Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

Options

peter

Co-owner of Wildfact

2,610 Replies

34 Topics

Joined: Mar 2014

Reputation: 52

#69

07-29-2014, 08:07 AM

tigerluver\ dateline='\'1405659026' Wrote: The kg/cm unit has to be completely dropped in this situation. It isn't a valid unit for growth because an animal is characterized by volume, cm^3 (in actuality the value of 3 is more of a 3.5) in a way. I assume you get the point that larger organisms are innately more literally robust (greater ratio of kg/cm) than smaller ones due to growth in three dimensions. That's why a 310 cm cat weighs 272 kg while a 300 cm cat weight 240 kg. Mass does not grow with dimension in a one to one ratio. The kg/cm ratio of the longer cat has to be greater than the shorter cat. That's also why the smaller Sumatran tiger will look much leaner and thinner then say, a 250 kg prime male Bengal. Not because the Bengal species is proportionately heavier at equal sizes.

In simplest terms, here's a microcosm what's happening, based on live, actual specimens. A Bengal tiger of length 251 cm weighs 115 kg (Sunquist, 1981). A Javan tiger of length 248 cm weighs 141 kg (Mazak, 1981). At equal dimensions, island tigers carry more mass.

Now let's do some math. No regression. I'll prove to you that even the largest Bengal tigers do not carry as much weight (kg) in their volume (cm^3 or with true scale factor, cm^3.5) as the Javan. Just take some numbers and find density. That's the most simplistic word I overlooked when describing the value I am measuring.Take the approximate scale factor of mass growth in tigers, 3.5.

Let's get the big male Sauraha as our Bengal tiger ambassador. 310 cm, 272 kg (we'll give him is highest weighted mass rather than his official 261 kg just to remove any doubt that Javans are denser).

A large male Javan tiger is 248 cm and 141 kg. Our density unit, kg/cm^3.5.

Let's see who is more dense.
Sauraha: 272 kg / (310 cm)^3.5 = 5.19e-7 kg/cm^3.5.
Javan: 141 kg / (248 cm)^3.5 = 5.87e-7 kg/cm^3.5.

Who's denser? The Javan, by 13.1%.

Much appreciated, tigerluver. Agreed with the first part of your post, but the problem, of course, is enough accurate and reliable data. Most unfortunately, there isn't much about the size of Sunda tigers in documents.

Although I assume you saw the scans already, I decided for a repost of the tables from Sody (1949). Maybe you could compare the skulls of P.t. tigris, P.t. sondaica and P.t. sumatrae to get to a prediction regarding weight and relative robustness.

I have no clue as to Java tigers, but the average I found for wild adult Sumatran males was between 115-120 kg. about a century ago (total length straight 7.11). Today's wild tigers, like in India, could be heavier (two males recently weighed were 148,2 and 150,0 kg.), but I doubt if they are longer.

1 - SODY

*This image is copyright of its original author

2 - SUMATRA TODAY

2a - 150,0 kg.

*This image is copyright of its original author

2b - 148,2 kg.

*This image is copyright of its original author

2c - Denning (weight unknown, but the most massive he shot in the thirties of the last century - this tiger ambushed, killed and consumed an adult male sun bear)