Girth Comparaison of Animals

[Pckts]

(04-11-2018, 04:10 PM)Spalea Wrote:

(04-11-2018, 03:30 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: I think we compare chest girth in same weight thats is right because thats is same size

No, that's not the same size because bears and tigers don't have the same morphology.
A grizzly or a polar bear are in average bigger, heavier, than a tiger. If you want to decrease the bear's size (or the bear's weight) so that you will believe to fairly compare the bear's and the tiger's chest girths you will make your compiraison between an adult tiger and a subadult bear, thus a biased compiraison.
You cannot manipulate the morphologies in order to prove that finally, both animal have the same chest girth. If they don't belong to the same family (two ursids or two felids) it's biased.
While we are at it, we can also add the lion's case. After all the lion has a chest girth equal, even a bit larger, to the tiger's one.
But seriously, why don't we compare the horse's chest girth with the rhino's chest girth ? They are both Perissodactyls.

Remember @Spalea 
The bears we are comparing at equal weights to the Tigers/Lions are both full grown, not sub adults. 
You’re absolutely right that bears and tigers have different morphology so trying to compare equal body length is a higher factor for error when determining their lb for lb mass comparison.

Why do you think the argument against lb for lb comparison is body length and not shoulder height I wonder?


It’s seems to get lost in the fray but no one has ever said that bears aren’t larger than big cats, it started with a discussion on lb for lb between polar and my self that somehow turned into a lb for lb vs inch for inch discussion. Reply