There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(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 ofthe 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?