Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[LonePredator]

(10-20-2022, 03:30 AM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-19-2022, 10:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-19-2022, 03:19 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-17-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh

There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.

I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.

I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.

Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.

I already said that the comparison would give an approximate result, there is no way to make a photo accurately match measurements taken on a lying, dead or sedated animal.

However, I have tried to do my best, the distance between the tip of Wagdoh's nose and the start of the tail is somewhat less than 10 squares, that is, less than 2 m, no matter how much we stretched the image, hardly it would come to occupy another box, so it may be true that there is a difference of a few centimeters in the animal, but for global vision purposes it would not change much.

As for the height at the level of the shoulders is not the one I invented, nor the size of the chest, it is the one that results from adjusting the length of the body to the length of 207 cm, remember that it is a real photograph of Wagdoh, not a drawing of mine. In any case, even if I reduce the size of our tiger a little, the height on the shoulders could drop from approximately 110 cm to 105, but no more. Length and height are associated, if I alter one, the other will also alter to the same extent.

Why?
The animals measurements are specified.
The height represented is 101cm and generally speaking these measurements are usually exaggerated. Unfortunate that the whole image shrinks when reducing his shoulder size to it's actual measurement.

I guess I am not explaining myself well, if I reduce the height of the shoulders to 101 cm, then the length of the body will be much less than 207 cm. 
Simply the measures taken are not consistent with what the photograph tells us.

A photograph will never scale to correct proportions as per the official measurements of the specimen unless the Tiger is in a perfectly still pose in the said photograph. Here in the picture Wagdoh has a bent head (which instantly skews the bodylength) and also has bent frontlimbs and elbows (which instantly skews the shoulder height measurements)

Body length is taken by straightening the whole body including the head, neck and spine but the head is slightly bent in the picture which automatically means you can’t scale this as per the actual measured bodylength (which was measured in a different pose compared to this picture)

On top of that, shoulder height is typically measured by taking a straight normal length from shoulder to heel but in this picture neither of the forelimbs are straight nor perpendicular to the ground, both are heavily bent at angle (one in forward direction and one in backward direction) and even the elbows are slightly bent at an angle and not fully extended which automatically means you can’t get proper scaling as per his actual measured shoulder height figure by using this picture.

A picture (unless taken in the same pose as the pose in which the specimen’s measurements were taken) will pretty much never scale according to the official measurements of the given specimen.

Quote:Simply the measures taken are not consistent with what the photograph tells us.

Simply because the measurements were taken in a completely different pose than the pose in the photograph. Reply