Size comparisons

[Haymaker]

(03-20-2017, 05:31 AM)Rishi Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 05:06 AM)Haymaker Wrote:

(03-20-2017, 04:27 AM)Rishi Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 09:31 PM)Haymaker Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 12:44 PM)Rishi Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 11:34 AM)Haymaker Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 10:52 AM)Rishi Wrote:

(03-19-2017, 10:40 AM)Haymaker Wrote: So then which do you think is heavier scientifically, still the tiger, or maybe its pretty even.  Do the scientific measurements also say the tiger is longer, because that's also what Ive wondered a lot people think that. I'm thinking pound for pound same length the tiger isn't heavier.

I think, that the size-difference aint that distinct & overlaps, while the stature-difference is more so... (See pics in last post)


My opinion on weight, i explained thouroughly in the previous post.

Ok, well let me ask you this, do you guys have any records of captive Siberians or tigers weighing over 900 lbs, that are proven to be not neutered?  And I ask that because Ive seen guys posting 1000lb Siberians like its normal, and honestly most are not verified and some look exceptional fat and neutered. I know one verified 900 lb lion that was officially weighed in court, not neutered. Several others exist but hard to verify them.

Just ran into this quote from a poster on another site,

"The source on the 857 lb tiger showed it had fed on a half grown buffalo. Not sure if the lion was gorged or not, and it is unwise to assume. But....it was never indicated, anyways. The 313 kg lion was weighed several times as evidence to the great weight. The tiger wasn`t.....even the Smithsonian Data Manager, Craig Ludwig, who sent me the document on the 857 lb tiger indicated he doubts this is an authentic 857 lb, even if with a heavy meal in his stomach. Over 200 lbs heavier than any of the other tigers in the area at the time. Craig doubts the reliability of the scale.

Many lions were recorded at 250 kg or more. I can think of 3 or 4 272 kg lions off the top of my head, from reliable sources."

I neither know, nor care about the size zoo-bred over-fed "tigers" & "lions" that are more suitable for hibernating than hunting...
 
ARE YOU NOT READING MY ANSWERS & MAKING THE SAME STATEMENTS OVER & OVER??!!!
About the "313kg lion" & "389kg tiger" READ POST #92...(Screw being the largest-ever-recorded, those two look barely ABOVE AVERAGE)

Decades old hunter records "confirmed" by his friends & guide or some villagers, don't count..I'm sure if you ask some SouthAfrican trigger-happy hunters you will hear about many 600lbs lions.
Hunter data state tigers ranging from 300-400kgs..I neither buy, nor sell that crap. 

Do those gigantic 300kg lions & tigers go to hiding, when they see any scientist with some credibility (or doctorate) approach??!!!
20000 is a pretty large gene-pool, they should still be there.



Feel free to tell me about those SCIENTIFICALLY RECORDED 3-4 lions of 270kg measured by Dr. Who-When-Where, i'll do my own research. (Yes, they sometimes reach 250kg maybe, READ #94)
I LOVE NEW INFO!!!..

Because you're kind of missing my whole point, the school of thought is that the Siberian is bigger, yet its not bigger now in the wild because there is less of them right?  Well what about when there was more of them.  And are they bigger in captivity, because of the amount of them.  There's more lions in the wild, yet there is more tigers than lions in captivity, and there is more Siberian mixed breeds than there is of large lion breeds.  So that is sort of what I'm saying, if its proven the Siberian is bigger in captivity than the Bengal or lion, than that would prove it not bigger in the wild because of the decrease of population.  So would some of those Manchurian 700lb tigers be accurate?  I don't know, I think its possible if you could find a healthy Siberian in captivity that really weighs more than the other tigers and is not over fed and proves to be longer and taller.  Ive seen few, they did seem big, but it was true that they did not weigh 700 lbs.  I think there is also the question of fat storage as well, do these colder weather tigers have a greater propensity to store more weight and fat to keep them warm than a lion?  I think that would have to be true, which again could up that weight tally.  I also have seen evidence that bigcats that live in higher numbers can get less meat on a given day than a solitary tiger or two lions living together.

The other thing we'd have to look into as well, is what is the oldest scientific weights of tigers recorded, I mean how far does it go back, because some of the hunters records go back when the population was much higher obviously so there'd be a greater chance to hit a higher weight.  But I agree, that is suspect, 2,000 cats weighed and they never found one at 700 lbs.

No..I get your point!!! I really don't care...

That is the essence of scientific study..

Up until a few years ago, even scientists used to think that male tigers play no role in rearing of cubs... Look what has happened to that "school of thoughts" NOW!!!!!!!!
Similarly Siberians were quoted largest just cuz they look fat & fluffy...Scientific study later proved Bengals are similar in stature..

I maintain..............Siberians don't grow larger because of the harsh condition they survive in...But their bodies have evolved to utilise every ounce of nutrition to the fullest!!! That why they grow so obscenely in captivity. 
Just like Asiatic lions CAN grow a Barbary like mane in European zoos, but DOESN'T in the wild (All in captivity were captured & gifted by India govt. after 1950)...

Now science allows you to maintain something else...& others to disagree
Whatever the REAL truth is, it will continue to remain the same irrespective of what a few puny Earthlings believe!!!!!

Well that's interesting because Ive never heard that theory before, at the same time perhaps Siberians grow faster and reach maturity as well quicker than a lion.  I thought I heard that or saw that somewhere a 3 year old Siberian looking practically full grow.  You must agree though that animal has to be able to develop insulation to withstand temperatures going far below zero.  This has to give the Siberian a much greater weight advantage with so much stored fat.  But again I don't know the science behind it, do Siberians in warmer climates store as much fat, or is it only when they are living in a colder climate. I know in the States in colder places the tigers will get a very thick fur coat, and the lions will never really get that much thicker in the fur.

What theory!?.. Siberians grow larger in captivity?!
I have seen orphaned Siberian cubs in taken into captivity in at least 3 seperate documentories...All looked larger (&fatter) than wild ones.

Thus, it's probably not about loss of genes, that's why I have the Asiatic lion example (their numbers also rebounded from <50 to >500)...

Yes, a 250kg Amur should weigh 270kg in winter... (I confess of having no knowledge whether the tigers weighed in winter were found to be heavier)

Also... I'm not sure if similarly a same-sized Amur will be heavier than the Bengal counterpart..Bengals lead a much easier life of luxury!!!..

I just never heard that before, but its interesting I wonder if anyone else would back that up on here.  As far as strength, would you say the Siberian tigers are no stronger than the Bengals, just larger, but for their size aren't actually thicker in the arms and muscles. I recall hearing something about the Siberian's needing bigger paws to get through the snow and larger arm muscles to be able to aid with that. At the same time Ive heard that Siberians when they lose their winter coats in the summers in captivity, they look to have a very similar build to any tiger, even thin looking.  So its difficult to figure out, because for sure bears when they have the added layers of fat on them in the fall, they look absolutely huge and powerful.  You see them in the summer and they can look scrawny.  And I think that's what's different about the lions, they seem to be a hot weather animal, they never have those layers of fat on them, or thicker fur, its pretty much just the frame and anatomy on there.  And often I think its difficult to see a lot of the strength in the lion because the mane covers those areas. Reply