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.
(03-19-2017, 06:12 AM)Pckts Wrote: Once again, all weights have references, all you have to do is a little leg work on your end but you obviously don't want to nor will your opionion change. You asked, you were given ample evidence and that's where it ends.
That's fine if the other weights are correct, my opinion actually is that the tiger may very well be bigger, but the average joe can't just look up all those weights and verify them that you posted. I mean if you have the links that they go to, just post them for others to see. Because otherwise I have to be a little skeptical because you seem bias for one side, that's all I'm saying. But I have seen the 850 lb tiger debated before on youtube, and I can see the picture of the page that you posted showing that. But you also have to take into consideration that guy Sunquist who I guess is pretty professional or an expert, because he personally said he did not believe that weight was accurate, I saw the email posted on youtube. I don't have it on me, but I did see it, so I mean I'd believe that guy he's the expert.
So in retrospect, I think its pretty clear that was not an 800 lb tiger, it was probably much lower like 700 lbs and was a cattle killer.
If there are accounts showing other lions that killed cattle and reached weights over 700 and 800 lbs then both cats are tied for hitting the top weights in the wild. That was the argument I saw being debated on youtube, it was that there weight is actually pretty equal, the tiger really isn't heavier. But again it still could be bigger, but possibly not heavier. You have to make an exception for cattle killing lions and tigers, because they can gain so much added pounds from that and also hit very high weights on the day they're weighed.
It would also be interesting to know whether some of the Manchurian tigers you're listing had also been feasting on cattle, I mean we just see the weight but we don't know the scenario around it. I did also see a post of a 900 lb wild lion, I believe it was killed by Daniel Boone, I would have to try to find it. There was also a totally verified lion named Brutus that was 900lbs and also 870 raised in captivity but caught in the wild. I would like to know if again you guys have a captive tiger that is over 900 lbs and not neutered. I think also that the Siberian tigers would be heavier with added weight for fat storage in colder weather, this could also be true for the Manchurian tigers as I think its pretty cold there right?
Guys guys..Neither this lion looks like it's 313kg (±250, msybe) without a huuuuuge tumor in its belly...
*This image is copyright of its original author
Nor does this tiger looks to be 389kg (289..At best) without an adamantium skeleton...
*This image is copyright of its original author
Any extra weight is from all the BS they added..Why are we even still presenting hunter records??!!!
I think that's a great point, and that was the whole argument that I ran into on youtube. That if you only compare weights measured by scientist only, the tiger is not heavier than the lion. I'm citing other people obviously because I do not have this data, but some of these posters were saying they are 100% sure of this. But its also quite possible with some of these high weights that eating the cattle could certainly help that, as the article said Schaller stated the cat can eat up to 140 lbs in one sitting. So if that cat is frequently eating cattle for much of its life, or during the time that its weighed, than its quite feasible it could be storing up quite a bit of fat and added pounds over time. Ive also seen the argument used that the tigers stomach is larger and longer, and I do notice that in a lot of side by side pic comparisons digitally, the tigers do seem to at least visually show a larger lower hanging stomach and longer. They seem longer too.
03-19-2017, 09:44 AM( This post was last modified: 06-09-2017, 09:31 PM by Rishi )
(03-19-2017, 08:17 AM)Haymaker Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 07:44 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 07:04 AM)Haymaker Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 06:12 AM)Pckts Wrote: Once again, all weights have references, all you have to do is a little leg work on your end but you obviously don't want to nor will your opionion change. You asked, you were given ample evidence and that's where it ends.
That's fine if the other weights are correct, my opinion actually is that the tiger may very well be bigger, but the average joe can't just look up all those weights and verify them that you posted. I mean if you have the links that they go to, just post them for others to see. Because otherwise I have to be a little skeptical because you seem bias for one side, that's all I'm saying. But I have seen the 850 lb tiger debated before on youtube, and I can see the picture of the page that you posted showing that. But you also have to take into consideration that guy Sunquist who I guess is pretty professional or an expert, because he personally said he did not believe that weight was accurate, I saw the email posted on youtube. I don't have it on me, but I did see it, so I mean I'd believe that guy he's the expert.
So in retrospect, I think its pretty clear that was not an 800 lb tiger, it was probably much lower like 700 lbs and was a cattle killer.
If there are accounts showing other lions that killed cattle and reached weights over 700 and 800 lbs then both cats are tied for hitting the top weights in the wild. That was the argument I saw being debated on youtube, it was that there weight is actually pretty equal, the tiger really isn't heavier. But again it still could be bigger, but possibly not heavier. You have to make an exception for cattle killing lions and tigers, because they can gain so much added pounds from that and also hit very high weights on the day they're weighed.
It would also be interesting to know whether some of the Manchurian tigers you're listing had also been feasting on cattle, I mean we just see the weight but we don't know the scenario around it. I did also see a post of a 900 lb wild lion, I believe it was killed by Daniel Boone, I would have to try to find it. There was also a totally verified lion named Brutus that was 900lbs and also 870 raised in captivity but caught in the wild. I would like to know if again you guys have a captive tiger that is over 900 lbs and not neutered. I think also that the Siberian tigers would be heavier with added weight for fat storage in colder weather, this could also be true for the Manchurian tigers as I think its pretty cold there right?
Guys guys..Neither this lion looks like it's 313kg (±250, msybe) without a huuuuuge tumor in its belly...
*This image is copyright of its original author
Nor does this tiger looks to be 389kg (289..At best) without an adamantium skeleton...
*This image is copyright of its original author
Any extra weight is from all the BS they added..Why are we even still presenting hunter records??!!!
I think that's a great point, and that was the whole argument that I ran into on youtube. That if you only compare weights measured by scientist only, the tiger is not heavier than the lion. I'm citing other people obviously because I do not have this data, but some of these posters were saying they are 100% sure of this. But its also quite possible with some of these high weights that eating the cattle could certainly help that, as the article said Schaller stated the cat can eat up to 140 lbs in one sitting. So if that cat is frequently eating cattle for much of its life, or during the time that its weighed, than its quite feasible it could be storing up quite a bit of fat and added pounds over time. Ive also seen the argument used that the tigers stomach is larger and longer, and I do notice that in a lot of side by side pic comparisons digitally, the tigers do seem to at least visually show a larger lower hanging stomach and longer. They seem longer too.
See, size-wise SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH recorded the heaviest tiger (A Bengal) bottoming a 600lbs, or 272.155422 kg scale (Sunquist) & the heaviest lion was scaled at 270kg (Koch)... In both cases the puny ones average about ±150kilos. Therefore, the MEAN WEIGHT, ie, [(Highest+Lowest)/2] remains similar.
However, the AVERAGE WEIGHT, or [Mass1+Mass2+Mass3...MassN ->(N being net no. of samples)/n] for African lions remains much lower at ~200kg & Bengal tigers at ~221.5 kg
Check these average-unimpressive specimens, matched by ear & paw sizes (ignore 1st tiger's belly flap)...They might be SIMILARLY SIZED, but cover the lion's mane part & you'll feel the difference.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Even though there are like 20000 lions & only 2000 tigers, the probability of finding a 250kg tiger (fairly common amongst dominant males established from the measurements) is much higher than a lion (no known SCIENTIFICALLY WEIGHED specimen have been found to criss the mark, largest was 253kg empty)...
*This image is copyright of its original author
Sunquist, Karanth, Chundawat, Koch (Pckts can confirm) all have recorded multiple 250kg+ males!!!..
PS: The figures @Pckts provided you are mostly confirmed (screenshots of the emails to Chundawat about Madla being 250kg+ & Khandal about Ustad weighing 240kgs were posted on Wildfact) Some were gathered from expert's interviews & books.
Like there was an article in "Sanctuary Asia" on ST3 when he migrated out of Ranthambore & was finally captured & transferred to Sariska..He was weighed in the process & a figure of "almost 250kilos was stated".
Now, i didn't scan & keep it to convince some random guy on FB or YouTube..I don't care what he thinks, does it even matter??!!!
PPS: Please don't quote me anymore, I would love to move on.
So then which do you think is heavier scientifically, still the tiger, or maybe its pretty even. Do the scientific measurements also say the tiger is longer, because that's also what Ive wondered a lot people think that. I'm thinking pound for pound same length the tiger isn't heavier.
03-19-2017, 11:34 AM( This post was last modified: 03-19-2017, 11:51 AM by Haymaker )
(03-19-2017, 10:52 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 10:40 AM)Haymaker Wrote: So then which do you think is heavier scientifically, still the tiger, or maybe its pretty even. Do the scientific measurements also say the tiger is longer, because that's also what Ive wondered a lot people think that. I'm thinking pound for pound same length the tiger isn't heavier.
I think, that the size-difference aint that distinct & overlaps, while the stature-difference is more so... (See pics in last post)
My opinion on weight, i explained thouroughly in the previous post.
Ok, well let me ask you this, do you guys have any records of captive Siberians or tigers weighing over 900 lbs, that are proven to be not neutered? And I ask that because Ive seen guys posting 1000lb Siberians like its normal, and honestly most are not verified and some look exceptional fat and neutered. I know one verified 900 lb lion that was officially weighed in court, not neutered. Several others exist but hard to verify them.
Just ran into this quote from a poster on another site,
"The source on the 857 lb tiger showed it had fed on a half grown buffalo. Not sure if the lion was gorged or not, and it is unwise to assume. But....it was never indicated, anyways. The 313 kg lion was weighed several times as evidence to the great weight. The tiger wasn`t.....even the Smithsonian Data Manager, Craig Ludwig, who sent me the document on the 857 lb tiger indicated he doubts this is an authentic 857 lb, even if with a heavy meal in his stomach. Over 200 lbs heavier than any of the other tigers in the area at the time. Craig doubts the reliability of the scale.
Many lions were recorded at 250 kg or more. I can think of 3 or 4 272 kg lions off the top of my head, from reliable sources."
(03-19-2017, 10:40 AM)Haymaker Wrote: So then which do you think is heavier scientifically, still the tiger, or maybe its pretty even. Do the scientific measurements also say the tiger is longer, because that's also what Ive wondered a lot people think that. I'm thinking pound for pound same length the tiger isn't heavier.
I think, that the size-difference aint that distinct & overlaps, while the stature-difference is more so... (See pics in last post)
My opinion on weight, i explained thouroughly in the previous post.
Ok, well let me ask you this, do you guys have any records of captive Siberians or tigers weighing over 900 lbs, that are proven to be not neutered? And I ask that because Ive seen guys posting 1000lb Siberians like its normal, and honestly most are not verified and some look exceptional fat and neutered. I know one verified 900 lb lion that was officially weighed in court, not neutered. Several others exist but hard to verify them.
Just ran into this quote from a poster on another site,
"The source on the 857 lb tiger showed it had fed on a half grown buffalo. Not sure if the lion was gorged or not, and it is unwise to assume. But....it was never indicated, anyways. The 313 kg lion was weighed several times as evidence to the great weight. The tiger wasn`t.....even the Smithsonian Data Manager, Craig Ludwig, who sent me the document on the 857 lb tiger indicated he doubts this is an authentic 857 lb, even if with a heavy meal in his stomach. Over 200 lbs heavier than any of the other tigers in the area at the time. Craig doubts the reliability of the scale.
Many lions were recorded at 250 kg or more. I can think of 3 or 4 272 kg lions off the top of my head, from reliable sources."
I neither know, nor care about the size zoo-bred over-fed "tigers" & "lions" that are more suitable for hibernating than hunting... ARE YOU NOT READING MY ANSWERS & MAKING THE SAME STATEMENTS OVER & OVER??!!! About the "313kg lion" & "389kg tiger" READ POST #92...(Screw being the largest-ever-recorded, those two look barely ABOVE AVERAGE)
Decades old hunter records "confirmed" by his friends & guide or some villagers, don't count..I'm sure if you ask some SouthAfrican trigger-happy hunters you will hear about many 600lbs lions. Hunter data state tigers ranging from 300-400kgs..I neither buy, nor sell that crap.
Do those gigantic 300kg lions & tigers go to hiding, when they see any scientist with some credibility (or doctorate) approach??!!! 20000 is a pretty large gene-pool, they should still be there.
Feel free to tell me about those SCIENTIFICALLY RECORDED 3-4 lions of 270kg measured by Dr. Who-When-Where, i'll do my own research. (Yes, they sometimes reach 250kg maybe, READ #94) I LOVE NEW INFO!!!..
Because you're kind of missing my whole point, the school of thought is that the Siberian is bigger, yet its not bigger now in the wild because there is less of them right? Well what about when there was more of them. And are they bigger in captivity, because of the amount of them. There's more lions in the wild, yet there is more tigers than lions in captivity, and there is more Siberian mixed breeds than there is of large lion breeds. So that is sort of what I'm saying, if its proven the Siberian is bigger in captivity than the Bengal or lion, than that would prove it not bigger in the wild because of the decrease of population. So would some of those Manchurian 700lb tigers be accurate? I don't know, I think its possible if you could find a healthy Siberian in captivity that really weighs more than the other tigers and is not over fed and proves to be longer and taller. Ive seen few, they did seem big, but it was true that they did not weigh 700 lbs. I think there is also the question of fat storage as well, do these colder weather tigers have a greater propensity to store more weight and fat to keep them warm than a lion? I think that would have to be true, which again could up that weight tally. I also have seen evidence that bigcats that live in higher numbers can get less meat on a given day than a solitary tiger or two lions living together.
The other thing we'd have to look into as well, is what is the oldest scientific weights of tigers recorded, I mean how far does it go back, because some of the hunters records go back when the population was much higher obviously so there'd be a greater chance to hit a higher weight. But I agree, that is suspect, 2,000 cats weighed and they never found one at 700 lbs.
03-20-2017, 04:27 AM( This post was last modified: 03-20-2017, 05:09 AM by Rishi )
(03-19-2017, 09:31 PM)Haymaker Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 12:44 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 11:34 AM)Haymaker Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 10:52 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 10:40 AM)Haymaker Wrote: So then which do you think is heavier scientifically, still the tiger, or maybe its pretty even. Do the scientific measurements also say the tiger is longer, because that's also what Ive wondered a lot people think that. I'm thinking pound for pound same length the tiger isn't heavier.
I think, that the size-difference aint that distinct & overlaps, while the stature-difference is more so... (See pics in last post)
My opinion on weight, i explained thouroughly in the previous post.
Ok, well let me ask you this, do you guys have any records of captive Siberians or tigers weighing over 900 lbs, that are proven to be not neutered? And I ask that because Ive seen guys posting 1000lb Siberians like its normal, and honestly most are not verified and some look exceptional fat and neutered. I know one verified 900 lb lion that was officially weighed in court, not neutered. Several others exist but hard to verify them.
Just ran into this quote from a poster on another site,
"The source on the 857 lb tiger showed it had fed on a half grown buffalo. Not sure if the lion was gorged or not, and it is unwise to assume. But....it was never indicated, anyways. The 313 kg lion was weighed several times as evidence to the great weight. The tiger wasn`t.....even the Smithsonian Data Manager, Craig Ludwig, who sent me the document on the 857 lb tiger indicated he doubts this is an authentic 857 lb, even if with a heavy meal in his stomach. Over 200 lbs heavier than any of the other tigers in the area at the time. Craig doubts the reliability of the scale.
Many lions were recorded at 250 kg or more. I can think of 3 or 4 272 kg lions off the top of my head, from reliable sources."
I neither know, nor care about the size zoo-bred over-fed "tigers" & "lions" that are more suitable for hibernating than hunting... ARE YOU NOT READING MY ANSWERS & MAKING THE SAME STATEMENTS OVER & OVER??!!! About the "313kg lion" & "389kg tiger" READ POST #92...(Screw being the largest-ever-recorded, those two look barely ABOVE AVERAGE)
Decades old hunter records "confirmed" by his friends & guide or some villagers, don't count..I'm sure if you ask some SouthAfrican trigger-happy hunters you will hear about many 600lbs lions. Hunter data state tigers ranging from 300-400kgs..I neither buy, nor sell that crap.
Do those gigantic 300kg lions & tigers go to hiding, when they see any scientist with some credibility (or doctorate) approach??!!! 20000 is a pretty large gene-pool, they should still be there.
Feel free to tell me about those SCIENTIFICALLY RECORDED 3-4 lions of 270kg measured by Dr. Who-When-Where, i'll do my own research. (Yes, they sometimes reach 250kg maybe, READ #94) I LOVE NEW INFO!!!..
Because you're kind of missing my whole point, the school of thought is that the Siberian is bigger, yet its not bigger now in the wild because there is less of them right? Well what about when there was more of them. And are they bigger in captivity, because of the amount of them. There's more lions in the wild, yet there is more tigers than lions in captivity, and there is more Siberian mixed breeds than there is of large lion breeds. So that is sort of what I'm saying, if its proven the Siberian is bigger in captivity than the Bengal or lion, than that would prove it not bigger in the wild because of the decrease of population. So would some of those Manchurian 700lb tigers be accurate? I don't know, I think its possible if you could find a healthy Siberian in captivity that really weighs more than the other tigers and is not over fed and proves to be longer and taller. Ive seen few, they did seem big, but it was true that they did not weigh 700 lbs. I think there is also the question of fat storage as well, do these colder weather tigers have a greater propensity to store more weight and fat to keep them warm than a lion? I think that would have to be true, which again could up that weight tally. I also have seen evidence that bigcats that live in higher numbers can get less meat on a given day than a solitary tiger or two lions living together.
The other thing we'd have to look into as well, is what is the oldest scientific weights of tigers recorded, I mean how far does it go back, because some of the hunters records go back when the population was much higher obviously so there'd be a greater chance to hit a higher weight. But I agree, that is suspect, 2,000 cats weighed and they never found one at 700 lbs.
No..I get your point!!! I really don't care...
That is the essence of scientific study..
Up until a few years ago, even scientists used to think that male tigers play no role in rearing of cubs... Look what has happened to that "school of thoughts" NOW!!!!!!!!
Similarly Siberians were quoted largest just cuz they look fat & fluffy...Scientific study later proved Bengals are similar in stature..
I maintain..............Siberians don't grow larger because of the harsh condition they survive in...But their bodies have evolved to utilise every ounce of nutrition to the fullest!!! That why they grow so obscenely in captivity & were recorded that large in the wild only by hunters, not scientists.
Just like Asiatic lions (whose population ALSO increased from <50 to >500)CAN grow a Barbary-like mane in European zoos, but DOESN'T in the wild (All in captivity were captured & gifted by India govt. after 1950)...
Unlike them, African lions have a huge genepool of 20k...Why are the 270kg lions not being recorded regularly anymore, but the 225-240kg ones are??!!!
Now science allows you to maintain something else...& others to disagree Whatever the REAL truth is, it will continue to remain the same irrespective of what a few puny Earthlings believe!!!!!
(03-19-2017, 10:40 AM)Haymaker Wrote: So then which do you think is heavier scientifically, still the tiger, or maybe its pretty even. Do the scientific measurements also say the tiger is longer, because that's also what Ive wondered a lot people think that. I'm thinking pound for pound same length the tiger isn't heavier.
I think, that the size-difference aint that distinct & overlaps, while the stature-difference is more so... (See pics in last post)
My opinion on weight, i explained thouroughly in the previous post.
Ok, well let me ask you this, do you guys have any records of captive Siberians or tigers weighing over 900 lbs, that are proven to be not neutered? And I ask that because Ive seen guys posting 1000lb Siberians like its normal, and honestly most are not verified and some look exceptional fat and neutered. I know one verified 900 lb lion that was officially weighed in court, not neutered. Several others exist but hard to verify them.
Just ran into this quote from a poster on another site,
"The source on the 857 lb tiger showed it had fed on a half grown buffalo. Not sure if the lion was gorged or not, and it is unwise to assume. But....it was never indicated, anyways. The 313 kg lion was weighed several times as evidence to the great weight. The tiger wasn`t.....even the Smithsonian Data Manager, Craig Ludwig, who sent me the document on the 857 lb tiger indicated he doubts this is an authentic 857 lb, even if with a heavy meal in his stomach. Over 200 lbs heavier than any of the other tigers in the area at the time. Craig doubts the reliability of the scale.
Many lions were recorded at 250 kg or more. I can think of 3 or 4 272 kg lions off the top of my head, from reliable sources."
I neither know, nor care about the size zoo-bred over-fed "tigers" & "lions" that are more suitable for hibernating than hunting... ARE YOU NOT READING MY ANSWERS & MAKING THE SAME STATEMENTS OVER & OVER??!!! About the "313kg lion" & "389kg tiger" READ POST #92...(Screw being the largest-ever-recorded, those two look barely ABOVE AVERAGE)
Decades old hunter records "confirmed" by his friends & guide or some villagers, don't count..I'm sure if you ask some SouthAfrican trigger-happy hunters you will hear about many 600lbs lions. Hunter data state tigers ranging from 300-400kgs..I neither buy, nor sell that crap.
Do those gigantic 300kg lions & tigers go to hiding, when they see any scientist with some credibility (or doctorate) approach??!!! 20000 is a pretty large gene-pool, they should still be there.
Feel free to tell me about those SCIENTIFICALLY RECORDED 3-4 lions of 270kg measured by Dr. Who-When-Where, i'll do my own research. (Yes, they sometimes reach 250kg maybe, READ #94) I LOVE NEW INFO!!!..
Because you're kind of missing my whole point, the school of thought is that the Siberian is bigger, yet its not bigger now in the wild because there is less of them right? Well what about when there was more of them. And are they bigger in captivity, because of the amount of them. There's more lions in the wild, yet there is more tigers than lions in captivity, and there is more Siberian mixed breeds than there is of large lion breeds. So that is sort of what I'm saying, if its proven the Siberian is bigger in captivity than the Bengal or lion, than that would prove it not bigger in the wild because of the decrease of population. So would some of those Manchurian 700lb tigers be accurate? I don't know, I think its possible if you could find a healthy Siberian in captivity that really weighs more than the other tigers and is not over fed and proves to be longer and taller. Ive seen few, they did seem big, but it was true that they did not weigh 700 lbs. I think there is also the question of fat storage as well, do these colder weather tigers have a greater propensity to store more weight and fat to keep them warm than a lion? I think that would have to be true, which again could up that weight tally. I also have seen evidence that bigcats that live in higher numbers can get less meat on a given day than a solitary tiger or two lions living together.
The other thing we'd have to look into as well, is what is the oldest scientific weights of tigers recorded, I mean how far does it go back, because some of the hunters records go back when the population was much higher obviously so there'd be a greater chance to hit a higher weight. But I agree, that is suspect, 2,000 cats weighed and they never found one at 700 lbs.
No..I get your point!!! I really don't care...
That is the essence of scientific study..
Up until a few years ago, even scientists used to think that male tigers play no role in rearing of cubs... Look what has happened to that "school of thoughts" NOW!!!!!!!!
Similarly Siberians were quoted largest just cuz they look fat & fluffy...Scientific study later proved Bengals are similar in stature..
I maintain..............Siberians don't grow larger because of the harsh condition they survive in...But their bodies have evolved to utilise every ounce of nutrition to the fullest!!! That why they grow so obscenely in captivity.
Just like Asiatic lions CAN grow a Barbary like mane in European zoos, but DOESN'T in the wild (All in captivity were captured & gifted by India govt. after 1950)...
Now science allows you to maintain something else...& others to disagree Whatever the REAL truth is, it will continue to remain the same irrespective of what a few puny Earthlings believe!!!!!
Well that's interesting because Ive never heard that theory before, at the same time perhaps Siberians grow faster and reach maturity as well quicker than a lion. I thought I heard that or saw that somewhere a 3 year old Siberian looking practically full grow. You must agree though that animal has to be able to develop insulation to withstand temperatures going far below zero. This has to give the Siberian a much greater weight advantage with so much stored fat. But again I don't know the science behind it, do Siberians in warmer climates store as much fat, or is it only when they are living in a colder climate. I know in the States in colder places the tigers will get a very thick fur coat, and the lions will never really get that much thicker in the fur.
03-20-2017, 06:11 AM( This post was last modified: 03-20-2017, 06:14 AM by Haymaker )
(03-20-2017, 05:31 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 05:06 AM)Haymaker Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 04:27 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 09:31 PM)Haymaker Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 12:44 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 11:34 AM)Haymaker Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 10:52 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(03-19-2017, 10:40 AM)Haymaker Wrote: So then which do you think is heavier scientifically, still the tiger, or maybe its pretty even. Do the scientific measurements also say the tiger is longer, because that's also what Ive wondered a lot people think that. I'm thinking pound for pound same length the tiger isn't heavier.
I think, that the size-difference aint that distinct & overlaps, while the stature-difference is more so... (See pics in last post)
My opinion on weight, i explained thouroughly in the previous post.
Ok, well let me ask you this, do you guys have any records of captive Siberians or tigers weighing over 900 lbs, that are proven to be not neutered? And I ask that because Ive seen guys posting 1000lb Siberians like its normal, and honestly most are not verified and some look exceptional fat and neutered. I know one verified 900 lb lion that was officially weighed in court, not neutered. Several others exist but hard to verify them.
Just ran into this quote from a poster on another site,
"The source on the 857 lb tiger showed it had fed on a half grown buffalo. Not sure if the lion was gorged or not, and it is unwise to assume. But....it was never indicated, anyways. The 313 kg lion was weighed several times as evidence to the great weight. The tiger wasn`t.....even the Smithsonian Data Manager, Craig Ludwig, who sent me the document on the 857 lb tiger indicated he doubts this is an authentic 857 lb, even if with a heavy meal in his stomach. Over 200 lbs heavier than any of the other tigers in the area at the time. Craig doubts the reliability of the scale.
Many lions were recorded at 250 kg or more. I can think of 3 or 4 272 kg lions off the top of my head, from reliable sources."
I neither know, nor care about the size zoo-bred over-fed "tigers" & "lions" that are more suitable for hibernating than hunting... ARE YOU NOT READING MY ANSWERS & MAKING THE SAME STATEMENTS OVER & OVER??!!! About the "313kg lion" & "389kg tiger" READ POST #92...(Screw being the largest-ever-recorded, those two look barely ABOVE AVERAGE)
Decades old hunter records "confirmed" by his friends & guide or some villagers, don't count..I'm sure if you ask some SouthAfrican trigger-happy hunters you will hear about many 600lbs lions. Hunter data state tigers ranging from 300-400kgs..I neither buy, nor sell that crap.
Do those gigantic 300kg lions & tigers go to hiding, when they see any scientist with some credibility (or doctorate) approach??!!! 20000 is a pretty large gene-pool, they should still be there.
Feel free to tell me about those SCIENTIFICALLY RECORDED 3-4 lions of 270kg measured by Dr. Who-When-Where, i'll do my own research. (Yes, they sometimes reach 250kg maybe, READ #94) I LOVE NEW INFO!!!..
Because you're kind of missing my whole point, the school of thought is that the Siberian is bigger, yet its not bigger now in the wild because there is less of them right? Well what about when there was more of them. And are they bigger in captivity, because of the amount of them. There's more lions in the wild, yet there is more tigers than lions in captivity, and there is more Siberian mixed breeds than there is of large lion breeds. So that is sort of what I'm saying, if its proven the Siberian is bigger in captivity than the Bengal or lion, than that would prove it not bigger in the wild because of the decrease of population. So would some of those Manchurian 700lb tigers be accurate? I don't know, I think its possible if you could find a healthy Siberian in captivity that really weighs more than the other tigers and is not over fed and proves to be longer and taller. Ive seen few, they did seem big, but it was true that they did not weigh 700 lbs. I think there is also the question of fat storage as well, do these colder weather tigers have a greater propensity to store more weight and fat to keep them warm than a lion? I think that would have to be true, which again could up that weight tally. I also have seen evidence that bigcats that live in higher numbers can get less meat on a given day than a solitary tiger or two lions living together.
The other thing we'd have to look into as well, is what is the oldest scientific weights of tigers recorded, I mean how far does it go back, because some of the hunters records go back when the population was much higher obviously so there'd be a greater chance to hit a higher weight. But I agree, that is suspect, 2,000 cats weighed and they never found one at 700 lbs.
No..I get your point!!! I really don't care...
That is the essence of scientific study..
Up until a few years ago, even scientists used to think that male tigers play no role in rearing of cubs... Look what has happened to that "school of thoughts" NOW!!!!!!!!
Similarly Siberians were quoted largest just cuz they look fat & fluffy...Scientific study later proved Bengals are similar in stature..
I maintain..............Siberians don't grow larger because of the harsh condition they survive in...But their bodies have evolved to utilise every ounce of nutrition to the fullest!!! That why they grow so obscenely in captivity.
Just like Asiatic lions CAN grow a Barbary like mane in European zoos, but DOESN'T in the wild (All in captivity were captured & gifted by India govt. after 1950)...
Now science allows you to maintain something else...& others to disagree Whatever the REAL truth is, it will continue to remain the same irrespective of what a few puny Earthlings believe!!!!!
Well that's interesting because Ive never heard that theory before, at the same time perhaps Siberians grow faster and reach maturity as well quicker than a lion. I thought I heard that or saw that somewhere a 3 year old Siberian looking practically full grow. You must agree though that animal has to be able to develop insulation to withstand temperatures going far below zero. This has to give the Siberian a much greater weight advantage with so much stored fat. But again I don't know the science behind it, do Siberians in warmer climates store as much fat, or is it only when they are living in a colder climate. I know in the States in colder places the tigers will get a very thick fur coat, and the lions will never really get that much thicker in the fur.
What theory!?.. Siberians grow larger in captivity?!
I have seen orphaned Siberian cubs in taken into captivity in at least 3 seperate documentories...All looked larger (&fatter) than wild ones.
Thus, it's probably not about loss of genes, that's why I have the Asiatic lion example (their numbers also rebounded from <50 to >500)...
Yes, a 250kg Amur should weigh 270kg in winter... (I confess of having no knowledge whether the tigers weighed in winter were found to be heavier)
Also... I'm not sure if similarly a same-sized Amur will be heavier than the Bengal counterpart..Bengals lead a much easier life of luxury!!!..
I just never heard that before, but its interesting I wonder if anyone else would back that up on here. As far as strength, would you say the Siberian tigers are no stronger than the Bengals, just larger, but for their size aren't actually thicker in the arms and muscles. I recall hearing something about the Siberian's needing bigger paws to get through the snow and larger arm muscles to be able to aid with that. At the same time Ive heard that Siberians when they lose their winter coats in the summers in captivity, they look to have a very similar build to any tiger, even thin looking. So its difficult to figure out, because for sure bears when they have the added layers of fat on them in the fall, they look absolutely huge and powerful. You see them in the summer and they can look scrawny. And I think that's what's different about the lions, they seem to be a hot weather animal, they never have those layers of fat on them, or thicker fur, its pretty much just the frame and anatomy on there. And often I think its difficult to see a lot of the strength in the lion because the mane covers those areas.
03-20-2017, 09:08 AM( This post was last modified: 03-20-2017, 09:15 AM by sanjay )
@Haymaker
You have chosen a preference, No matter what one will say, you have points to question it again. And therefore stretching the discussion unnecessarily here. Creating same type of post again and again will not add any value.
Its an unofficial warning to you. Please do not creats unnecessary arguments here. Your posts are derailing the thread and hence degrading the quality of forum.
Edit:
Rishi and Haymaker
Do not quotes post entirely which are just 1 or 2 post above. Its making the thread unnecessarily long. Please avoid it
(03-20-2017, 09:08 AM)sanjay Wrote: @Haymaker
You have chosen a preference, No matter what one will say, you have points to question it again. And therefore stretching the discussion unnecessarily here. Creating same type of post again and again will not add any value.
Its an unofficial warning to you. Please do not creats unnecessary arguments here. Your posts are derailing the thread and hence degrading the quality of forum.
Edit:
Rishi and Haymaker
Do not quotes post entirely which are just 1 or 2 post above. Its making the thread unnecessarily long. Please avoid it
Ahh no I don't have a preference, unless the person I'm talking to does, which that would be the opposing side, as to make sure its real data being given, and not bias. Because its difficult to believe any data, at it has to be scrutinized, and all of it looked over from un biased eyes. But as far as the Siberian growing larger and faster, that's interesting info, so I gained something I hadn't heard before.
(03-20-2017, 11:10 PM)Rishi Wrote: @Haymaker See the thing is..You are simply throwing questions, assumptions & statements...(I'm still waiting on just NAME of the scientist who measured 600lb lions) While I was replying out of courtesy (which I doubt you are even reading), noone is here to educate someone else.. This is not FB or YouTube comment section, that people would debate to convince the "opponents" to accept their opinions...
Finally..Whatever queries you have presented till now, explanations to them are already there, with proper sources in previous posts of Wildfact!!! Go through those thread links i provided you & don't just keep asking...
Nobody's gonna surf through older posts to find & present the data b4 you!!!
I'm just looking for concrete proof, it would not just be on youtube or some other site, most people I bet on this site would say the tiger is a heavier weight, or the tigers bigger. But what I saw on youtube from a few guys or it was one in particular was a different argument, and that was the argument of scientific weights only. Again I had not seen that argument before till I saw it being made on youtube. I talked to the poster, and he gave actual sources for the info and data. If someone says something on here, they should give the actual source proving it, because the person compiling data on this site or any site could be showing data from a slanted view point that favors one side or the other.
As far as the captive Siberian weights, I was interested in that, because it could potentially prove that the Siberian is bigger, which Ive always thought they are, but I don't know if they're stronger, that I'm not sure. I saw this debated, and several tiger fans were even bringing up a trainer Clyde Beatty who stated the Siberians are larger in his act than the Bengals. The response from the lion fan was well but it doesn't mean Beatty knew the exact weight of that tiger. At the same time some guys had posted proof that this trainer said the lion is a little heavier on average than the average Bengal, which is interesting. The later quotes show this trainer stated the lion is heavier in its front section and neck, but its total weight is not that much greater on the average than the tiger.
Ive also seen the food intake argument debated and a whole report written up by a guy named Brent. I think from what you can see, its possible at times and likely that many wild Bengals are gorging themselves, because I looked a recent clip of that tiger Wagdog, and it looks to be a large tiger as people are saying one of the biggest, but for sure it has a huge full stomach in the video, almost looks like a snake that ate something larger than itself walking around. Now I think its important to realize here, a trainer like Beatty or anyone else who has a lot of cats, he can never feed one individually till it gorges itself, all of his cats are going to get just the adequate amount of daily recommended allowance. Yet in the wild, they can eat as much as the want or gorge themselves in one sitting because no ones paying for the prey or the chickens. Likewise, I think we can figure out the real weights of captive Siberians if we go to and talk to trusted places that have many cats like Bigcat zoos, in these places they often cannot over feed them and they have to rescue then and adhere by strict guidelines as to how to feed them. In several of these noted places, its true that they don't say their Siberian tigers weigh 800 lbs, or even 700 lbs that much. But does the lager animal weight more, I think logically has to if its bigger or longer.
I recent post I saw someone make on here was from the Black Jaguar and white tiger place. This guys lions are 500 lbs and over. None of the tigers there are that heavy. If you check the Instagram pics, the lion's don't look super huge but they look pretty thick.
A found another place I saw recently that was posted on youtube, showed a neutered lion that was said to be over 600 lbs. It died recently, but the place Safe haven stated the lion was the largest and heaviest cat at the facility. What this means is that none of the tigers there weighed 600 lb or over, and there is quite a few tigers there, Siberians as well.
This lion kovu was past its prime, it died not long after these pics were taken, but still I think its quite evident it looks immensely strong in the fore-quarters as many people believe, this is pretty evident without the mane covering it. As someone that is into fighting and the Marital arts, I think its apparent that when sizing up an opponent you look at the whole opponent's physique, in a real fight every area of your body must be trained and worked out so that it can become a weapon. I agree the tigers seem more cut in the arms, or more muscular, but in looking at some lions, I think its quite clear the sum of the lions frame seems to show forth a stronger build.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Apparently that log there, they said the keepers could hardly move it, but the lion moved it with little ease.
*This image is copyright of its original author
It really helps to see the whole shoulder anatomy, and you can see the considerable size and muscularity of it without the mane covering it here.
Just wanted to mention this video. The male lion was shaved because of a vaccination . Looks totally diffent in his appearance without the main . You can actually see his build. Might be interesting for the people who like to do comparisons
(01-04-2017, 01:27 AM)tigerluver Wrote: After what seems like a lifetimes...
*This image is copyright of its original author
Hope the quality makes up for the wait, @brotherbear .
Throughout history?? What happen to the South American Short Face Bear aka Arctotherium angustidens? This guy got shrunk to second place but why?? Previous estimates had it around 3,500 pounds at max. I had it winning against the Titanoboa but maybe not anymore...looks 50/50 now since both giant snake and bear grew about the same. Well, I shouldn't say that.....cats like the Leopard do a good job killing large giant snakes like the African Rock Python despite weighing the same. It knows how to hunt it. The Arcotherium might of done the same thing.
