Login

LonePredator · 05-25-2022, 08:19 PM

(05-25-2022, 08:10 PM)AndresVida Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: But that does not seem to be the case here which means either the Tiger is smaller than average or the Bear is bigger than usual or both.
There's nothing to scale that can give us an idea to estimate their size so we will never know about these two specimens, here the tiger is longer in TBL but the bear is taller and looks considerably heavier, that's all it matters

Not true! Now look at this, the Bear is 9.3 units in HB length while the Tiger is only 9 units AND the Bear’s neck is not even straightened out which means the real HB length of the Bear would be even longer so this Bear is clearly longer than this Amur Tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

In reality, the average Amur Tigers are supposed to be longer than average Ussuri Brown Bears but this Bear is longer than this Tiger which means either this Tiger is a small one or the Bear is a big one or both.

~~AndresVida~~ · 05-25-2022, 08:33 PM

(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Not true! Now look at this, the Bear is 9.3 units in HB length while the Tiger is only 9 units AND the Bear’s neck is not even straightened out which means the real HB length of the Bear would be even longer so this Bear is clearly longer than this Amur Tiger.

But you're not considering the fact I said TBL (not HBL) which also counts the tail of the tiger that even here it is neither fully included in the image neither fully stretched.

(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote: In reality, the average Amur Tigers are supposed to be longer than average Ussuri Brown Bears but this Bear is longer than this Tiger which means either this Tiger is a small one or the Bear is a big one or both

That's only because tigers have much, much longer tails than bears that have in comparison a tail the length of a bobcat, which generally is not even used for measurements. The tiger is probably longer on average just for the tail, because when comparing HEAD-body length and not TOTAL body length they are either equal or the bear is a few cm longer I bet.

LonePredator · 05-25-2022, 08:46 PM

(05-25-2022, 08:33 PM)AndresVida Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Not true! Now look at this, the Bear is 9.3 units in HB length while the Tiger is only 9 units AND the Bear’s neck is not even straightened out which means the real HB length of the Bear would be even longer so this Bear is clearly longer than this Amur Tiger.
But you're not considering the fact I said TBL (not HBL) which also counts the tail of the tiger that even here it is neither fully included in the image neither fully stretched.

(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote: In reality, the average Amur Tigers are supposed to be longer than average Ussuri Brown Bears but this Bear is longer than this Tiger which means either this Tiger is a small one or the Bear is a big one or both
That's only because tigers have much, much longer tails than bears that have in comparison a tail the length of a bobcat, which generally is not even used for measurements. The tiger is probably longer on average just for the tail, because when comparing HEAD-body length and not TOTAL body length they are either equal or the bear is a few cm longer I bet.

This is also not true, the average Amur Tiger is 195cm over curves in HB length while the Bear is 196cm over curves but the Bear’s back is much more curved especially at the shoulder so the Tiger would be much longer in head body length as well (about 10cm+ longer)

GuateGojira · 05-25-2022, 08:49 PM

(05-25-2022, 07:53 PM)LonePredator Wrote: That reminds me @GuateGojira, I remember you once mentioned that Vratislav Mazak gave a case of a Tiger killing a 320kg Ussuri Brown Bear. Is there a document where he stated this? Do you have that document and can you share it?

Actually the credit for the original presentation of that case is for @peter, he made a deep investigation on it, and now that I have the book of Vratislav Mazák I can confirm it.

The case was that a huge tiger of no less than 300 kg and 350 cm "over curves" was hunted (picture presented) and this large male was found near the carcase of a big male brown bear.

The document itself is the book "Der Tiger" from Vratislav Mazák. The edition is of 1983, I have the reprint of that same edition from 2013.

~~AndresVida~~ · 05-25-2022, 09:47 PM

(05-25-2022, 08:49 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: The case was that a huge tiger of no less than 300 kg and 350 cm "over curves" was hunted (picture presented) and this large male was found near the carcase of a big male brown bear.

Is that this one

*This image is copyright of its original author

GuateGojira · 05-26-2022, 10:47 PM

(05-25-2022, 09:47 PM)AndresVida Wrote: Is that this one

*This image is copyright of its original author

Yes, that is the one. It measured 350 cm "over the curves" and was estimated to weight no less than 300 kg.

Twico5 · 06-02-2022, 09:06 PM

Malaysian clouded and black leopards.

*This image is copyright of its original author

LonePredator · 06-17-2022, 11:31 PM

@GuateGojira I would like to know your opinion about the Kaziranga Tigers. Do you think the Kaziranga Tigers could surpass Terai Tigers in terms of size??

And if you do believe they can, then how big do you think Kaziranga Tigers can get? Is it possible that a 300kg+ Tiger could be found in Kaziranga?

GuateGojira · 06-18-2022, 12:26 AM

(06-17-2022, 11:31 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira I would like to know your opinion about the Kaziranga Tigers. Do you think the Kaziranga Tigers could surpass Terai Tigers in terms of size??

And if you do believe they can, then how big do you think Kaziranga Tigers can get? Is it possible that a 300kg+ Tiger could be found in Kaziranga?

From what I have saw, there is little difference between the tiger populations in the Indian subcontinent (India, Nepal, Bhutan), with exception of the Sundarbans, which is a completelly different animal based in morphology and DNA.

Among this tiger population, northern tigers seems to be slightly larger, based in the few records, but the difference is not very big. Tigers in the Assam region reported by the Maharaha of Cooch Behar are not significantly larger than those from Nepal, for example, and I suspect that Kaziranga tigers are about the same size. However, this is because there are big tigers all over the area, is not like if they are rare, for the contrary, big tigers are the norm in the Indian subcontinent and weights over 220 kg are relatively common. This is not like in lions, where all the populations are regular sized and there are some peaks (like the Ngorongoro amount all the other lions in the East of Africa), I did not noted important peak in the Indian subcontinen, many if not all the populations had reached the 250 kg at least once.

Now, Kaziranga is famous also for they density, been among the biggest in the world, thanks to its large prey density. This may cause also a big size, but been honest the fame of its large size is related with pictures from cammera traps, as no measurement or weight of tigers in that particular area has been published.

I think that Kaziranga tigers are just regular Bengals with a relative higher prey base, but definitelly they probably weigh the same as tiger in other areas of the subcontinent, with males been between 175 - 272 kg and females between 100 - 177 kg. Now, are tigers up to 300 kg possible in the area? I think yes, like in any other part in the north of the subcontient, but like the records shows, they will be very very rare. A tiger of 250 - 260 kg "emtpy" is already a big one and over that weight it will be esceptional. Take in count that the heaviest tiger recorded (320 kg) could be as low as 290 kg "empty". After it, no other tiger from a sample of almost 200 males reached that body mass.

So, in a nutshell, I think that Kaziranga tigers are not particularly big (as there are several big tigers in the Indian subcontinent) and I think that is possible that an exceptionally large male could reach the 300 kg, but it will be extremelly rare.

LonePredator · 06-18-2022, 08:49 AM

(06-18-2022, 12:26 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(06-17-2022, 11:31 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira I would like to know your opinion about the Kaziranga Tigers. Do you think the Kaziranga Tigers could surpass Terai Tigers in terms of size??

And if you do believe they can, then how big do you think Kaziranga Tigers can get? Is it possible that a 300kg+ Tiger could be found in Kaziranga?

From what I have saw, there is little difference between the tiger populations in the Indian subcontinent (India, Nepal, Bhutan), with exception of the Sundarbans, which is a completelly different animal based in morphology and DNA.

Among this tiger population, northern tigers seems to be slightly larger, based in the few records, but the difference is not very big. Tigers in the Assam region reported by the Maharaha of Cooch Behar are not significantly larger than those from Nepal, for example, and I suspect that Kaziranga tigers are about the same size. However, this is because there are big tigers all over the area, is not like if they are rare, for the contrary, big tigers are the norm in the Indian subcontinent and weights over 220 kg are relatively common. This is not like in lions, where all the populations are regular sized and there are some peaks (like the Ngorongoro amount all the other lions in the East of Africa), I did not noted important peak in the Indian subcontinen, many if not all the populations had reached the 250 kg at least once.

Now, Kaziranga is famous also for they density, been among the biggest in the world, thanks to its large prey density. This may cause also a big size, but been honest the fame of its large size is related with pictures from cammera traps, as no measurement or weight of tigers in that particular area has been published.

I think that Kaziranga tigers are just regular Bengals with a relative higher prey base, but definitelly they probably weigh the same as tiger in other areas of the subcontinent, with males been between 175 - 272 kg and females between 100 - 177 kg. Now, are tigers up to 300 kg possible in the area? I think yes, like in any other part in the north of the subcontient, but like the records shows, they will be very very rare. A tiger of 250 - 260 kg "emtpy" is already a big one and over that weight it will be esceptional. Take in count that the heaviest tiger recorded (320 kg) could be as low as 290 kg "empty". After it, no other tiger from a sample of almost 200 males reached that body mass.

So, in a nutshell, I think that Kaziranga tigers are not particularly big (as there are several big tigers in the Indian subcontinent) and I think that is possible that an exceptionally large male could reach the 300 kg, but it will be extremelly rare.

Yes, length and height should be the first thing to take in count when considering the size of the Tigers.

Length and height are probably one of the most, if not the most important factors in determining the size of a particular Tiger specimen and it’s impossible to know the length and height from camera trap pictures of Tigers where there is nothing to use as a reference point.

This reminds me of people who simply claim a particular Tiger is ‘huge’ just by looking at the Tiger’s frame in a camera trap picture.

Some people claim with too much confidence that Amur Tigers from China are as big as Bengals just by looking at the frame of those Tigers in camera trap images which I believe is a terrible way to estimate the size of those Tigers.

Many of the male Tigers in Russia also look just as bulky as Chinese male Amurs and even many male Amurs whose weights were taken during the Siberian Tiger Project also looked quite bulky but their weights were far from Bengals and the same could be the case with Chinese Amurs until we have anything to prove otherwise.

Pckts · 06-23-2022, 10:47 PM

(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:10 PM)AndresVida Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: But that does not seem to be the case here which means either the Tiger is smaller than average or the Bear is bigger than usual or both.
There's nothing to scale that can give us an idea to estimate their size so we will never know about these two specimens, here the tiger is longer in TBL but the bear is taller and looks considerably heavier, that's all it matters

Not true! Now look at this, the Bear is 9.3 units in HB length while the Tiger is only 9 units AND the Bear’s neck is not even straightened out which means the real HB length of the Bear would be even longer so this Bear is clearly longer than this Amur Tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

In reality, the average Amur Tigers are supposed to be longer than average Ussuri Brown Bears but this Bear is longer than this Tiger which means either this Tiger is a small one or the Bear is a big one or both.

The Bear would only be 9 units and that's including his puffy fur while the Tiger would also be 9 with less fur. You must take into account the Tigers head is tilted away from the picture, when it's straightened like the Bears the length would increase. You can also see more articulation in the Tigers neck, but both are very close in length but still I'd give the advantage to the Tiger in HBL when measured between the pegs.

LonePredator · 06-23-2022, 11:01 PM

(06-23-2022, 10:47 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:10 PM)AndresVida Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: But that does not seem to be the case here which means either the Tiger is smaller than average or the Bear is bigger than usual or both.
There's nothing to scale that can give us an idea to estimate their size so we will never know about these two specimens, here the tiger is longer in TBL but the bear is taller and looks considerably heavier, that's all it matters

Not true! Now look at this, the Bear is 9.3 units in HB length while the Tiger is only 9 units AND the Bear’s neck is not even straightened out which means the real HB length of the Bear would be even longer so this Bear is clearly longer than this Amur Tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

In reality, the average Amur Tigers are supposed to be longer than average Ussuri Brown Bears but this Bear is longer than this Tiger which means either this Tiger is a small one or the Bear is a big one or both.

The Bear would only be 9 units and that's including his puffy fur while the Tiger would also be 9 with less fur. You must take into account the Tigers head is tilted away from the picture, when it's straightened like the Bears the length would increase. You can also see more articulation in the Tigers neck, but both are very close in length but still I'd give the advantage to the Tiger in HBL when measured between the pegs.

The Bear’s head is also lowered down. And if the Bear straightens it’s head, it’s length will increase by upto 0.8 units. The Tiger’s length would only increase about 0.5 units if the Tiger straightens his head.

And the Tiger is only 8 units. The puffy fur does not really matter because we know that the literature figures for the length of the Bear were also taken with ‘the puffy fur’. So that fur is irrelevant.

Pckts · 06-23-2022, 11:15 PM

(06-23-2022, 11:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(06-23-2022, 10:47 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:10 PM)AndresVida Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: But that does not seem to be the case here which means either the Tiger is smaller than average or the Bear is bigger than usual or both.
There's nothing to scale that can give us an idea to estimate their size so we will never know about these two specimens, here the tiger is longer in TBL but the bear is taller and looks considerably heavier, that's all it matters

Not true! Now look at this, the Bear is 9.3 units in HB length while the Tiger is only 9 units AND the Bear’s neck is not even straightened out which means the real HB length of the Bear would be even longer so this Bear is clearly longer than this Amur Tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

In reality, the average Amur Tigers are supposed to be longer than average Ussuri Brown Bears but this Bear is longer than this Tiger which means either this Tiger is a small one or the Bear is a big one or both.

The Bear would only be 9 units and that's including his puffy fur while the Tiger would also be 9 with less fur. You must take into account the Tigers head is tilted away from the picture, when it's straightened like the Bears the length would increase. You can also see more articulation in the Tigers neck, but both are very close in length but still I'd give the advantage to the Tiger in HBL when measured between the pegs.

The Bear’s head is also lowered down. And if the Bear straightens it’s head, it’s length will increase by upto 0.8 units. The Tiger’s length would only increase about 0.5 units if the Tiger straightens his head.

And the Tiger is only 8 units. The puffy fur does not really matter because we know that the literature figures for the length of the Bear were also taken with ‘the puffy fur’. So that fur is irrelevant.

But his neck is fully extended, remember, between the pegs the animal is laid flat and straightened but not extended. The Tiger on the other hand has shortened it's neck and turned it's head. Puffy fur matters for your comparison because you're using the outline of it to determine length where if they were measured correctly the body length would be pressed flat against the skin not the fur.
The Tiger is 8.75 units with a shortened neck and head turned to the side *Notice the nose still creeps over and the rump goes past another .5 unit, the Tiger certainly would be slightly over 9

LonePredator · 06-23-2022, 11:41 PM

(06-23-2022, 11:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(06-23-2022, 11:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(06-23-2022, 10:47 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:10 PM)AndresVida Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: But that does not seem to be the case here which means either the Tiger is smaller than average or the Bear is bigger than usual or both.
There's nothing to scale that can give us an idea to estimate their size so we will never know about these two specimens, here the tiger is longer in TBL but the bear is taller and looks considerably heavier, that's all it matters

Not true! Now look at this, the Bear is 9.3 units in HB length while the Tiger is only 9 units AND the Bear’s neck is not even straightened out which means the real HB length of the Bear would be even longer so this Bear is clearly longer than this Amur Tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

In reality, the average Amur Tigers are supposed to be longer than average Ussuri Brown Bears but this Bear is longer than this Tiger which means either this Tiger is a small one or the Bear is a big one or both.

The Bear would only be 9 units and that's including his puffy fur while the Tiger would also be 9 with less fur. You must take into account the Tigers head is tilted away from the picture, when it's straightened like the Bears the length would increase. You can also see more articulation in the Tigers neck, but both are very close in length but still I'd give the advantage to the Tiger in HBL when measured between the pegs.

The Bear’s head is also lowered down. And if the Bear straightens it’s head, it’s length will increase by upto 0.8 units. The Tiger’s length would only increase about 0.5 units if the Tiger straightens his head.

And the Tiger is only 8 units. The puffy fur does not really matter because we know that the literature figures for the length of the Bear were also taken with ‘the puffy fur’. So that fur is irrelevant.

But his neck is fully extended, remember, between the pegs the animal is laid flat and straightened but not extended. The Tiger on the other hand has shortened it's neck and turned it's head. Puffy fur matters for your comparison because you're using the outline of it to determine length where if they were measured correctly the body length would be pressed flat against the skin not the fur.
The Tiger is 8.75 units with a shortened neck and head turned to the side *Notice the nose still creeps over and the rump goes past another .5 unit, the Tiger certainly would be slightly over 9

No, when the measurements are taken ‘between pegs’ the neck is fully extended and the head is held streched out straight so obviously this Bear would be about 9.7 units when you take its estimated ‘between pegs’ length.

And the Tiger is only 8.4 units in that pose and NOT 8.75 like you said so when you strech him out, he’ll be no more than 9.2 units max while the Bear could be upto 9.8 units.

The Bear here is obviously longer than the Tiger. And this particular Tiger has a very slim and slender build so it’s very likely that the Tiger is smaller than an average adult Amur male.

I don’t understand what is making you deny the obvious here, perhaps it is because you are more biased towards Bears as suggested by some of your previous posts.

Pckts · 06-24-2022, 12:09 AM

(06-23-2022, 11:41 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(06-23-2022, 11:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(06-23-2022, 11:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(06-23-2022, 10:47 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:10 PM)AndresVida Wrote:
(05-25-2022, 08:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: But that does not seem to be the case here which means either the Tiger is smaller than average or the Bear is bigger than usual or both.
There's nothing to scale that can give us an idea to estimate their size so we will never know about these two specimens, here the tiger is longer in TBL but the bear is taller and looks considerably heavier, that's all it matters

Not true! Now look at this, the Bear is 9.3 units in HB length while the Tiger is only 9 units AND the Bear’s neck is not even straightened out which means the real HB length of the Bear would be even longer so this Bear is clearly longer than this Amur Tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

In reality, the average Amur Tigers are supposed to be longer than average Ussuri Brown Bears but this Bear is longer than this Tiger which means either this Tiger is a small one or the Bear is a big one or both.

The Bear would only be 9 units and that's including his puffy fur while the Tiger would also be 9 with less fur. You must take into account the Tigers head is tilted away from the picture, when it's straightened like the Bears the length would increase. You can also see more articulation in the Tigers neck, but both are very close in length but still I'd give the advantage to the Tiger in HBL when measured between the pegs.

The Bear’s head is also lowered down. And if the Bear straightens it’s head, it’s length will increase by upto 0.8 units. The Tiger’s length would only increase about 0.5 units if the Tiger straightens his head.

And the Tiger is only 8 units. The puffy fur does not really matter because we know that the literature figures for the length of the Bear were also taken with ‘the puffy fur’. So that fur is irrelevant.

But his neck is fully extended, remember, between the pegs the animal is laid flat and straightened but not extended. The Tiger on the other hand has shortened it's neck and turned it's head. Puffy fur matters for your comparison because you're using the outline of it to determine length where if they were measured correctly the body length would be pressed flat against the skin not the fur.
The Tiger is 8.75 units with a shortened neck and head turned to the side *Notice the nose still creeps over and the rump goes past another .5 unit, the Tiger certainly would be slightly over 9

No, when the measurements are taken ‘between pegs’ the neck is fully extended and the head is held streched out straight so obviously this Bear would be about 9.7 units when you take its estimated ‘between pegs’ length.

And the Tiger is only 8.4 units in that pose and NOT 8.75 like you said so when you strech him out, he’ll be no more than 9.2 units max while the Bear could be upto 9.8 units.

The Bear here is obviously longer than the Tiger. And this particular Tiger has a very slim and slender build so it’s very likely that the Tiger is smaller than an average adult Amur male.

I don’t understand what is making you deny the obvious here, perhaps it is because you are more biased towards Bears as suggested by some of your previous posts.

That's far too much of an exaggeration.
As it stands now, both are about 9 units. Again, the tigers Rump extends more than half a unit and it's nose is about a 1/4 unit, so it's easily 8.75 but most likely more. You claiming "the obvious" is your personal bias not mine. I'm literally in a debate defending the bears prowess against the Tiger so keep your baseless acquisitions to yourself.
It's pretty simple so one last Time..
The end of the Bears starts exactly at unit 1 *that is the fur, not the skin* and the Bears nose is just short of Unit 9
The Tigers rump starts .5 a unit past where the bears fur starts and it's nose is past Unit 9 by about 1/4 a Unit. So, reducing the Bears fur, both animals are about 9 units or just short. The Tiger has it's head turned to the left, hence why you cannot see his forehead or rostrum length as well as his neck turned to accommodate the full turn of his head. The bear has his neck fully extended but his head turned down, but lay him flat and his neck shortens when not need to support a low hanging neck. Thus his total length will not change nearly as much as the Tigers, so it's fairly obvious the Tiger is at least as long but most likely longer.

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?