Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[LonePredator]

(11-16-2020, 10:48 PM)Balam Wrote:

(11-16-2020, 10:30 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(11-16-2020, 09:05 PM)Balam Wrote: A lot of the weights posted in YouTube animal channels come directly from this forum. That channel specifically is not reliable as the person who runs it is extremely bias, similar to what you see on some Tapatalk forums. 

That same individual posted a comparison between an Ussuri brown bear and a Siberian tiger stating that the tiger was 200+ kg on average, when we know that's far from the truth. The purpose was to decrease the size of the bear and increase the size of the tiger to make them as similar in build as possible.

I'd stay away from those channels/forums and treat all the "data" they post with a grain of salt.

Yellowstone Brown Bears average 193kg for 5 year old + Males (65* individuals) and Amur Tiger weights between modern and past weights will be around the same average. I'm not sure how the Ussuri Brown Bear weights compare to Yellowstone but I thought both overlapped quite a bit.

Brotherbear posted this chart before involving Ussuri brown bears, although I'm curious regarding the sample size and time the bears were weighed, we know brown bears fluctuate in mass dramatically depending on the season:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Jordan Carlton from the International Association for Bear Management released this article on NatGeo and he said this concerning Ussuri brown bears:

The black grizzly or Ussuri brown bear (Ursus arctos lasiotus) is another big bear occasionally attaining a size greater than the Kamchatka brown bear.  These bears are found in the Amur and Ussuri River regions of the Russian Far East, northeastern China, the Korean Peninsula and Japan.


I don't want to turn this into a tiger vs bear conversation and I'm sure this could be carried on in different threads, but my point is that certain channels online have a tendency to cherry-pick information and present in a way that is deceiving but supports their bias for a specific animal. If you look at the comments under that thread you have people with names such as "leopard owns lions" gratifying on the seemingly low weights posted on that chart.

Please stop citing Nat Geo as a reliable source of information.Nat Geo is not a credible source and Nat Geo has given out some terrible information several times. One such ridiculously surprising instance was when they posted this on their YouTube video 'Tigers 101'

    Reply