doubt these lions were between pegs. But again the fact that a male was 230cm is just a proof that subadults were included and even between pegs a male of just 163.9 cm is 99% not a adult. That male of 183 cm depending on measurmeent method must be a non-adult as well as the 138 kg male. I looked nearly at every measurements and no adult was of that size. I mean you have to agree at least that they are most likely not adults (03-04-2022, 09:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-04-2022, 03:13 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: 1) It was a information by a lodge not by the reserve itself (generally reliable of course but not directly from them) and the same thing happened in other scientific records. They were collared by the Research project with Almero. Recently there was a male collared who came from Namibia (Forgot his name) and he was even bigger than ximpoko. The reserve and the scintists there were contacted so there is no debate. 1) They dont need to be officially published if they were confirmed by the scientist in a personal communication already and the reserve. Though if a scientist will be aware of those datas of course he will include it if they get the same respond in a personal communication. (As i know yamaguchi was already informed about this male and he was interested). The other reason is because they wont publish a study just because they weighed a lion. They were weighed during a collaring of the younger male and thats it. Unless they are part of a study i dont think they will publsihed. 2) The lion was 5-6 years old and as already mentioned lions reach their best weight at around 8-10 most of the time. The other fact is that the lion was dimensionally not impressive but his chest girth was due to his weight. Volkel for instant was longer and had a thicker chest then this male as well as the fact that one male lion of th ehomob coalition reached nearly the same weight. Also Guate read what i wrote! Who would be so delusional to claim that this isnt a max weight (or close to it)? I was saying as Huberry said the male had UP TO 20 kg in his stomach i said the estimate of 240 kg empty is rather a minimum but the real height wont be any higher than that unless a triffle kgs. Yes i know they include stoamch content but a male of 4.5 at 244 kg is really HUGE. Beside the detailed mail from Ingela Jansson i found weights of 230 kg and 235 kg. Though the exact weight was 250 kg with - the scale indicating 237 kg. This info suggests a bed will weigh c.13 kg, which i think will be useful in the future. About the male from Ingela one may look at the pictures. He had stomach content but was by no means full. His stomach content must range either from 15-20 kg, which means the weight of c.220 kg empty at c.4 years is accurate. 3) Its basic. The males were just translocated to a other National Park to increase the population size. Had nothing to do with research. Here the answer:  *This image is copyright of its original author
(03-04-2022, 10:11 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-04-2022, 02:58 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Guate everything fine but with all respect a male of 163.9 cm, 172 over curves is defientely not an adult and some males from the other datas from Wilson as well (230 cm over curves). In the other document they wrote m instead of feet. Other than that the book is really accurate. The other botwana male of 183cm over curves isnt a adult most likely. Males of c.170cm are extremely rare/exceptional. Also i was asking for the source if the records mentioned by Pitman are the same as those mentioned by Roberts. Reliability is measured by various points.... Convert the numbers in feet and you get the same measurements as in the right table About the lions mentioned by Pitman the lions were measured in a different way in measuring (shoulder height). But anyways i will leave that to you... . Also pitman quotes each measurements and weights in a exact form by mentioning the date and location. EDIT- The 251 kg male was stated in Woods book to be 9ft 10 inches and therefore the longest lion over curves. Roberts mentions the longest lion between pegs at 9ft 7 and 9ft 10 over curves. The male from Pitman was 9ft 5 between pegs and has a straight height of 114cm (03-05-2022, 02:10 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Guate i am not copy and pasting the informations of other guys before i can understand the logic behind it. I doubt these lions were between pegs. But again the fact that a male was 230cm is just a proof that subadults were included and even between pegs a male of just 163.9 cm is 99% not a adult. That male of 183 cm depending on measurmeent method must be a non-adult as well as the 138 kg male. I looked nearly at every measurements and no adult was of that size. As I said, we don't know the variations of the lions in that area. For example west African lions can weight as low as 130 kg fully adults and those from Loliondo are small too, so 138 kg could be an adult male after all, but we can discard the full sample if you want, after all with 202 kg on average definitelly those specimens included heavy stomach content and are from second hand source. Interestingly Smithers do not mention anything about the age, so they could be also adults in of old age, but he did not witnessed those measurements, another "less reliable" set of records. I could not found the source of Wilson, it says in litt. so definitelly it will be imposible to found it, unless that we could found any document from Wilson after 1970; however this could be an adult lion with a very short tail and the weight of 158 kg suggest that adults were used in the sample.  (03-04-2022, 04:08 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:(03-04-2022, 03:17 AM)Khan85 Wrote:(03-04-2022, 02:33 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: @"Khan85" Your reply is probably outdated ever since i shared you a another study but neverthless i never ignored the other details. The samples for those datas were small and in a other study the distal extremety width was just 6.28 cm for 5 adult indian tigers (most males). Neverthless i said that the difference is insignificant. The lion as i said has the thicker shaft both in total and proportionally. Thus it will allow other muscular advantages in terms of potential at least (all muscles actually). CP probably visually claimed that but as i said we have the studies in terms of robusticity and once you are widening the spectrum the overall conclusion is the opposite. But i dont want to debate it as the difference is insignififcant. For lions i got 32.63% (n=24) and for tigers 30.88% (n=29) at Humerus Circumference. In a sample one tiger had a shaft of 158mm at 315mm humerus length, which is impossible (i looked at all datas and the graphs). I think it had been a respectful discussion. At the points were disagreements happens one have to stay calm and not in a fight. Also your conclusion as i said before is partly wrong (the combination of email and the one datas from your side). Quote:Looking at various robusticty indexes (AP, ML, AP and ML CC) and other points that measure the stress for example.Non of them are strength indices. I say that because researchers simply didn´t use them under the same category. Cortical bone is important but the sample sizes we have is ridiculous (2 lions and 2 tigers). If you want to go strictly as per the MOST important indices according to the researchers, they are as follows - 1. Humeral Robusticity Index (Mediolateral diameter of humerus divided by greatest length of humerus) 2. Humeral Epicondylar Index (Mediolateral breadth of humeral epicondyl divided by greatest length of humerus) 3. Radial Robusticity Index (Mediolateral diameter of radius divided by greatest length of radius) 4. Brachial Index (Length of radius divided by length of humerus) 5. Olecranon Index (Length of olecranon process of ulna divided by [Greatest length of ulna minus length of olecranon process]) 6. Proximal Paw Width (Sum of mediolateral breadths of metacarpal 2-5 divided by mediolateral breadth of metacarpal 3) (03-05-2022, 02:51 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: 1) They dont need to be officially published if they were confirmed by the scientist in a personal communication already and the reserve. Though if a scientist will be aware of those datas of course he will include it if they get the same respond in a personal communication. (As i know yamaguchi was already informed about this male and he was interested). The other reason is because they wont publish a study just because they weighed a lion. They were weighed during a collaring of the younger male and thats it. Unless they are part of a study i dont think they will publsihed. 1) If they don't need to officially publish them, then why your people, from other forums, critizice the weigths from modern tigers that were shared in the same form and that are not published too? There is a double standard out there amoung "fans", if the weight came from lions is automatically acepted no matter what, but if the weight came from tigers is discussed, attacked and discarded. They can publish an article in they webpage, in fact they done it and that how we knew about it in the first place, but latter they DELETED that article from they webpage and we have only emails, the question is why? I used the weight of 250 kg from that particular lion from Timbabati since many years because is the only that is partially "verified" by a third party person, but certainly is not in the top section of valid or reliable figures. I will like to see what Yamaguchi thinks about that weight, specially by the fact that he critizice the weights that include stomach content. 2) The lion of 260 kg is impresive and had a body size that is a record in scientific sources, remember that the head-body length was taken until the base of the tail in straight line, which suggest that the head-body measured untill the tip of the hip (like old hunters took the size) was no less than 200 cm. Now Volkel was not measured in the same form, it was taken along the curves and heavily exagerated as it was taken from the tip of the frontal teeth not to the tip of the nose, and this artificially increase even more all the head-body lengths taken from the Hobatere lions (check the ALPRU protocol used the measure them). So the lion of 260 kg from Dr Hu Berry is overal bigger (or equal in the best case) than Vokel from Hobatere and the difference is in the method that they used to measure them. You need to pay attention to the details. You should be careful with the information on the lion Puyol, you are taking all the values litteraly. The scale real weight is 200 kg, she said that it make another turn so they ESTIMATED that was 250 kg and excluding the bed of c.13 kg they estimated, again, that the weight was of c.237 kg and they published the figure of 235 kg. So if you actually read the email, the scale was of 200 kg and all over that is an estimation. I made a little investigation years ago with butchers that work with spring scales and they told me that the amount that they can estimate over the scale is between 5 - 10 kg above the limit. This was corroborated by some hunters and Dr Chundawat. So that the scale was bottomed by 50 kg seems a little far fetched, specially by the fact that Ingela and the original article where the figure of 235 kg was quoted clearly says that the scale was imperfect and had some errors. Also remember that the resulting weight also include stomach content, so the real empty belly weight could be between 205 - 215 kg, after all they estimated that 25% of the weight was probably from stomach content (those are they words, not mine). 3) Taking a second look to those weights, just the weights of lion C and V are reliable, the other is just a mental quote and definitelly needs verification from the source. Around 230 kg could be "more than" or "less than". So I will certainly use male C and V, but the third male looks like an estimation. You should confirm with him if he is 100% sure that that weight is correct. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |