|
Size comparisons
|
Wolf Vs Big-boss ...
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
After what seems like a lifetimes...
 *This image is copyright of its original author Hope the quality makes up for the wait, @ 
Thanks a million tigerluver. A beautiful and very interesting comparison.
Edit and add: I remember when Ursus maritimus tyrannus was first described at weighing roughly 2500 pounds ( 1,134 kg ). Soon after Arctotherium angustidens was described with a weight of roughly 3800 pounds ( 1,724 kg ). After a couple of years of closer looks or more thorough studies, those weights began to drop. 
Can anyone please compare these two specimens based on sizes. Both are very very impressive specimens. They have same body poses. But sizewise I am unable to conclude which one should be bigger.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author My guess is  *This image is copyright of its original author
Another interesting size comparison would be salt water crocodile vs Nile crocodile. Just from watching documentaries, I find it hard to believe that there is enough size difference to truthfully call one bigger than the other.
 (01-21-2017, 03:21 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Another interesting size comparison would be salt water crocodile vs Nile crocodile. Just from watching documentaries, I find it hard to believe that there is enough size difference to truthfully call one bigger than the other. Fun fact: the largest reliably measured Nile crocodile is actually slightly longer than the largest Saltwater crocodile. The largest confirmed saltwater crocodile on record drowned in a fishing net in Papua New Guinea in 1979, its dried skin plus head measured 6.20 m (20 ft 4 in) long and it was estimated to have been 6.30 m (20 ft 8 in) when accounting for shrinkage and a missing tail tip. The largest accurately measured male Nile crocodile, shot near Mwanza, Tanzania, measured 6.45 m (21 ft 2 in) and weighed about 1,090 kg (2,400 lb). However: a 76 cm long Saltwater crocodile skull was discovered in Cambodia, which is larger than any Nile crocodile skull ever found. It was estimated to belong to an animal 6.90 meters long. The average saltie is also a tad larger than a Nile, by about a foot and a hundred pounds or so.
The largest measured Nile (645 cm) compared to the largest theoretical saltie (76 cm skull)
 *This image is copyright of its original author
(05-06-2016, 03:33 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Ok thanks guys, I found it, this was more the stuff I was looking for. I also wasn't sure how big the Siberian tiger was either, there's guys saying they aren't scientifically that big, but I mean Ive seen some huge Siberians in the circus, so I mean they have to be big, can anyone back anything up on there with scientific weights. Again I don't have the weights, but that was the debate I was in, I'm like the Siberian is the biggest cat or at least it should be, some lion fan was like no there not, there no different in size than the lion, a bunch of tiger fans were disagreeing, its just hard to know who's telling the truth and I don't know, because you have bias from people on either side, but one guy said you can't trust the old hunting records, and stated in scientific weights lions and tigers are the same. I'm like how can the Siberian not be bigger, even some famed lion and tiger trainers said the Siberian is larger, so it has to be. But we must have some scientific weights proving this not just trainers. That would settle the debate. 
@
Let's answer your questions here " months ago (edited) Brent +Don't race me I'm to fast "I know about the 1025 lbs tiger...i have posted it before, even showing his pic. That 384 kg Siberian was from an old hunting record, and never confirmed. We dont even have the original source on that animal. Just a second or 3rd hand account that does not actually provide evidence that tiger was weighed. The 857 lb Bengal tiger was stated to have been weighed, and i have that document also, but even most scientists doubt the accuracy of the sugarmill scales used to weigh that animal, as every other tiger weighed in that area was at least 200 lbs lighter in weight, and the pic of that animal does not look to be that of an 857 lb tiger. It fed on.a buffalo carcass the night previously, also. Even in the museum, it doesnt look big. Looks like a normal sized tiger, even leading tiger expert Sunquist said so. The heaviest lion in the wild was 900 lbs. I knew about all of those tiger weights well before guinness reported it." The verified world record tiger was weighed on a scale At a sugar plantation and the world record lion was weighed on a train scale. Doesn't mean their weights are wrong. 389kg Tiger  *This image is copyright of its original author 313kg lion  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author list of a few other heavy males  *This image is copyright of its original author There is no verified wild lion weighing 900lbs, that is incorrect. In regards to the record tiger not looking impressive, well all I can say is it's a stuffed animal with no bone, muscle or fat, and every stuffed animal I've seen in museums never look impressive compared to their alive counterparts.  *This image is copyright of its original author But compared to him in flesh and blood...  *This image is copyright of its original author I'd say he looks quite impressive. The same with the Tsavo lion display, he also doesn't look impressive but I'm sure he was impressive in person. Now lets look at modern records  *This image is copyright of its original author Compare his measurements to the 260kg Etosha Lion  *This image is copyright of its original author As you can, his measurements certainly "measure up" You also have the 272kg lion measured by Koch, but I don't know if he has photos of him alive.  *This image is copyright of its original author Now a list of both in modern times and times of past Largest Modern Lions  *This image is copyright of its original author Largest Modern Tigers  *This image is copyright of its original author Lion sizes by region *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Asiatic Lion and Bengal Tiger  *This image is copyright of its original author Tigers by Region  *This image is copyright of its original author And here is a list of the more recent tigers measured a long with older ones Body Mass of Bengal tiger in Modern Records: Revised (2017) Hello everyone, after a wave of new tiger weights, I have decided to make a new revision of the body mass of Bengal tiger in modern records. This list included the weights of 27 male tigers, with a few others not included. The average body weight is 495 lbs (225 kg). Note: Sundarbans tigers not included. Chitwan NP, Nepal: Average 221 kg adjusted. n=7. Range 184-261 kg. Reference: Smith et al., 1983; Sunquist, 1981. These tigers originally averaged 235 kg but they consumed on average 14 kg of meat Chitwan NP, Nepal: 270+ kg. n=1. Reference: Dinerstein, E. (2003). This animal (M026) exceeded the scale of 270 kg along with Sauraha male (M105). This animals weight of 270 kg's is included. Nagarahole NP: Average 217 kg adjusted. n=3. Range 209-227 kg. Reference: Karanth, 1993. Panna TR Average 245 kg. n=2. Range 240-250 kg. Reference. Chundawat & Malik, 2010; Pers Comm. 2009. Note: Both these tigers exceeded a scale of 250 kg, but was estimated to weigh about these measurements, M-91's weight was adjusted down due to 10 kg of weighing equipment. The other tiger was Madla who's weight is given as 250 kg. Panna TR 240 kg. n=1. Reference: Noronha, 2015. Tiger known as "T-3", stated to be 10 years old. Tiger was reintroduced to Panna TR. This was a statement from former field director, Panna tiger reserve, R Sriniwas Murthy. Panna TR 211.5 kg. n=2. Range 205-218 kg. Reference: Roamin; Pers. Comm. 2016. Two tigers, one known as P212 weighed 190 kg at 4.5 years old, this same animal was stated to have weighed 205 kg's during the winter months. Another unknown male was stated to have weighed 218 kg. Sariska TR, India 220 kg. n=1. Reference: Sinha , 2008. This tiger was a young male, said to be three and a half years old. This tiger was also recaptured and estimated to weigh 250 kg when it was older Kanha NP, India 197 kg. n=1. Reference: 21st Century Tiger, 2014 Kanha NP, India 225+ kg. n=2. Reference: Sinha; Pers. Comm. 2016 & Minha Ha; Pers. Comm. 2016. Tigers named Banda and Konda both exceeded a scale of 225 kg. These tigers where weighed back in October and February of 2007. These animals weights that exceeded scale are included in the final average. Kanha NP, India 225 kg. n=1. Reference: Vats, 2016. This tiger is the sub adult male named Bheema. He weighed 225 kg at the age of 2.5 years old. He was later estimated to weigh greater then 280 kg's as an adult. This animal is not included in the final average. Ghunghuti forest range, India 280 kg. n=1. Reference: Indiatoday, 2016. A tiger which terrorised locals was caught and relocated to a enclosure in BTR. The statement came from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Jitendra Agrawal. Uttar Pradesh's South Kheri forest 235 kg. n=1. Reference: Singh, 2016. This is the Kheri man-eater transferred to Lucknow Zoo. Animal said to be 4 years old. Treated by Dr. Mayukh Chatterjee Dudhwa NP, India 210 kg. n=1. Reference: Ahsan; Pers. Comm. 2016. This was a 4 year old problematic male tiger that strayed out of Dudhwa NP. Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve 185 kg. n=1. Reference: Habib; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger named Gabbar, 8 year old male Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve 197 kg. n=1. Reference: Dhanwatey, 2015. This tiger was a 4 year old problem animal which attacked a farmer and his cattle. This animal had received injuries to its paws and nose, aswell as broken canines. This animal was featured in animal planet series 'Living with Maneaters'. Ranthambore NP, India 240 kg. n=1. Reference: Khandal; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger known as "T-24", This tiger was actually weighed in 2009. Umred Karhandla Wildlife Sanctuary in Nagpur, India 230 kg. n=1. Reference: Karoo; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger named Jai. This tiger was stated to weigh between 220 and 238 kg, the weighing scale used had a 18 kg margin of error. This same tiger was also stated to have been weighed a second time, one authority claiming 240 kg's and another stating 215 kg's. [b][u]Pench NP, India[/b][/u] 225 kg. n=1. Reference: Minha Ha; Pers. Comm. 2016. This tiger is the son of BMW of pench said to be 2.5 years old which died due to poisoning in January of 2016. This animal is not included. Pench NP, India 200+ kg. n=1. Reference: Majumder, 2012. This tiger exceeded a scale of 200 kg, weight was estimated to be upto 220 kg. Not included in final average. The average comes to 224.6 kg's (495 lb), n=27 More modern Lion weights here http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-w...wild-lions Please note all the references, use that info to search for yourself but at least this is a good jumping off point for you. Good luck (03-19-2017, 12:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: @ Ok but again, I can't verify all the weights your posting you don't really have any links to most of them, you're obviously bias for the tigers side, so I mean you'd have to have an objective person debating this or someone from the opposing side that knows as much. Not sure if there is anyone on this site what would do that. But reading the full report on the 850 lb wild tiger, I think its pretty clear what the case was with that tiger. It killed a cow the night before and ate most of it. The article states the tiger was probably about 700 lbs or 715 lbs. I think that makes a lot more sense and is completely feasible. The other thing also not mentioned and I think that is completely likely, is I doubt that was the first cow it killed, it was probably a cattle killer, in other words it was probably feasting on cattle for much of its life and was able to reach those high weights because of that. The poster on youtube also said he saw that tiger in the museum for himself, and that it was not that big in person. He also stated and posted the message from Sunquist himself, who stated he did not believe the weight was accurate. So that's a scientist saying that. I know what you're saying about taxidermy animals looking shrunken and bad, but that depends who does it, the Smithsonian would have know and the ability to do the best taxidermy, so its no surprise that in a museum like that would have a tiger looking very correct and life like. From what I can see also from the pics, it looks pretty standard. And 690 lb isn't the highest a lion has ever been recorded in the wild, there were also several other cattle killing lions that reached weights of 700 and 800 lbs also. So I think its pretty clear that whether its a lion or a tiger, the cattle killers are the ones that are likely to hit those high weights. And the final weight tally is similar with largest of both species.
Once again, all weights have references, all you have to do is a little leg work on your end but you obviously don't want to nor will your opionion change. You asked, you were given ample evidence and that's where it ends.
(03-19-2017, 06:12 AM)Pckts Wrote: Once again, all weights have references, all you have to do is a little leg work on your end but you obviously don't want to nor will your opionion change. You asked, you were given ample evidence and that's where it ends. That's fine if the other weights are correct, my opinion actually is that the tiger may very well be bigger, but the average joe can't just look up all those weights and verify them that you posted. I mean if you have the links that they go to, just post them for others to see. Because otherwise I have to be a little skeptical because you seem bias for one side, that's all I'm saying. But I have seen the 850 lb tiger debated before on youtube, and I can see the picture of the page that you posted showing that. But you also have to take into consideration that guy Sunquist who I guess is pretty professional or an expert, because he personally said he did not believe that weight was accurate, I saw the email posted on youtube. I don't have it on me, but I did see it, so I mean I'd believe that guy he's the expert. So in retrospect, I think its pretty clear that was not an 800 lb tiger, it was probably much lower like 700 lbs and was a cattle killer. If there are accounts showing other lions that killed cattle and reached weights over 700 and 800 lbs then both cats are tied for hitting the top weights in the wild. That was the argument I saw being debated on youtube, it was that there weight is actually pretty equal, the tiger really isn't heavier. But again it still could be bigger, but possibly not heavier. You have to make an exception for cattle killing lions and tigers, because they can gain so much added pounds from that and also hit very high weights on the day they're weighed. It would also be interesting to know whether some of the Manchurian tigers you're listing had also been feasting on cattle, I mean we just see the weight but we don't know the scenario around it. I did also see a post of a 900 lb wild lion, I believe it was killed by Daniel Boone, I would have to try to find it. There was also a totally verified lion named Brutus that was 900lbs and also 870 raised in captivity but caught in the wild. I would like to know if again you guys have a captive tiger that is over 900 lbs and not neutered. I think also that the Siberian tigers would be heavier with added weight for fat storage in colder weather, this could also be true for the Manchurian tigers as I think its pretty cold there right?  (03-19-2017, 07:04 AM)Haymaker Wrote:Guys guys..Neither this lion looks like it's 313kg (±250, msybe) without a huuuuuge tumor in its belly...(03-19-2017, 06:12 AM)Pckts Wrote: Once again, all weights have references, all you have to do is a little leg work on your end but you obviously don't want to nor will your opionion change. You asked, you were given ample evidence and that's where it ends. *This image is copyright of its original author Nor does this tiger looks to be 389kg (289..At best) without an adamantium skeleton...  *This image is copyright of its original author Any extra weight is from all the BS they added.. Why are we even still presenting hunter records??!!! |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |