Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[Pckts]

(05-04-2015, 02:09 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:

(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific. 
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.

In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species. 

You also asked why I think they are overweight, 
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition. 

Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.


 

Baikal is not overweighed for his body frame at all.

In fact, he is slightly underweighed according to tigerluver's body mass correlation.

A modern wild tiger with the size of Baikal would easily top 900 pounds, while a pleistocene tiger would top 1000 pounds.

Baikal didn't break the 900 pounds benchmark, so he is not overweighed, but rather underweighed.

 

 

We don't have Baikal body measurements so we wouldn't know how to compare him to similar tigers and to truly know his size.
He looks a little overweight there but not much, the other pic he seems more overweight though. But Im not taking anything away from him, he's a big and strong boy for a captive cat but like you stated, not nearly as defined as a wild one.



  Reply