There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
02-27-2015, 10:46 AM( This post was last modified: 02-27-2015, 10:50 AM by GuateGojira )
(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.
Let's take the two points here:
1. Captive vs Wild.
2. Wild breed and Captive breed, for a Wild animal.
1. Overall, captive animals are heavier than the wild animals, that is a fact. However, your approach and that of Tigerluver is more deep that the simple comparison, and I support it at some degree.
For example, a wild 600 lb tiger will be "heavier" than a 700 lb captive tiger, without the fat (sorry for the use of cats as examples, but that is our way [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]). That will be true if we take in count that the wild specimen has lived in a harder environment and need of physical fitness and strength, its bones most be stronger and its muscles larger, so it is "heavier" in the deep sense.
However, in the overall comparison, the real comparison, we can't denied that the captive specimen is heavier than wild specimen, in the example, by 100 lb and that the fat can't just be ignored, it is the critical point here. Other point is that wild specimens don't reach the weight of the captive ones. Like I said before, the heaviest specimens from wild animals are those breed in captivity, even if we take the Smitsonian tiger of 389 kg, it is still smaller than Jaipur at 423 kg. The same goes to elephants and gorillas, just to mention a few.
So, in the real sense, captive breed animals are heavier than wild breed specimens. Now, the question is, this apply to marine mammals too? We could say yes, if we see Tilikum and how fat he is, but the few wild weights that I presented suggest otherwise, although I have not yet found if those "weights" are real or estimations.
2. You still insist in the issue that those large orcas are wild animals. Yes, they were wild animals but they were captured as infants, so they entire grow and development came from captive facilities and that will certainly change its morphology. When you mention "better diet" in the wild, it doesn't mean quantity, but quality. Maybe wild orcas eat better fish and other animals, but that doesn't mean that they storage the same fat level than a captive animals that eat probably less but it contain more "chunk" food and without exercise. Check that a person that eat beef and vegetables and make exercise, is more healthy and weight less than a person that eat only chunk food and make no exercise.
So, in overall, captive specimens, captured or not in the wild, most weight more than the wild-breed specimens, taking in count the fat that they storage.
Did you remember the example of "Old Tom" and Tilikum? I doubt about this comparison now, because the only source (that I have found) about the weight of Old Tom is Wikipedia, so there is not direct evidence (yet) if he was weighed (post mortem, obviously) or just estimated. This is what I would like to know.
