WildFact
Estimating Male size based off the Female - Printable Version

+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Terrestrial Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-terrestrial-wild-animals)
+--- Thread: Estimating Male size based off the Female (/topic-estimating-male-size-based-off-the-female)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Pckts - 05-19-2016

Awesome Suff @peter and @tigerluver

Lets all just sit back and imagine what a clash between these two would of been like!?

*This image is copyright of its original author


RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Pckts - 05-19-2016

Kingfisher and Umarpani

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author

A little blurry but kingfisher was taller, larger chest girth and longer.
I'd use the 200kg-220kg mark for Umarpani, he's no slouch of a tiger himself.



The mighty Bheem and Jobhi

*This image is copyright of its original author

Jobhi was said to be larger than Bamera (RIP) so may be use the 200kg-220kg mark again

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - tigerluver - 05-20-2016


*This image is copyright of its original author

From the the frame, he's 1.15x thicker at the chest. I'd adjust it to 1.2x for distance. With adjustments and looking at body length without head, he is not much longer than her, maybe 1.07x. Length estimate is 160 kg and chest diameter estimate is 224 kg, averaging 192 kg. However, I think the female is longer than average (thus over 130 kg), I doubt BMW would be anywhere near 160 kg as the length estimate predicts.


*This image is copyright of its original author

They are too far apart, but the male in the back for the worth of the frame is barely smaller. Meaning, he is likely significantly larger than the male closer to the camera.


*This image is copyright of its original author

Male in the bear is 1.022x longer for what is on the frame. We could adjust it to 1.04x perhaps for distance. Looks to be 1.04x thicker (in the other photo) and we can adjust that to 1.06x. Length estimate for the back male is then 225 kg and chest estimate is 238 kg, averaging 232 kg. This is assuming the foreground male is 200 kg.

Bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

I only messed with chest diameter. From the frame, he is actually smaller than her but that is obviously due to how far away he is. This is a very hard to picture to measure from. All I can say is that from the distance he away from the camera, he is still matching the chest diameter of the female in front, as is probably 1.2-1.3x their thickness, so 400-500 kg based on a 227 kg female.

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - brotherbear - 05-20-2016

Thank you for taking the time tigerluver. I know that the picture is not right for this. 400 kg ( 882 pounds ) to 500 kg ( 1100 pounds ) is a big bear.   Like

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Pckts - 05-24-2016

I have a new one for you @tigerluver and this has a bit of controversy attached.
This image is of T12 and T17 (sister of t18)
T12 was claimed to be 170kg and T18 was claimed to be 170kg so unless she was 40+kg less than her sister, the sariska tiger weights are very questionable.

*This image is copyright of its original author


Lets just use the 130kg mark for her which is probably low for a daughter of Machli but I still think even using that mark you will probably get a 190-210kg mark for T12

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - tigerluver - 05-25-2016

With no perspective and distance corrections, the back tiger is 1.24x thicker at the chest and 1.085x. So even with the appearing smaller than he actually is due his distance from the camera, the chest estimate is 248 kg and the length estimate is 166 kg, averaging 207 kg (all calculations assuming a 130 kg female). Remember, 207 kg is without any buffing for his further distance.

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Pckts - 05-25-2016

Great Job tigerluver, I guess it's safe to assume the 170kg mark quoted for him is misinformation like so many stated.
But I am curious as to who weighed him over the other 4, since only one was weighed by Sebastian and the other 4 were weighed by Sinha, if he was the only one weighed by Sebastian that may explain it but if he was weighed by Sinha who weighed 4/5 and obviously knows how to use a scale, that may be a bit more of a mystery.

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Pckts - 06-01-2016

@tigerluver
Here is the male and female from the Video Apollo Posted

*This image is copyright of its original author


RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Sully - 06-02-2016


*This image is copyright of its original author


And why not throw Wagdoh in

*This image is copyright of its original author


RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - brotherbear - 06-02-2016

If that is a mating pair, the male Amur tiger looks gigantic!

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Sully - 06-02-2016

I think it is, that big guy is from Harbin.

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Apollo - 06-04-2016

Jai with his female mating, the tigress is around 3 years elder than Jai.
Ive never ever seen a male bengal dwarfing a female like this.
Is it possible to use this video to gauge his weight.







RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - GuateGojira - 06-26-2016

Hello guys. @peter and @tigerluver, I will like to post something about the length of Amur tigers by the S.T.P.

Edit: At suggestion of @tigerluver, I changed the post to this other topic.

http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-about-methods-measurements-errors-baits-and-the-art-of-debating?page=4

Greetings to all.

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Pckts - 10-29-2017

Do you have a link for the t-12 weight?

RE: Estimating Male size based off the Female - Balam - 05-21-2020

Can we get an estimate for Hero?

Here he is besides Hunter female who @Pckts saw is person and claimed to be a large female.


*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


The largest Pantanal female we have data on weighed 110 kg as shared by @Dark Jaguar, large females are usually between 80 to 95 kg. Maybe we could put Hunter at 90 kg? What do you guys think?