|
Girth Comparaison of Animals
|
@Pckts :
About #131: I just took @P.T.Sondaica back when he told at #127 "I think we compare chest girth in same weight thats is right because thats is same size". What is size ? Weight, body dimensions thus length or shoulder height ? Initial condition: the tiger is a full adult tiger (Bengal or Amur tiger). If both (tiger and bear) have the same weight the tiger will be the longest and the bear will have the biggest chest girth. I only try to logically reason according to the morphology. If the bear, less long, weighs as much as the tiger, his body would seem to be more compact, i.e. bigger chest girth (and greater shoulder height). If both have the same length, so I suppose the bear would be a big Kodiak (or a very big grizzly) or polar bear. So, no use to contest that the ursid would have a noticeably greater chest girth. If both have the same shoulder height, we're in front of a small brown bear and then we could have a heavier tiger having a greater chest girth. So without wishing discriminate the tiger at all, in my mind a normally adult brown bear would have a greater chest girth than an adult tiger. I only wanted to answer to P.T.sondaica, absolutely not to add further confusion over the matter.  (04-11-2018, 05:41 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Pckts :1.If they are the same weight, the Tiger and Bear have similar chest girth. 2.That is generally the case, although the 260kg bear/tiger comparison have similar body length as well. "264kg Bear averages 137cm Chest vs 261kg Tiger at 140cm chest Both are at equal body length 196 v 197 (depending on the means of measuring the bear could be shorter or the tiger could be, or both) Post #106 "Bengals average 190 HBL and 130 Chest girth and shoulder height of 100 at BW average of 204kg vs Bears Average 196 HBL and 137 Chest Girth and Shoulder height of 115 at BW average of [b]264kg"[/b] [b]All from Post #106[/b] Remember, this comes down to morphology and measuring method. If you were to measure a bear and Tiger between the pegs, the Tiger should be longer, but if you were to measure a bear and Tiger over the curves, the bear should be longer or at least as long. This is due to a bears shoulder hump and rounded rump, both of which add mass to areas you don't see in big cats. Which is why you see a bear being thicker in its midsection compared to big cats having a Taper in their midsection. 3.Shoulder height wasn't used for comparison for some reason, but bears generally stand taller at the shoulder than big cats so that would be another comparison if one were inclined to use it. 
IF you wish to compare girth according to height, then we should use bipedal height. The grizzly has a lot more muscle upon his shoulders which are lacking on the tiger. Thus adding inches for the bear, making a shoulder-height usage for a comparison of girth void. Therefore, bipedal-height parity would be fair; such as seven-foot-tall tiger compared with seven-foot tall grizzly. Then compare chest girth.
*This image is copyright of its original author
(04-11-2018, 10:09 PM)brotherbear Wrote: IF you wish to compare girth according to height, then we should use bipedal height. The grizzly has a lot more muscle upon his shoulders which are lacking on the tiger. Thus adding inches for the bear, making a shoulder-height usage for a comparison of girth void. Therefore, bipedal-height parity would be fair; such as seven-foot-tall tiger compared with seven-foot tall grizzly. Then compare chest girth. You can't just look up "bipedal height" when looking for species data. Bipedal height has to do with standing on back legs, body length, posture and spine flexibility are very different on big cats compared to bears, shoulder height is more cut and dry. Hence why it's one of the 3 common body measurements used during capture. HBL, Shoulder Height and Weight are the 3 general measuring tools, more exact measurements consist of Limb, neck and body girth. (04-11-2018, 10:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:Yes; I know that. However, head-and-body-length is the proper method which you refuse due to the fact that the grizzly has the greater girth - due to the fact that you don't like the results.(04-11-2018, 10:09 PM)brotherbear Wrote: IF you wish to compare girth according to height, then we should use bipedal height. The grizzly has a lot more muscle upon his shoulders which are lacking on the tiger. Thus adding inches for the bear, making a shoulder-height usage for a comparison of girth void. Therefore, bipedal-height parity would be fair; such as seven-foot-tall tiger compared with seven-foot tall grizzly. Then compare chest girth. (04-11-2018, 10:18 PM)brotherbear Wrote:(04-11-2018, 10:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:Yes; I know that. However, head-and-body-length is the proper method which you refuse due to the fact that the grizzly has the greater girth - due to the fact that you don't like the results.(04-11-2018, 10:09 PM)brotherbear Wrote: IF you wish to compare girth according to height, then we should use bipedal height. The grizzly has a lot more muscle upon his shoulders which are lacking on the tiger. Thus adding inches for the bear, making a shoulder-height usage for a comparison of girth void. Therefore, bipedal-height parity would be fair; such as seven-foot-tall tiger compared with seven-foot tall grizzly. Then compare chest girth. "Refuse?" You need to get this idea out of your head, I am using lb for lb comparison because it's the only way to compare two different sized and shaped animals when looking for girth on an equal platform. There is no "I don't like results," stop twisting this. Polar and I had a discussion, you chimed in, we agree on the method and you don't like it. End of story.
You need to get this idea out of your head, I am using lb for lb comparison because it's the only way to compare two different sized and shaped animals when looking for girth on an equal platform.
Head-and-body length is an equal platform. The grizzly will prove to be heavier because he has the greater girth. By taking away his weight advantage, you are also removing his girth advantage over the tiger, thus making your weight-parity girth comparison void. Common sense. (04-11-2018, 10:40 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You need to get this idea out of your head, I am using lb for lb comparison because it's the only way to compare two different sized and shaped animals when looking for girth on an equal platform. I'm not going in circles with you, the data is there, the reason is there and explanations are all posted over and over again. I have no more patience for you and your petty insults. (04-11-2018, 05:41 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Pckts :Agree 100%
@Pckts :
About #137: Thank you for your explanations. I have never thought that we could measure the head and body length over the curves. OK, I noticed there were numerous accounts at the Carnivora forum about the measurement methods, but as nobody seems to be agree with nobody I was rather reluctant to read the different arguments... Laziness, I confess... But in this case, what I retain of your explanations is that the correlation index between weight and chest girth is very high because it remains quite valid when two morphologically differents animals of two differents classes, groups (felid and ursid in this case), are involved. In this case because of the shoulder humps and the rounded rump the bear's length makes quickly the tiger's length up. It makes a difference ! In this case too, I admit your observation "If they are the same weight, the Tiger and Bear have similar chest girth". I admit but I don't check it. In fact, despite the chest girth is the a length figure it depicts a volume. A volume like a weight (weight = volume X density).
So, in conclusion: what is the most proper logical way to compare the chest girth between tiger and grizzly?
 (04-12-2018, 01:42 AM)brotherbear Wrote: So, in conclusion: what is the most proper logical way to compare the chest girth between tiger and grizzly? By weight, they are simply two different animals in general. Although (thankfully), their measurements are very similar in few areas at similar weight. If you force it to be head-body length parity, you give an unfair advantage to the grizzly's chest girth and other girths. Force it to be shoulder height parity, unfair advantage to tiger in general. It just happens to be that a bear's weight parity matches more up to shoulder height parity than with length parity.
Polar says: If you force it to be head-body length parity, you give an unfair advantage to the grizzly's chest girth and other girths.
However; this is all about which animal has the greatest girth, which comparing at length-parity reveals. Yet, "some people" simply can't allow the grizzly to come out on top in this contest. 'Nuff said.
@
I will try to be clear, I can understand and conceive the @Pckts arguments. Indeed taking account the fact that the bear has a more undulating back than the tiger, the bear's body length catchs up and often begins to overtake the tiger's one. The chest girth multiplied by a length will give a volume, a three dimensionnal data index. If the body lengths are equal, the weights ensue directly from the chest girths. According to the animal you consider, if you increase the chest girth you increase the body length too. Pckts is right when he says at equal chest girth the weights will be equal too. In this approximate sketch the bear here is the biggest one.  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 33 Guest(s) |