Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Barbary Lion v Siberian Tiger
Topic Started: Oct 20 2014, 08:25 PM (31,717 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Barbary Lion - Panthera leo leo
The Barbary lion, sometimes referred to as the Atlas lion, is an African lion population that is considered extinct in the wild and is among the biggest lion subspecies. It is believed that the last Barbary lion was shot in the western Maghreb during the year 1942 near Tizi n'Tichka. The Barbary lion was first described by the Austrian zoologist Johann Nepomuk Meyer under the trinomen Felis leo barbaricus on the basis of a type specimen from Barbary. The Barbary lion was long considered one of the biggest lion subspecies. Museum specimens of male Barbary lion were described as having very dark and long-haired manes that extended over the shoulder and to the belly. Head-to-tail length of stuffed males varies from 2.35 to 2.8 m (7 ft 9 in to 9 ft 2 in), and females measure around 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in). A 19th century hunter described a large male allegedly measuring 3.25 m (10.7 ft) including a 75 cm (30 in) long tail. In some historic accounts the weight of wild males was indicated as very heavy and reaching 270 to 300 kilograms (600 to 660 lb). But the accuracy of the measurements may be questionable, and the sample size of captive Barbary lions were too small to conclude they were the biggest lion subspecies.

Posted Image

Siberian Tiger - Panthera tigris altaica
The Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), also known as the Amur tiger, is a tiger subspecies inhabiting mainly the Sikhote Alin mountain region with a small subpopulation in southwest Primorye province in the Russian Far East. In 2005, there were 331–393 adult-subadult Amur tigers in this region, with a breeding adult population of about 250 individuals. The Siberian tiger is reddish-rusty or rusty-yellow in colour, with narrow black transverse stripes. Measurements taken by scientists of the Siberian Tiger Project in Sikhote-Alin range from 178 to 208 cm (70 to 82 in) in head and body length measured in straight line, with an average of 195 cm (77 in) for males; and for females ranging from 167 to 182 cm (66 to 72 in) with an average of 174 cm (69 in). The average tail measures 99 cm (39 in) in males and 91 cm (36 in) in females. The longest male “Maurice” measured 309 cm (122 in) in total length (tail of 101 cm (40 in)) and had a chest girth of 127 cm (50 in). The longest female “Maria Ivanna” measured 270 cm (110 in) in total length (tail of 88 cm (35 in)) and had a chest girth of 108 cm (43 in). These measurements show that the present Amur tiger is longer than the Bengal tiger and the African lion. According to modern research of wild Siberian tigers in Sikhote-Alin, an average adult male of more than 35 months of age weighs 176.4 kg (389 lb), the average asymptotic limit being 222.3 kg (490 lb); an adult tigress weighs 117.9 kg (260 lb). The mean weight of historical Siberian tigers is supposed to be higher: 215.3 kg (475 lb) for male tigers and 137.5 kg (303 lb) for females. In May 2011, a male called “Banzai” weighing 207 kg (460 lb) was radio-collared. This individual is heavier but smaller in size than a previously radio-collared male. The largest male, with largely assured references, measured 350 cm (140 in) "over curves", equivalent to 330 cm (130 in) between pegs. The tail length in fully grown males is about 1 m (39 in). Weights of up to 318 kg (700 lb) have been recorded and exceptionally large males weighing up to 384 kg (850 lb) are mentioned in the literature but, according to Mazák, none of these cases can be confirmed via reliable sources.

Posted Image




Batman
Oct 20 2014, 04:52 AM
Barbary Lion vs Siberian Tiger.
Edited by Taipan, Dec 23 2016, 11:03 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Batman
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
KayoP
Oct 21 2014, 06:23 AM
Batman
Oct 21 2014, 02:40 AM
I've read that website. It's reports stem from those who did not measure the size and that does not really answer the question of size. They are essentially saying ''We haven't measured the size, so, it's not as large as you think''

Here is a reliable source listing it as the largest sub-species: http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/barbary-lion.cfm

And here is a reliable, unbias source which confirms a Siberian Tiger is only really the same size as a Bengal: http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/barbary-lion.cfm
Quote:
 
2. Nobuyuki Yamaguchi



Yamaguchi & Haddane (2002) made a good investigation about this lion, check it:



“How big was a Barbary lion? The famous French zoologist Cuvier measured a six-year-old captive-reared male Barbary lion, which had head and body length of 5 pieds 2 pouces (= c. 1.58 m), tail length c. 66.1 cm, height of forequarters c. 83.6 cm and of hindquarters c. 83.6 cm (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). This lion was caught in eastern Algeria in 1795 at about one year old and died at ten years old in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Although the live lion may not have given Cuvier accurate measurements, the animal seems to have been very small for a male lion. It is, however, doubtful whether captive Barbary lions, usually captured as cubs and kept in menageries during the 18th or 19th centuries, attained the full body size. Cuvier himself referred to undesirable captive conditions at the menagerie (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). Cornish (1899) reported that big cats only lived, on an average, for two years in London Zoo in the mid-1800s. Gérard (1856) also expressed his concern about the captive condition of lions at the Jardin des Plantes. On the other hand, he described a big wild Barbary lion he shot with the comment `This lion, compared to the finest of those which are exhibited in our menageries, or at the Jardin des Plantes, was what a horse is to a donkey. . .' There is, however, no credible record of body measurements of wild Barbary lions. Gérard (1856) described the size of wild male Barbary lions as c. 2.3 m from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail, which measured c. 90 cm, and their weight as c. 270–300 kg. If this had been true, Barbary lions would indeed have been big amongst lions. However, the methods of obtaining these measurements (e.g. straight or along the curve) were not specified, and the accuracy of the measurements themselves may be questionable, as Gérard made them in the field. Although Pease (1899, 1915) suggested that North African lions might have become very heavy because they fed on mutton so much, regarding the body length he seems not to have believed what he himself quoted – an Algerian lion whose head and body length was c. 2.5 m and the tail length 75 cm.”



“The largest Barbary lion skull so far measured, which is partly broken, has an estimated greatest length of c. 360 mm (Mazák, 1970; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Although 360 mm is not small, big skulls of sub-Saharan lions easily reach a maximum length of over 380 mm, and some even over 400 mm (Hemmer, 1974; Best, 1981; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Does this mean Barbary lions were not particularly big? Due to such a small sample size, we have to wait until more specimens may become available. The big lion Gérard shot in Algeria was presented to the Duchess of Orléans (Gérard, 1856), but the current whereabouts of this specimen and other wild-shot Barbary lions which decorated Gérard's Paris residence are not known.”

Source: http://www.izn.org.uk/Archive/321/Izn-321.htm#lion


This is from the king of Lion fans. There is no available data to give the thought that Barbary lions are the biggest sub species. The theory that Barbary lions are the biggest derived from having a large mane.

Sigh

rolleyes

You are quoting the same information from the previous link --- here is an unbias, SCIENTIFIC article which cites the Barbary as genetically being larger, stockier but shorter than African Lion

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/5207/20140404/genetics-unveil-history-of-lions-resurrection-of-extinct-barbary-lion-subspecies-possible-study.htm

http://www.ofcats.com/2008/11/barbary-lion.html

Physically, the Barbary Lion was amongst the largest of all recorded lion subspecies in history. It is thought to have weighed nearly five hundred and fifty pounds on average for adult males. Females were around three hundred and fifty pounds in weight. The body length was believed to be as much as eleven feet. The built was compact and muscular and legs were short. Even as the Barbary Lion stood only three feet tall, nearly a foot shorter than the modern day African Lion, it was approximately fifty percent bigger than lions of today in overall size.


Muscle >>> fat in weight, THAT is why the Barbary was heavier.

The theory of the Barbary being larger does not derive from it having a large mane because the article subsequently goes on to state the mane was a visual feature.


If the weight of the Barbary is false then I suppose we throw away all the weight information of the per-historic cat weights, all of which are over thousands of years old whereas the Barbary went extinct in 1942.
Edited by Batman, Oct 21 2014, 07:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Batman
Oct 21 2014, 07:18 AM
KayoP
Oct 21 2014, 06:23 AM
Batman
Oct 21 2014, 02:40 AM
I've read that website. It's reports stem from those who did not measure the size and that does not really answer the question of size. They are essentially saying ''We haven't measured the size, so, it's not as large as you think''

Here is a reliable source listing it as the largest sub-species: http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/barbary-lion.cfm

And here is a reliable, unbias source which confirms a Siberian Tiger is only really the same size as a Bengal: http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/barbary-lion.cfm
Quote:
 
2. Nobuyuki Yamaguchi



Yamaguchi & Haddane (2002) made a good investigation about this lion, check it:



“How big was a Barbary lion? The famous French zoologist Cuvier measured a six-year-old captive-reared male Barbary lion, which had head and body length of 5 pieds 2 pouces (= c. 1.58 m), tail length c. 66.1 cm, height of forequarters c. 83.6 cm and of hindquarters c. 83.6 cm (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). This lion was caught in eastern Algeria in 1795 at about one year old and died at ten years old in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Although the live lion may not have given Cuvier accurate measurements, the animal seems to have been very small for a male lion. It is, however, doubtful whether captive Barbary lions, usually captured as cubs and kept in menageries during the 18th or 19th centuries, attained the full body size. Cuvier himself referred to undesirable captive conditions at the menagerie (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). Cornish (1899) reported that big cats only lived, on an average, for two years in London Zoo in the mid-1800s. Gérard (1856) also expressed his concern about the captive condition of lions at the Jardin des Plantes. On the other hand, he described a big wild Barbary lion he shot with the comment `This lion, compared to the finest of those which are exhibited in our menageries, or at the Jardin des Plantes, was what a horse is to a donkey. . .' There is, however, no credible record of body measurements of wild Barbary lions. Gérard (1856) described the size of wild male Barbary lions as c. 2.3 m from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail, which measured c. 90 cm, and their weight as c. 270–300 kg. If this had been true, Barbary lions would indeed have been big amongst lions. However, the methods of obtaining these measurements (e.g. straight or along the curve) were not specified, and the accuracy of the measurements themselves may be questionable, as Gérard made them in the field. Although Pease (1899, 1915) suggested that North African lions might have become very heavy because they fed on mutton so much, regarding the body length he seems not to have believed what he himself quoted – an Algerian lion whose head and body length was c. 2.5 m and the tail length 75 cm.”



“The largest Barbary lion skull so far measured, which is partly broken, has an estimated greatest length of c. 360 mm (Mazák, 1970; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Although 360 mm is not small, big skulls of sub-Saharan lions easily reach a maximum length of over 380 mm, and some even over 400 mm (Hemmer, 1974; Best, 1981; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Does this mean Barbary lions were not particularly big? Due to such a small sample size, we have to wait until more specimens may become available. The big lion Gérard shot in Algeria was presented to the Duchess of Orléans (Gérard, 1856), but the current whereabouts of this specimen and other wild-shot Barbary lions which decorated Gérard's Paris residence are not known.”

Source: http://www.izn.org.uk/Archive/321/Izn-321.htm#lion


This is from the king of Lion fans. There is no available data to give the thought that Barbary lions are the biggest sub species. The theory that Barbary lions are the biggest derived from having a large mane.

Sigh

rolleyes

You are quoting the same information from the previous link --- here is an unbias, SCIENTIFIC article which cites the Barbary as genetically being larger, stockier but shorter than African Lion

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/5207/20140404/genetics-unveil-history-of-lions-resurrection-of-extinct-barbary-lion-subspecies-possible-study.htm

http://www.ofcats.com/2008/11/barbary-lion.html

Physically, the Barbary Lion was amongst the largest of all recorded lion subspecies in history. It is thought to have weighed nearly five hundred and fifty pounds on average for adult males. Females were around three hundred and fifty pounds in weight. The body length was believed to be as much as eleven feet. The built was compact and muscular and legs were short. Even as the Barbary Lion stood only three feet tall, nearly a foot shorter than the modern day African Lion, it was approximately fifty percent bigger than lions of today in overall size.


Muscle >>> fat in weight, THAT is why the Barbary was heavier.

The theory of the Barbary being larger does not derive from it having a large mane because the article subsequently goes on to state the mane was a visual feature.


If the weight of the Barbary is false then I suppose we throw away all the weight information of the per-historic cat weights, all of which are over thousands of years old whereas the Barbary went extinct in 1942.
lol @ at first link.

Where is the data m8?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Batman
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
It's right there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The All-seeing Night
Member Avatar
You are without honor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
hawkkeye
Oct 21 2014, 12:50 AM
Like in the most account with tiger vs. lion on similar weight, tiger wins easily.
These are two animals of similar weights and almost exactly equal weaponry. Lion v Tiger is about as even as it gets. Anyone who says one would win with ease is being biased in my book.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Batman
Oct 21 2014, 07:34 AM
It's right there.
The only thing you have point on is the bengal and amur being similar when it comes to body size( the amur being a bit longer), but the reliable data (NOTHING UNBIASED) suggest that the barbary were not bigger than any of the biggest current lions.

Just let it go already
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oculus kageyamii
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
This thread was inevitable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Molosser
Member Avatar
Ursids, Canids, and amphycionids
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Is this any different to african lion vs bengal tiger??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Molosser
Oct 21 2014, 03:15 PM
Is this any different to african lion vs bengal tiger??


Barbary Lions are bigger than African Lions and Siberian Tigers are smaller than Bengal Tigers.

If the tiger fans want to dismiss accounts of Barbary Lions being larger than modern lions, they need to man up and realise they were sucked in by Russian hunters over Siberian Tiger weights - they are a lot smaller than historically stated.


Oculus kageyamii
Oct 21 2014, 08:55 AM
This thread was inevitable.


ADMIN - Dont spam threads with useless dribble.
Edited by Taipan, Oct 21 2014, 04:46 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Molosser
Member Avatar
Ursids, Canids, and amphycionids
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
i'm perfectly aware of the fact that the barbary is heavier and more robust than the african, but from what i know the siberian is also larger and more robust than the bengal

here's a video showing the difference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9lzdQ59etI

also this article suggests the same thing:

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/10/the-difference-between-bengal-and-siberian-tigers/

"Siberian tigers are the bigger of the two subspecies, with males weighing up to 300 kilograms (675 lbs) and standing up to 0.9 meters (3 ft) at the shoulder. Bengal tigers tend to reach their max size at around 240 kilograms (525 lbs), while being slightly shorter. The females of both species are considerably smaller than the males."

from wikipedia:

"The Siberian tiger and Bengal tiger represent the largest subspecies of the Panthera genus, with reliably measured specimens weighed up to 465 kg (1,025 lb) and 388.7 kg (857 lb) respectively. The largest African lion on record weighted 313 kg (690 lb). The average weight of males is 175 kilograms (390 lb) for the Asiatic lion, 186 kilograms (410 lb) for the African lion, 221.2 kilograms (488 lb) for the Bengal tiger and 230 kilograms (510 lb) for the Siberian tiger. Note the average weight 221.2 kilograms (488 lb) measured for the Bengal tiger excluded any stomach content while the average weight 186 kilograms (410 lb) measured for the African lion included stomach contents, and a lion may eat up to 30 kg (66 lb) in one sitting"

so i felt like this is just like the lion vs tiger thread, just a bigger lion vs a bigger tiger.. and it can go both ways with a slight edge going to the tiger imho (maybe it's just me but i feel the tiger weights given by wiki are a bit exaggerated)
here's an account from wikipedia:

"At the end of the 19th century, the Gaekwad of Baroda arranged a fair fight between a Barbary lion and a Bengal tiger before an audience of thousands as the Asiatic lions were no match for the Bengal tigers. The Gaekwad favoured the lion, and as a result had to pay 37,000 rupees as the lion was mauled by the tiger."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_versus_lion

at first i almost changed my mind favoring the tiger, but most people have difficulty telling a barbary apart from a african with a dark mane so i'm still unsure
this should be a good size comp:

Posted Image

EDIT: "Dont spam threads with useless dribble."

we've had the same problem with oculus countless times before, he probably can't find the spam zone so here:

http://carnivoraforum.com/forum/3836462/
Edited by Molosser, Oct 21 2014, 06:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Taipan
Oct 21 2014, 04:45 PM
Molosser
Oct 21 2014, 03:15 PM
Is this any different to african lion vs bengal tiger??


Barbary Lions are bigger than African Lions and Siberian Tigers are smaller than Bengal Tigers.

If the tiger fans want to dismiss accounts of Barbary Lions being larger than modern lions, they need to man up and realise they were sucked in by Russian hunters over Siberian Tiger weights - they are a lot smaller than historically stated.


Oculus kageyamii
Oct 21 2014, 08:55 AM
This thread was inevitable.


ADMIN - Dont spam threads with useless dribble.
Posted Image

Sup Batman

The size of the barbary are closer to the ones from India more than anything



And the data came from one of the best Zoologists from Germany and the entire world in Brehm
Posted Image
Molosser
Oct 21 2014, 05:42 PM
i'm perfectly aware of the fact that the barbary is heavier and more robust than the african, but from what i know the siberian is also larger and more robust than the bengal

here's a video showing the difference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9lzdQ59etI

also this article suggests the same thing:

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/10/the-difference-between-bengal-and-siberian-tigers/

"Siberian tigers are the bigger of the two subspecies, with males weighing up to 300 kilograms (675 lbs) and standing up to 0.9 meters (3 ft) at the shoulder. Bengal tigers tend to reach their max size at around 240 kilograms (525 lbs), while being slightly shorter. The females of both species are considerably smaller than the males."

from wikipedia:

"The Siberian tiger and Bengal tiger represent the largest subspecies of the Panthera genus, with reliably measured specimens weighed up to 465 kg (1,025 lb) and 388.7 kg (857 lb) respectively. The largest African lion on record weighted 313 kg (690 lb). The average weight of males is 175 kilograms (390 lb) for the Asiatic lion, 186 kilograms (410 lb) for the African lion, 221.2 kilograms (488 lb) for the Bengal tiger and 230 kilograms (510 lb) for the Siberian tiger. Note the average weight 221.2 kilograms (488 lb) measured for the Bengal tiger excluded any stomach content while the average weight 186 kilograms (410 lb) measured for the African lion included stomach contents, and a lion may eat up to 30 kg (66 lb) in one sitting"

so i felt like this is just like the lion vs tiger thread, just a bigger lion vs a bigger tiger.. and it can go both ways with a slight edge going to the tiger imho (maybe it's just me but i feel the tiger weights given by wiki are a bit exaggerated)
here's an account from wikipedia:

"At the end of the 19th century, the Gaekwad of Baroda arranged a fair fight between a Barbary lion and a Bengal tiger before an audience of thousands as the Asiatic lions were no match for the Bengal tigers. The Gaekwad favoured the lion, and as a result had to pay 37,000 rupees as the lion was mauled by the tiger."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_versus_lion

at first i almost changed my mind favoring the tiger, but most people have difficulty telling a barbary apart from a african with a dark mane so i'm still unsure
this should be a good size comp:

Posted Image

EDIT: "Dont spam threads with useless dribble."

we've had the same problem with oculus countless times before, he probably can't find the spam zone so here:

http://carnivoraforum.com/forum/3836462/
Posted Image

The biggest cats in the wild are from Nepal or Northern India, but Captive are another story

Posted Image

Edited by Amur, Oct 21 2014, 06:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Molosser
Oct 21 2014, 05:42 PM
i'm perfectly aware of the fact that the barbary is heavier and more robust than the african, but from what i know the siberian is also larger and more robust than the bengal



No Siberians have a greater propensity to carry fat than Bengals. The obese captive Siberians are used to provide weight - bad practice.

Science is clearing this nonsense up:

"Exceptionally large individuals were targeted and shot by hunters.[7] An unconfirmed report tells of a male tiger shot in the Sikhote-Alin Mountains in 1950 weighing 384 kg (847 lb) with an estimated length of 3.48 m (11.4 ft). In some cases, captive Siberian tigers reached a body weight of up to 465 kg (1,025 lb), such as the tiger "Jaipur."[8]

Measurements taken by scientists of the Siberian Tiger Project in Sikhote-Alin range from 178 to 208 cm (70 to 82 in) in head and body length measured in straight line, with an average of 195 cm (77 in) for males; and for females ranging from 167 to 182 cm (66 to 72 in) with an average of 174 cm (69 in). The average tail measures 99 cm (39 in) in males and 91 cm (36 in) in females. The longest male measured 309 cm (122 in) in total length (tail of 101 cm (40 in)) and had a chest girth of 127 cm (50 in). The longest female measured 270 cm (110 in) in total length (tail of 88 cm (35 in)) and had a chest girth of 108 cm (43 in). These measurements show that the present Amur tiger is longer than the Bengal tiger and the African lion.[9]

In 2005, a group of Russian, American and Indian zoologists published an analysis of historical and contemporary data on body weights of wild and captive tigers, both female and male across all subspecies. The data used include weights of adult tigers, i.e. those that were older than 35 months of age and were measured in the presence of authors. The results of this analysis indicates that the average historical wild male Siberian tiger weighed 215.3 kg (475 lb) and the female 137.5 kg (303 lb); the contemporary wild male Siberian tiger weighs 176.4 kg (389 lb) on average with an asymptotic limit being 222.3 kg (490 lb); a wild female weighs 117.9 kg (260 lb) on average."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_tiger

Something tiger fans find hard to accept.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Molosser
Member Avatar
Ursids, Canids, and amphycionids
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't see how that translates to the bengal being bigger.. In any case more sources give the sib a size advantage than the other way around.

I'm neither a fan of tigers nor of lions but if I have to choose I'd say I like the social tendencies of the lion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Batman
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Typical Tiger fans denying the factual evidence of Barbary being largest sub-species and then rejecting factual evidence of Siberian Tigers being much smaller than lead to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Asadas
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
He was even bigger than the tigers and his eyes were so intense. (Siberian included) But, for all that, he definitely had an attitude..However, once we was full grown, he stopped. No one wanted to argue with a male lion that was over 650 lbs, so he was sent to Cat Tales park that takes care of exotic animals that are “not wanted” or a “problem”.
Posted Image
http://www.wawho.com/tigerschool/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Zamba.bmp
Posted Image
http://amandaelisephotography.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/zamba-the-lion/
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
700lb Atlas lion
Posted Image
Posted Image
http://blogs.ublabs.org/crittercorner/2010/03/11/root-canal-performed-on-lion/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Asadas
Oct 22 2014, 12:45 AM
Posted Image
He was even bigger than the tigers and his eyes were so intense. (Siberian included) But, for all that, he definitely had an attitude..However, once we was full grown, he stopped. No one wanted to argue with a male lion that was over 650 lbs, so he was sent to Cat Tales park that takes care of exotic animals that are “not wanted” or a “problem”.
Posted Image
http://www.wawho.com/tigerschool/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Zamba.bmp
Posted Image
http://amandaelisephotography.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/zamba-the-lion/
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
700lb Atlas lion
Posted Image
Posted Image
http://blogs.ublabs.org/crittercorner/2010/03/11/root-canal-performed-on-lion/
Didn't you just get eaten alive with your false info in yuku? Wouldn't be the first time
Taipan
Oct 21 2014, 07:33 PM
Molosser
Oct 21 2014, 05:42 PM
i'm perfectly aware of the fact that the barbary is heavier and more robust than the african, but from what i know the siberian is also larger and more robust than the bengal



No Siberians have a greater propensity to carry fat than Bengals. The obese captive Siberians are used to provide weight - bad practice.

Science is clearing this nonsense up:

"Exceptionally large individuals were targeted and shot by hunters.[7] An unconfirmed report tells of a male tiger shot in the Sikhote-Alin Mountains in 1950 weighing 384 kg (847 lb) with an estimated length of 3.48 m (11.4 ft). In some cases, captive Siberian tigers reached a body weight of up to 465 kg (1,025 lb), such as the tiger "Jaipur."[8]

Measurements taken by scientists of the Siberian Tiger Project in Sikhote-Alin range from 178 to 208 cm (70 to 82 in) in head and body length measured in straight line, with an average of 195 cm (77 in) for males; and for females ranging from 167 to 182 cm (66 to 72 in) with an average of 174 cm (69 in). The average tail measures 99 cm (39 in) in males and 91 cm (36 in) in females. The longest male measured 309 cm (122 in) in total length (tail of 101 cm (40 in)) and had a chest girth of 127 cm (50 in). The longest female measured 270 cm (110 in) in total length (tail of 88 cm (35 in)) and had a chest girth of 108 cm (43 in). These measurements show that the present Amur tiger is longer than the Bengal tiger and the African lion.[9]

In 2005, a group of Russian, American and Indian zoologists published an analysis of historical and contemporary data on body weights of wild and captive tigers, both female and male across all subspecies. The data used include weights of adult tigers, i.e. those that were older than 35 months of age and were measured in the presence of authors. The results of this analysis indicates that the average historical wild male Siberian tiger weighed 215.3 kg (475 lb) and the female 137.5 kg (303 lb); the contemporary wild male Siberian tiger weighs 176.4 kg (389 lb) on average with an asymptotic limit being 222.3 kg (490 lb); a wild female weighs 117.9 kg (260 lb) on average."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_tiger

Something tiger fans find hard to accept.

Posted Image

Posted Image

So inhumane and cruel ;; look at that unhealthy 900 lbs tiger. humans are pigs rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes
Edited by Amur, Oct 22 2014, 01:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply