Size comparisons

[GuateGojira]

It is simple, the first steep is to found a picture of the animal, it most be in perfect side view and preferably with a full view of the feet or hoofs.

Latter, I search real measurements, not estimations or simple ranges on the internet. Only real measurements can give you a real approximation of the actual dimensions. Methods can change the actual scaling, but regularly this most not create any problem, especially with the larger animals, where 10-20 cm are summarized in a few curves.

Latter, the animal is NOT scaled based in only one dimension (height or length), because that create a biased image of the real animals. When I scale the beast, I try to found the real average size based in all available measurements. For example, you can't just scale a tiger based on height, you most use body length and even chest girth. However, like I have found with the Indian mammals, many animals lack of most of that information and so we most scale them with what we have.

When I scale an animal, I use the average height and the average length together (when available), to presented specimens that actually shows what most be an average sized species in all departments. This avoid any conflict between points of view or personal ideas of the size. However, in order to do this, you most have a scale in the bottom, just in this form you can measure the animal. If we use only blank background, the comparison is completely unreliable as we don't know what is the size used.

The background most be scaled in one dimension, in my case every square measure 20 cm, so an animal measuring 210 cm in head body, can be scaled with 10 1/2 squares. Obviously, my method allow to change the scale, so if we want to create a comparison between whales, those squares can change to meters.

Finally, all measurements used AND its references most be presented, if not, we don't know where you get those "sizes". We most know the source and its reliability. In extreme cases, like that of the Barasingha (not presented yet), I used estimations in the size because there are no real measurements in any of the tons of hunting literature (only real weights were available, but all are from record specimens). However, when at least three real measurements are available, we most used them and take the risk in order to show an animal based in real measurements.

In the weight department is easier, as the volume of the animal can change very easy in the images. Only averages of three or more animals are used, if only two specimens are available (like the Indian lion of the Barbary lion), I only put the range to give a general, although not conclusive, idea of its body mass.

This is a summary of my method to scale my animals. It is not easy, it is not fast, but is the most reliable way to show the size of animals "in the flesh". Other thing, I have found that the use of humans in the image is perfect to show how large is an animals and most of the time, viewers of my images are impressed about "how large" or "how small" are some animals.


Hope this helps @sanjay. Reply