+- 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 - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
Yes, most tigers in their summer coat can indeed demonstrate their muscular appearance.
While in their winter coat, they look fluffy, kinda like a teddy bear.
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
Here is a male Bengal Tiger from Dhaka Zoo
*This image is copyright of its original author
Here is another from Nandan Kanan Zoo in india (sex unknown)
*This image is copyright of its original author
They just don't get the muscle mass as their wild counter parts usually.
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 01:42 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Yes, most tigers in their summer coat can indeed demonstrate their muscular appearance.
While in their winter coat, they look fluffy, kinda like a teddy bear.
A good example of that is the photos above, at Noahs ark, I don't think they go through coat changes usually since it doesn't get that cold. But Ranth for instance, tigers generally have a very similar coat all year round. You see it more with siberians which also contributes to their exaggerated size compared to bengals from times past.
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
They all look very fit, but they don't look like the Mr. Olympia of the big cats for some very obvious reasons, since living in the captivity doesn't need the same physical fitness level as their wild counterparts.
However, many captive big cats can still look very fit and athletic.
To compare the most fit captive big cats with the most fit wild big cats is like to compare the amateur bodybuilders with the professional bodybuilders.
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
Continuing our discussion on Baikal. I have not seen any info on his measurements other than the email from king.
This is him, Correct?
*This image is copyright of its original author
If so, he is obviously over weight but a massive tiger none the less.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The email is not very clear about his actual size, I would be curious about his shoulder height and body length, skull size, tail length etc.
That would be the best way to compare
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
That's not Baikal, but another normal large tiger.
He is quite large, around 600 pounds, but not prehistoric sized like Baikal.
Baikal looks larger than that tiger, but not as overweighed as him.
And his skull should measure about 17-18 inches if we use the body proportion of a normal tiger, since he looks proportionally same as the normal tiger.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
Jaipur is 332cm long and 423kg but obviously he is extremely obese.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Dale is 306 cm total with a weight of 193kg, since we don't know Jaipurs shoulder height we can't compare all factors. But Jaipur is 10'' longer than Dale, we don't know how much in the tail or body, we also don't know his shoulder height comapred to dales.
But the most impressive body dimensions on this limited list is actually Maurice at 309cm and a shoulder height of 104cm, but he is relatively skinny at 179kg and estimated to be 7 years old. He should by all means be pushing the 220kg plus category for siberians.
But for Jaipur to be double the body weight of Dale while only being 10''s longer is far too much. He probably has 150kg plus of fat on him.
Has there been any Wild siberians to measure the length of 332cm?
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
Yeah, but you have to use the correct pic to represent Baikal.
Since your first pic is obviously not the real Baikal.
And Baikal looks like a prehistoric big cat, and his body frame is bigger than that of Jaipur and Hercules.
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
Is this the Baikal?
Calgary zoo?
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
The 'Baikal' from the Calgary zoo weighs about 400 pounds, obviously less than half of the giant Baikal.
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
Male and Female Amurs from Calgary zoo, not sure if the same its Baikal or not
RE: Freak Specimens - Pckts - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 02:08 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: The 'Baikal' from the Calgary zoo weighs about 400 pounds, obviously less than half of the giant Baikal.
When Comparing Jaipur and his massive weight with body length, lets say Baikal is 243cm with a 100cm tail (just estimating)
He would be slightly longer than Jaipur and 50-60 kg less. I would still say that he is probably 80kg overweight or more when comparing him to wild counter parts.
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
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
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 02:10 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Male and Female Amurs from Calgary zoo, not sure if the same its Baikal or not
The giant Baikal has never lived in the Calgary zoo, so none of these tigers are the giant Baikal.
RE: Freak Specimens - GrizzlyClaws - 02-27-2015
(02-27-2015, 02:15 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:(02-27-2015, 02:08 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: The 'Baikal' from the Calgary zoo weighs about 400 pounds, obviously less than half of the giant Baikal.
When Comparing Jaipur and his massive weight with body length, lets say Baikal is 243cm with a 100cm tail (just estimating)
He would be slightly longer than Jaipur and 50-60 kg less. I would still say that he is probably 80kg overweight or more when comparing him to wild counter parts.
With the size of Baikal, a wild Amur will weigh about 350+ kg, and a wild Bengal will weigh about 400-450 kg.
Considering the current wild Amur population has suffered the genetic bottleneck as the result, also the pressure from the lost of habitat, they are becoming more lightly built in proportion for some very obvious reasons.
So this giant Baikal is being well fed, and his weight proportion is in between that of the wild Amur and the wild Bengal, so he is definitely not overweighed.
I agree that he is not as muscular as the wild Bengals, but he is not overweighed either.