|
Girth Comparaison of Animals
|
@Spalea, pretty good roughsketch with good accuracy of the topic, but it looks more like stomach girth rather than chest girth (closer to the shoulders). Since bears are thickest at their core and tigers are kind of thickest between stomach and chest. Even the definition of "chest girth" should be considered here.
 (04-12-2018, 03:16 AM)Polar Wrote: @Spalea, pretty good roughsketch with good accuracy of the topic, but it looks more like stomach girth rather than chest girth (closer to the shoulders). Since bears are thickest at their core and tigers are kind of thickest between stomach and chest. Even the definition of "chest girth" should be considered here. Agree with you, as "chest girth" I just considered a cross section of the body among the others. But why the chest girth if considering a volume we have to take in account an average cross section girth of the body i.e. to average the cross section of the body between the beginning and the end of the back over the curves ? Thus why to retain the chest girth level ? Because of the capacity of the lungs ? Because of the ribcage width ? Or simply because the chest girth is a constant figure and doesn't vary according to the food digestion ? 
Is this the way animal head-and-body length is normally measured; over the curves? Consider that some of those curves are simply due to musculature. The proper way, I would think, to measure length is in a straight line. Would you measure along the curves to compare a Bactrian camel with a horse?
@
About #154: If you want to estimate an animal's weigth, you have to take into account the whole whole cross section of the body and the animal's length over the curves because the muscles structure intervenes in the cross section shape and in the body length. Put two same bipedal height men into a quadrupedal posture, the former with a desperately flat back, the latter more athletic back with undulating curves due to his more developped musculature. The muscles intervene as concerns a three dimensionnal size estimation. If they intervene as concerns the body cross section, they intervene too as concerns the body length. And yes you cannot deny that the camel's "unfolded back" is longer than the horse's more rectilinear back. Even if both animals seem to have the same body length.
Yeah, well, I believe that a grizzly just might have a tiger beat in girth at least by a few inches.
The California Grizzly - bear in mind - from the collections of the Bancroft Library: On a poster pictured in this book by P.T. Barnum: Great California Bear!! - Weighing 1988 Pounds! Standing 4 feet 6 inches in height; girth 4 feet around the neck, 7 feet around the body; and 14 inches between the ears. The Biggest Bear in America! The Bear Almanac by Gary Brown. Northern Montana, near Choteau: In May 2007 a 750-pound male grizzly bear was trapped ( for research ). Also very large for the spring, the bear, if it had gained normal weight, again considering its habitat and time of year, would have weighed 900 pounds by fall. With a length of 7 feet, 6 inches, 3.5 inch claws, and a 4-foot neck circumference, the bear is the second-largest grizzly recorded in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. http://www.bearbiology.com/wp-content/up..._Vol_4.pdf For purposes of comparison, skull dimensions were considered ultimate by 15 years of age and body measurements were considered ultimate by 10 years of age. The value for percentage of each ultimate body dimension was determined by dividing the mean size of each age-class by the mean value of the ultimate body size. For example, mean body length of 6-month-old females, 46.9 cm, divided by 123.4 cm, the mean size of the 10+-year-old (ultimate size) females, is 38 percent. The largest captured male (784) was 13 years and the largest captured female (825) was 15 years old. Differences in their respective sizes were as follows: weight, 390-275 kg; height at shoulder, 152-130 cm; total length, 264-228 cm; hind-foot length, 44-38 cm; neck circumference, 90-80 cm; chest girth, 159-157 cm; body length, 140-127 cm; skull length, 473-403 mm; and zygomatic width, 311-251 mm. When all measurements were combined, mean total body size of 5 males over 9 years of age was 19 percent larger and their mean body weight was 88 percent heavier than the sizes and weights of 25 females of comparable age. *Note: Grizzly boar: neck girth - 90 cm ( 35.43 inches ) - chest girth 159 cm ( 5 feet 3 inches ). *Note: Kodiak bears are bigger. books.google.com/books?id=1QVZFQu01KcC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=measuring+grizzly+bear+girth&source=bl&ots=N7rl0lxCm9&sig=qKd1K8wu4jnh4vH7gZp7FGOorvo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjoifL9tLTaAhUj6YMKHUhpBL44FBDoAQgrMAE#v=onepage&q=measuring%20grizzly%20bear%20girth&f=false This inland grizzly measured at neck girth 3 feet 11 inches and chest girth 5 feet 10.5 inches.
http://domainofthebears.proboards.com/th...ollTo=3076 unimak.us/Animals-large/brown_bear.html
Anderson (1909) obtained a bear, June 1, 1909, on Unimak Island, that weighed 1,325 pounds — the skin weighed 135 pounds. Anderson gives the height at shoulder as 48 inches ; height at hip, 3 feet 10 inches; girth back of shoulders, 10 feet; and width between ears, 14 inches. *Once again... girth back of shoulders, 10 feet. ( what would his chest girth be if measured properly around the shoulders? ). There are a large number of tiger enthusiasts here and I agree that the tiger is probably the greatest terrestrial predator on earth with the lion being his greatest competition. These big cats are the killers of giants. But, no big cat can compete with the grizzly ( Ursus arctos ) in girth. *Note: a Kodiak bear can stand nearly a foot ( 31 cm ) higher at the shoulders than this bear. What might be the chest girth of a Kodiak brown bear? (04-12-2018, 12:57 PM)Spalea Wrote: @ All this is understood. However, our "debate" is not about weight estimation. It is about a fair girth comparison between tiger and grizzly. It was once found in a similar topic in the old AVA that the head-and-body length ( in a straight line ) of big cats and bears is nearly identical to their bipedal height. For a fair comparison of chest girth, length should be used; like two men each standing six feet tall. Naturally, the animal with the greater girth is likely to be the heavier of the two. Weight comes with girth and it is girth that we are comparing. To shrink the grizzly down to tiger weight is to disqualify the bear from having a fair contest. Simple as that.
@brotherbear:
About #159: I'm agree with you, the chest girth doen't give a fair weight estimation. The weight is a 3D feature, like the volume. This 3D feature is, if not given, at least approached by the chest girth which uses to estimate the body cross section (2D feature i.e. a surface) and the, - 1d dimension/feature -, length over curves (sketch at#153). The fact that we have to use the length over curves favour the bear rather than the tiger, because as @Polar says the bear has a more rotund body. A shorter bear in straight line length could be in fact as long or even longer than a tiger by using the over curves length. And your datas confirm that.
...fair weight estimation?
...length over curves? ...what?
A shorter bear in straight line length could be in fact as long or even longer than a tiger by using the over curves length.
Why is everyone trying to cheat on this? Both tiger and bear should be measured from peg-to-peg in a straight line. Sure, they are built differently. This is understood. The comparison is to determine which predator has the greatest girth at equal head-and-body length which would pretty-much coincide with equal bipedal height. A fair comparison. Nothing unfair about this. Two different animals with completely different body structures compared equally.
Warsaw on CarnivoraForum has just released data supporting some of my claims; that at near-weight parity, a bear can (and probably most often does) have a very significant advantage in neck and chest girth. The bear is shorter than the tiger, height is probably the same and weight is close to the same (bear slightly lighter, actually). Limb girth is still an unsubstantiated claim, though, still need more data for that. Forget the height-length parity, even at similar weights the bear can easily dominate in girth.
So @Pckts is right about weight parity being a better form of measurement, @Spalea is right that even with mathematical and integration methods used, the bear has a much greater volume of weight (throughout its body length) since its curved back is longer than the tiger's straighter back, and @ Also, look at this post made by Warsaw back in December detailing girth measurements and body weights of brown bears in different areas of the planet: Warsaw2014's post.
Never-the-less; a head-and-body-length comparison is the truly-fair way for a girth comparison; which brings both the bear and the big cat to almost exact bipedal height also - completely totally fair. And the bear wins overwhelmingly. However, even if the lion or tiger had a greater girth measured in this way; that would not change my mind about what is and what is not fair. If the grizzly proves to have greater girth at weight parity, this simply shows us that the bear wins even when the contest is cheating in favor of the tiger.
(04-16-2018, 12:02 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Never-the-less; a head-and-body-length comparison is the truly-fair way for a girth comparison; which brings both the bear and the big cat to almost exact bipedal height also - completely totally fair. And the bear wins overwhelmingly. However, even if the lion or tiger had a greater girth measured in this way; that would not change my mind about what is and what is not fair. If the grizzly proves to have greater girth at weight parity, this simply shows us that the bear wins even when the contest is cheating in favor of the tiger. Then the bolded part may be correct... |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |