Girth Comparaison of Animals

[Pckts]

(04-20-2018, 02:10 AM)Polar Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 11:27 PM)brotherbear Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

And I have a question about these types of graphs...they give you a range for each measurement (i.e. (178-208)), do the extreme numbers at each end represent absolute individual maximum or average maximum? Studies can differ by what they portray when selecting a range of values.

The average is based off their combined measurements divided by total individuals  I assume. For the Bear to equal a similar HBL average while having a much higher maximum, I'd guess that more individuals were on the lower end of the spectrum while the larger bears were fewer but with very impressive numbers. I.E. 252 HBL, 154 Chest Girth and 321kg BW.
I'd be curious what the 2011-2013 193kg average bears (3 individuals) numbers were since they weren't used in the comparison and would be closer to the Tigers weight.
I also don't know how the 264kg average was gotten for the Bears since the range is from 260kg to 321kg and there were 10 individuals used. 
That'd have to be all 260kg bears and one 321kg and even then the average would be 266kg. If that were the case that would also show tremendous individual variations between bears.



I think I figured out a better way to explain why LB for LB is the better option when comparing these two.

If you were to determine girth amongst a lion to a tiger, you'd probably do so at 200kg lets say, that number is a normal sized adult of either and they have preexisting measurements to go off of,
If you were to compare a Polar Bear to a Kodiak bear, you wouldn't go off body length, you'd go off body weight, both are relatively close so you could find two individuals that are the same weight and compare their measurements from there.
Using this option you'd then be able to get a better understanding of how their weight is distributed and thus how they compare to one another in each area. 
If you wanted to go really deep into it, you would then need to go off skeletal weight and size as well, a Bear has a heavier skeleton and thicker bones, both of which contribute to girth, how much so or what % is unknown but it's another factor to consider.

Even comparing a Leopard to a Lion or a Sloth Bear to a Grizzly, you be better off doing so in weight since they are built differently and their skeletal structure is distributed differently.

I think a good example is a Cheetah to a Leopard, both are relatively close in weight but you wouldn't compare them at shoulder height or body length since the cheetah is built very differently in all areas from the leopard, here is a good comparison table of each

*This image is copyright of its original author

Averages:
Cheetah HBL 55
Leopard HBL 51

Cheetah 46kg
Leopard 53kg

Cheetah CG 74
Leopard CG 78

Cheetah SH 79
Leopard SH 69

Cheetah NG 38
Leopard NG 51

Cheetah AG 61
Leopard AG 74

Because both or close in weight we are now able to determine their morphological differences

The Cheetah will be slightly longer in the body and Taller at the shoulder while the Leopard will be thicker in the Neck, Abdomen and slightly more in the chest but very close there.
If you were to even the odds, you wouldn't then add body length to the leopard, that's not how the leopard is built. You would determine the % difference between the Cheetah and Leopard in Body weight and add the % difference to the Cheetah's body measurements and that would give you a clearer idea of their comparison when both are on an even playing field for averages only.

Going off of this you can make the assumption that a leopard is going to have a much thicker neck and abdomen while a cheetah is going to be much taller, their chest girth and body length are fairly close.The leopard should also have thicker limbs and a heavier skull and thus the weight distribution is in the shoulder height for the Cheetah and the aforementioned areas for the leopard. Reply