(02-26-2015, 09:53 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:

(02-25-2015, 11:27 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: You can never say what a wild animal can weigh at their maximum. There are 1000s that will never be measured or even seen. In captivity you can monitor the animal for its entire life, you know how old it is, you can compare it to others, weigh it with relative ease, etc. In the wild you can't just capture the biggest orca in the sea and weigh it, its impossible. A captive animal will never be as larger as a wild counterpart. As heavy, maybe, but obese for sure. A wild animal will always be more physically fit, stronger, faster and most likely larger. That goes for big cats as well, look how close the averages are between captive and wild animals. Yet the captive are fat, at least most of them compared to the wild animals. Its always going to be like that, and the same rule applies. You cant just capture and weigh the largest big cat in the wild at the prime of his life, it just doesn't happen but you can with a captive animal.



 

Pckts, I appreciate your comment, but you are mixing things here.

You are using the "old" excuse of the Cryptozoologist about the sea. Yes, the sea is huge, but from many, "many" killed animals in centuries, the largest orca recorded "reliably" was of less than 10 meters and between 8-9 tons (one scientific sources quote a weight of 10.5 tons, but no reference is presented). Most of the largest ecoptypes of orcas average about 7 meters, with the largest specimens reaching 8 to 9 m (Pitman et al. 2007). There are smaller ecotypes, but like I mentioned in my first posts, we are discussing on the largest orcas, so only the largest specimens should be investigated.

Also, the logic about the "wild vs captive" is incorrect. Captive animals are normally heavier than wild counterparts. For example, the largest wild tigers and lions are not as heavy than they largest captive brothers. The same goes with elephants, giraffes, gorillas, etc. etc. etc, check Wood (1977) about the differences. This apply to land animals, and as far I know, there is no scientific document suggesting that the contrary is the "rule" in the marine mammals. I don't discard the possibility on sea, but qualified it as a "rule" is simply incorrect at this point. 

In the wild, a large agile orca will have more possibilities to survive than a fat one like Tilikum. An interesting fact about the orcas hunting large prey, when the pod attack a large whale, the smaller females, not the males, are the one that makes most of the kill and only, in the final stage, when they are finishing the prey, the males enter and with they weight, drown the large cetaceans.

Clauset (2012) created a document where he observed body masses for all extant cetacean species and are predicted, with no tunable parameters, by a macroevolutionary tradeoff between short-term selective advantages and long-term extinction risks from increased species body size. In table one, he presented some weights for orcas, check it out:

Species mass  (kg)     primary source (reference)
Orcinus orca    4300   Smith et al. (2003) .
Orcinus orca    8750   Jefferson, Leatherwood, Webber (1993) .
Orcinus orca    4685   Culik (2004) .
Orcinus orca    7050   Perrin, Zubtsova, Kuzmin (2004) - reported mass mean of 2 specimens

I guess these are real weights from wild specimens, and if this is correct, we could guess that wild orcas, in fact, DO weight more than the captive specimens. This seems to be supported by my comparison between "Old Tom" and Tilikum, which at the same length, the heavier was the wild one (sadly, some poster ignored this comparison for unknown reasons). However, I most ask again if these weights are from wild specimens or if they are real weights and not estimations. I think is fair to ask about it.
 

 

 

(02-27-2015, 12:29 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Baikal was probably close to 900 pounds during his prime, and his body size is also prehistoric.

He is also larger than those obese Amur/Bengal hybrids.

So not all captive specimens are out of shape, same for the captive orca.

 

(02-26-2015, 11:14 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: "Also, the logic about the "wild vs captive" is incorrect. Captive animals are normally heavier than wild counterparts. For example, the largest wild tigers and lions are not as heavy than they largest captive brothers."
Like I said, heavier doesn't mean larger. It means more obese, that is why captive Siberians for example are no larger in dimensions than wild ones.

The largest "Captive" orcas are wild orcas. They are the only ones being weighed and they are the only examples you can use. Wild orcas would and are definitely larger in length and I am sure body weight, if the largest Orcas on record are Wild than its only going to make sense the there are wild ones that live off a far better diet, have open ocean to grow that will be larger. There are many "captive" orcas who are smaller than their wild counterparts as well, we are simply cherry picking the largest one ever measured but we cannot do that with wild counter parts.
Just like big cats, their are plenty of wild counter parts of captive cats that far outweigh their captive cousins. The alleged 900lb siberian captive cats don't give body dimensions but we know from pictures that they are definitely obese, a wild 700lb cat is going to be the far more impressive specimen, it may be "gorged'' but it will be packed full of muscle and larger in body dimensions most likely.

Edit: I see that you discussed this with Tigerluver in regards to not discriminating between fat or not. I get where you are coming from, its just a matter of what we mean by "largest or fittest" etc.
 
 

(02-25-2015, 09:35 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: @Wanderfalke, can you read my entire post again?

And by the way, you are been rude without a reason, as I have never say that Tilikum is healthy or live in good conditions. I only say that he is fat because he eats more. I say that he receive the best food, but I am referring to the quantity, no quality.

Read the entire post before to make such a terrible comment about me. Besides, you missed the post where I showed a document where it is stated the bad conditions where these captive orcas live.

I am getting tired of people attacking me and twisting my comments. [img]images/smilies/angry.gif[/img]

 

(02-27-2015, 12:29 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: On Tilikum, I might be missing what makes him obese. I compared him to some wild pictures:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

He's certainly thicker than the whale in the top picture, but similar to whale in the second picture. How exactly does one gauge between fat and a robust body between orcas? In land animals fat is easy to see, but orcas are so round yet compact. Could his thickness be a characteristic of his ecotype? There are a lot of ecotypes, and each's physique can be significantly different.