|
Girth Comparaison of Animals
|
 
Just drew a picture of a bear's and tiger's forearm. In many of the pictures I've seen (and bears and cats I've seen in real-life), the bear's forearms are thickest at the center, and the cat's forearms are thickest at the top where the biceps intersects the beginning of the forearm. This might be another impedance in determining limb girth because data collectors may measure it differently:
(04-16-2018, 12:48 AM)Pckts Wrote: What is the body weight for gm09? Asked the same question to Warsaw and he messaged me stating that the bear weighed 244kg (from "Khutzaymateen Valley Grizzly Bear Study: Final Report" published in 1993), almost an entire 20kg less than the first tiger measured in the screenshot. The bear is quite shorter in body length, so that should automatically hint at it being slightly lighter than tiger, assuming it is similar morphologically to other brown bear populations (and Khutzaymateen grizzlies are).
Major mistake...that 244kg he sent me was GM09's fall weight before hibernation from the earlier edition of the study, my mistake. The final report says 200kg.
I can see your question...there is also a "heart girth" too. I'd say abdominal girth is the stomach area, but heart girth seems more like the chest area. Regardless of which is used, this still proves that bears most likely have big cats beat at equal weights in terms of chest/neck girth in general. (04-16-2018, 01:01 AM)Pckts Wrote:Nvm, I think they quote it as “heart girth” in which case that bear actually has a larger chest than abdomin. I need to review once I have a pc infront of me, it’s too hard on my phone, but that bear is definitely a larger bear compared to a big cat lb for lb.(04-16-2018, 12:48 AM)Pckts Wrote: What is the body weight for gm09?
The difference is extremely significant (and the bear is 60-kg lighter)...which to me can also signal a species wide difference regarding girths between the two animals...that the bear may have a decent advantage over big cats in chest/neck girth. Sometimes extremely significant differences within an individual (when compared to another individual from another species) can signal a average difference between species.
Also note that bear is actually longer in HBL than either tiger listed, remove the tail length and you can see, it’s very tall in the shoulder as well, I bet it’s much thicker in the abdominal section pre hibernation. Any way to get it’s measurements at the 244kg weight?
Also look at gm11, he’s 260kg with a 146 heart girth and a massive 172 abdominal girth.
He’s also shorter in the body, 1cm taller at the shoulder and still has a larger neck girth as well, it’d be safe to bet he is a fat bear compared to gm09 which would be a bit more lean comparatively, I’d say judging off their measurements that gm09 would probably be the more physically fit specimen. Also Gm47 “190kg” bear matches up nicely with the 200kg tiger used, they almost overlap each others measurements, its amazing to see such a massive difference in two bears that only have 10kgs between them. (Gm47 & gm09) (04-16-2018, 01:19 AM)Pckts Wrote: Also note that bear is actually longer in HBL than either tiger listed, remove the tail length and you can see, it’s very tall in the shoulder as well, I bet it’s much thicker in the abdominal section pre hibernation. Any way to get it’s measurements at the 244kg weight? No, GM09's fall weight didn't come with any measurements as its reported weight of 244-kg was used (in the earlier edition) to understand the prey-predator relationship and energy intake instead of the actual measurements themselves. But I would assume it would be quite bigger. And these grizzlies are mostly average American ones in terms of morphology, European grizzlies are slightly less robust but not significantly so.  (04-15-2018, 07:03 PM)brotherbear Wrote: ...fair weight estimation? The chest girth is a data as valid as the weight. As @Pckts said at equal weight the chest girth between two animals would be equal too. Despite a chest girth is an one D dimension, it gives a 2D dimension indication i.e. the body cross section at the chest level. And now, if you want to estimate the weight (a 3D dimension) you have to take the length into account. But the length over curves, the "unfolded length" and not the length in straight line or the "peg to peg" length. In the sketch below, between these two different morphologies, which one at equal height would be the longer "over curves" ?  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Yes, I understand this Spalea, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with comparing the girth of a tiger with the girth of a grizzly.
At equal head-and-body length, which very closely coincides with bipedal height, the grizzly proves to have a much greater girth than the tiger. That is it. This is how you compare their girth; be it chest girth, neck circumference, or girth of limbs. It is like comparing a man of Europe with a man of America, each standing six feet tall. A completely fair comparison. Pckts has this notion that to fairly compare their girth, you compare them at equal weight. Nonsense! Girth produces weight. Naturally the animal with the greater girth is going to have a weight advantage. To shrink the grizzly down to "tiger-girth-size" is making the comparison void because the results are then meaningless.
@
About #177: I will never deny that the grizzly is able to have a substantially greater chest girth than the tiger. What @Pckts showed me, and what I didn't know, is that whichever the different species we consider, two animals with the same chest girth would have roughly the same weight. Before, I admitted that only as concerned two animals of the same specy. There are some bear species that are smaller than the tiger (Armur or Bengal male tiger) and some other bear species that are bigger than the tiger. Of course "to shrink the grizzly down to "tiger-girth-size" is unfair, biased, because you are going to compare a subadult grizzly with a fully grown tiger. (04-16-2018, 05:53 AM)Spalea Wrote: @ There are subspecies of Ursus arctos that are, even a mature full-grown boar, of less weight than a tiger. But that's not the point at all. You guys have me pulling my hair out! To compare girth, you measure them at equal head-and-body length ... equal head-and-body length. At this parity, you would also find them to be almost exactly equal at bipedal-height-parity also. This is the fair way to compare girth. Again, to shrink the grizzly down to tiger-girth-size ( equal weight ) there is no longer a fair comparison. Let's look at this another way... the fact that the grizzly is of less head-and-body length at weight-parity proves that the grizzly has the superior girth. At equal weight, the bear will likely be a foot or more less in length. *Fact: the tiger cannot win this contest ( without cheating ).
@
About #179: OK, OK, OK ! The grizzly has a greater chest girth than the tiger, I don't contest that ! But because I don't want you to loose your last hair and because too I'm unable to stay serious a long time : Different chest girths and lengths over curves among human beings.  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |