+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Wildlife Pictures and Videos Gallery (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-wildlife-pictures-and-videos-gallery)
+--- Thread: Freak Specimens (/topic-freak-specimens)
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 02:18 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Baikal in the first three pics was in his younger days, while he was 12 years old the fourth pic and weighed about 850 pounds, and in the fifth pics, he was quite old with the age of 16 and has lost a lot of weight.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
He would have to be by far the longest, tallest tiger to ever live to have the weight of 850lbs with that body type? He looks a bit skinny in the limb section (normal for a aging captive tiger) and also in the rear section. Normal again for a aging captive or wild cat. I wish we could find his confirmed body height, length, tail etc.
It would clear up a lot of questions I have.
DO you know where that Captive Amur Tiger table is? I will look, but I forgot where it is. It has more reasonable sizes of captive amurs with real measurements as well.
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
Here is what I found
*This image is copyright of its original author
The ** are estimated body mass at its prime.
So tiger No. 143
was 320cm total length, 110cm shoulder height. So he is large tiger, he is estimated at 280kg at his prime. But that is just a estimation, he would still be 300lbs less than Baikal though. Baikal would have to be a good amount longer than Jaipur and taller than him for him to reach such a weight without being obese. IMO
Interesting enough the confirmed weight of 221kg belonging to tiger No. CN5697 has very close body length to the above tiger mentioned with a much higher shoulder, so he was either skinny or not as built as the other. But that is a 60kg estimated difference between two fairly similary tigers, if we are talking about an additional 125kg, Baikal would need to be much, much larger in all areas. He would have to literally be a freak of nature.
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 02:25 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:(02-27-2015, 02:18 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Baikal in the first three pics was in his younger days, while he was 12 years old the fourth pic and weighed about 850 pounds, and in the fifth pics, he was quite old with the age of 16 and has lost a lot of weight.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
He would have to be by far the longest, tallest tiger to ever live to have the weight of 850lbs with that body type? He looks a bit skinny in the limb section (normal for a aging captive tiger) and also in the rear section. Normal again for a aging captive or wild cat. I wish we could find his confirmed body height, length, tail etc.
It would clear up a lot of questions I have.
DO you know where that Captive Amur Tiger table is? I will look, but I forgot where it is. It has more reasonable sizes of captive amurs with real measurements as well.
They weighed him at the age of 12, he was 850 pounds, but had already lost some weight.
I believe he should be close to 900 pounds during his prime, and a wild Bengal of his size will probably top 1000 pounds.
BTW, i don't have the table chart of the captive Amur tigers, but i think Guate or tigerluver might have it.
Anyway, the giant Baikal is neither overweighed nor extremely muscular, he is just a normal tiger with a prehistoric size.
With his body type, i bet he will be heavier if he lives in the wild, and he may have packed with some extra 50-100 pounds of muscle.
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 02:33 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Here is what I found
*This image is copyright of its original author
The ** are estimated body mass at its prime.
So tiger No. 143
was 320cm total length, 110cm shoulder height. So he is large tiger, he is estimated at 280kg at his prime. But that is just a estimation, he would still be 300lbs less than Baikal though. Baikal would have to be a good amount longer than Jaipur and taller than him for him to reach such a weight without being obese. IMO
That Duisburg tiger was a monster as well, since his head was about 20 inches long, thus his skull also probably measured between 17-18 inches. He also holds the record canine teeth of all big cats.
But the giant Baikal is about 200+ pounds above him because its body is 30cm longer and 10cm taller, that's quite of a difference here.
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 02:40 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:(02-27-2015, 02:33 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Here is what I found
*This image is copyright of its original author
The ** are estimated body mass at its prime.
So tiger No. 143
was 320cm total length, 110cm shoulder height. So he is large tiger, he is estimated at 280kg at his prime. But that is just a estimation, he would still be 300lbs less than Baikal though. Baikal would have to be a good amount longer than Jaipur and taller than him for him to reach such a weight without being obese. IMO
That Duisburg tiger was a monster as well, since his head was 20 inches long, thus his skull also probably measures between 17-18 inches. He also holds the record canine teeth of all big cats.
But the giant Baikal is about 200+ pounds above him because its body is 30cm longer and 10cm taller, that's quite of a difference here.
But do we have any thing that confirms his measurements aside from that lone email that doesn't state his shoulder height and most likely estimates his length since it doesn't break down tail and body length and its a round number?
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
BTW, i think @Kingtheropod had pretty confirmed that his weight was weighed, not estimated.
And we may just ask him to re-confirm everything again.
BTW, that Duisburg specimen wasn't pushover either, he and Baikal could perhaps produce the record of the modern big cat skull, also he holds the record of the largest big cat canine teeth.
The Duisburg specimen is about 30cm shorter than Baikal, and his shoulder height is also 10cm less, that's why he is more than 200 pounds lighter than Baikal.
That tiger also looked more muscular than the giant Baikal, but his body size was not prehistoric, only his skull and canine teeth were.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
Does @Kingtheropod still post here? I would be very curious about his dimensions.
What about the Tiger above? Are his deminsions viewable?
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
@Kingtheropod is not back yet, but i am pretty sure he will come back in the near future.
BTW, that tiger above has a 20 inches head, that's why his skull dimension might be 'prehistoric' as well.
Also, his canine was 90 mm from the gumline, although we are not sure if it was measured in the straight line or around the curve, and even it was around the curve, his canine still holds the record.
That tiger was also an alpha male, but his body size was not prehistoric like that of the giant Baikal.
It is like to compare a 6 feet tall Arnie at 240-250 pounds prime with a 7 feet tall Shaq at 340-350 pounds prime.
No one is going to argue that the prime Arnie was more muscular than the prime Shaq, but Shaq being a foot taller than him could still outweigh him by 100 pounds, there is no doubt about that.
RE: Freak Specimens - Apollo - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 02:18 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Baikal in the first three pics was in his younger days, while he was 12 years old the fourth pic and weighed about 850 pounds, and in the fifth pics, he was quite old with the age of 16 and has lost a lot of weight.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
No no no
There are two different tigers in the above pictures.
Ive explained about this in the extinction thread.
This is the 850lbs Baikal
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The below set of pictures are the Baikal that was killed by Vasili and Samkha.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I hope it clears up the confusions.
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
Well, the other three other pics were also claimed to belong to the 850 pounds Baikal.
BTW, @Kingtheropod has also claimed that the 850 pounds figure was weighed during the age of 12, so it was definitely not his prime weight.
RE: Freak Specimens - Apollo - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 10:43 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Well, the other three other pics were also claimed to belong to the 850 pounds Baikal.
BTW, @Kingtheropod has also claimed that the 850 pounds figure was weighed during the age of 12, so it was definitely not his prime weight.
Both are two different tigers.
If you look at the stripe patterns, they are completely different.
The possibilities are
1) Both the tigers may had the same name.
2) Or one tiger could be Baikal and the other one may be mislabelled as Baikal
Regarding the size and weight, Im pretty certain that the first tiger is definitely prehistoric in dimensions because in the pictures we have humans next to it for scaling, but Im not sure about the second tiger because there is no points for scaling.
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 01:08 PM)'Apollo' Wrote:(02-27-2015, 10:43 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Well, the other three other pics were also claimed to belong to the 850 pounds Baikal.
BTW, @Kingtheropod has also claimed that the 850 pounds figure was weighed during the age of 12, so it was definitely not his prime weight.
Both are two different tigers.
If you look at the stripe patterns, they are completely different.
The possibilities are
1) Both the tigers may had the same name.
2) Or one tiger could be Baikal and the other one may be mislabelled as Baikal
Regarding the size and weight, Im pretty certain that the first tiger is definitely prehistoric in dimensions because in the pictures we have humans next to it for scaling, but Im not sure about the second tiger because there is no points for scaling.
But these pics were taken by @Kingtheropod himself, and he claimed that tiger was enormous Baikal.
I don't think he can be mistaken as that tiger was indeed recognized as the huge one when he was taking the photo for him.
RE: Freak Specimens - Apollo - 02-28-2015
Rhino attacking a peacock.......
Freaky stuff
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 03-01-2015
Does anybody know of any other pictures of Baikal that exist?
RE: Freak Specimens - Apollo - 03-01-2015
Big lions feeding