|
The largest recorded Orca
|
On the captive vs. wild size discrepancy. I think wild specimens are proportionately heavier compared to a good chunk of non-fat captive specimens. I say this based on the one, wild bones seems to be proportiontely heavier, implying more muscle mass. Two, this bone observation seems to be somewhat supported by often times the wild form of the species will weigh more than the captive type of the same length. This isn't always the case obviously, but I'd say their something significant going on. Wild land animals go through more bone stress, so adding bone mass and in turn muscle would be expected. I specify land as I'm sure bone stress works different under water as theirs no land to return the force on the body. Nevertheless, I'm sure the wild lifestyle calls for muscled individuals across biomes, causing proportional mass increase. These observations support Guate's assertion that the wild orca was heavier than the captive orca at the same length. I also agree that in terms of raw total mass, the record holders are normally captive specimens for their respective species, but all this is for a different topic.
Everyone has done a great job filling up the new topic with excellent information. Though, I propose we take this thread and broaden the topic to discuss orcas as a whole rather than just the size issue, as even now we're inadvertently and unavoidabley expanding our explorations. What do you folks think? Here's a document on the state of modern orca research: http://www.orcanetwork.org/Main/PDF/Whal...o12011.pdf It goes over a lot, including ecotypes. A little sidenote, a professor I know researches dolphins, and she's stated that these ecotypes are in the process of speciating. I don't think many wild orcas have been weighed. I'd imagine weighing something that large is an expensive, time consuming, and stressful experience for both parties. How exactly does one go above securing a wild titan into a harness is probably beyond everybody. Darting is impossible in water, the being would drown. In other words, taking a wild whale's weight probably can only be done to a dead animal. Taking length would be much easier, as I've read and watched some research using laser technology to take in action measurements of animals under water. Many historical wild whale masses were taken from the sum of the cut up parts of the hunted specimen, thus a lot of blood weight was unaccounted for. Have orcas ever been massed in such a way? To close, a document dedicated to orca morphology: http://cetacousin.com/info/orca/orcaana.pdf For those who want to cut to the chase on what it says about size: "Male Orcas measure between 22 to 30 ft. (6.7-9 m) and usually weigh between 8,000 and 12,000 lb. (3,628-5,443 kg). The largest male ever recorded was 32 ft. (9.7 m) and weighed 21,000 lb. (9,525 kg). As a male Orca approaches adulthood, it gains the typical male characteristics: it gains weight, its pectoral flippers, dorsal fin and flukes grow larger than those of females. Female Orcas measure between 17 to 24 ft. (5.2-7.3 m) and usually weigh between 3,000 and 8,000 lb. (1,360-3,628 kg). The largest female recorded was 28 ft. (8.5 m) and weighed 15,000 lb. (6,804 kg). " |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 26 Guest(s) |