Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Scout]

(09-11-2020, 08:57 PM)tigerluver Wrote:

(03-06-2015, 06:24 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Database:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
Only adults were used. Body length scales near isometrically at 2.94, much different from Bengal scaling of >3.5. Chest girth also scaled negatively allometrically compared other species. The negative allometry might indicate a loss or limit of body/bone density in my opinion, as even a robusticity measurement is negatively allometric.

(03-07-2015, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

n=53 for girth relationship. n=30 for length relationship.

The chest girth relationship is bad. Length is moderately strong.

A second for Amurs:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Total length this time, n=21

Note the positive allometry in mass vs. total length in the Amur tiger, opposed to the slight negative allometry in the body length relationship. From this, it looks like tails get proportionately shorter at greater lengths, causing the total length to not look as impressive as the mass of the specimen, when in actuality the specimen is long bodied but just short tailed as the graphs suggest.

Finally, I won't bother with a girth comparison, the correlation is abysmal for the Bengal tiger. But here's the side by side total length comparison:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

 

 

I ran the analysis on chest girth and weight data 5 years ago. I've quoted the posts with the results.

can you help me a bit to understand how do I put the values here? Reply