Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[abhisingh7]

(10-20-2022, 09:42 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-20-2022, 11:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Simply put, this picture is taken in a completely different pose while Wagdoh’s body measurements were taken in a completely different pose which is why this picture will not scale according to his measurements.

And the measurements can’t be neglected or denied just by looking at a picture scaling like the one above.

However, it’s still a good way to get a rough visual feel of the sheer size of the specimen.

I know, I know, and I agree. I was the first to alert that a photograph cannot replace a tape measure. The infographic is only intended to give an approximate image of what it would appear in life.

But, despite all that, a shoulder height of 101 cm is not compatible with a body length of 207 cm, that rather corresponds to an animal of approx. 190 cm, the proportions are constant, with a certain margin of error, in living beings.
 
You can contrast what I say by looking, for example, at the infographics presented by Guate on pages 1 an 25 of this same topic to see the proportions. Even so, it is totally true that there are animals with bodies proportionally somewhat shorter or longer than others, but from a certain limit an obvious distortion occurs. Wagdoh was a large, bulky tiger but did not appear to be very long.
 
I enclose another infographic, with the image of the original photograph and another one distorted to adjust the height while maintaining the length. Which one do you think is more real?

*This image is copyright of its original author

rajaji male Reply

Attached Files

Image(s)