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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 3 Vote(s) - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#64
( This post was last modified: 07-18-2014, 10:41 AM by tigerluver )

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%.
3 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply




Messages In This Thread
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 07-18-2014, 10:20 AM
Sabertoothed Cats - brotherbear - 06-11-2016, 11:59 AM
RE: Sabertoothed Cats - peter - 06-11-2016, 04:28 PM
Ancient Jaguar - brotherbear - 01-04-2018, 12:45 AM



Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB