Visual Comparisons Thread

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:

Pages:
1
…
21
22
23
…
113

Visual Comparisons Thread
Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 01:17 AM (507,286 Views)
Megafelis Fatalis	Apr 14 2012, 07:33 PM Post #316
Carnivore Posts: 2,590 Group: Members Member #44 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	I think you should make the Head larger. Edited by Taipan, Feb 3 2013, 07:56 PM.



DinosaurMichael	Apr 14 2012, 08:55 PM Post #317
Apex Predator Posts: 6,985 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: Jan 6, 2012	Made by Prehistoric Cat.



P Tigris	Apr 15 2012, 11:41 AM Post #318
Autotrophic Organism Posts: 140 Group: Members Member #243 Joined: Mar 18, 2012	ManEater Apr 8 2012, 03:52 AM The lioness is big indeed but lioness are tall and strong heavily built, but in fact she is smaller than the tiger(the tiger is a little taller at the shoulder but far longer and bigger) , it is because the image is small , and the lion in the picture is clearly taller than the tiger at the shoulder etc The tiger however is longer . To sum up , that's why i put the lion at the last place , but there is no logic , the puma is taller than the leopard and he is the first in the picture . If i had to give a weight , it would be more or less : cougar : 90kg , leopard : 80kg , jaguar : 110kg : lioness : 140kg , tiger : 220kg , lion : 200kg , big specimens for all . Thanks for the comment , i agree the picture can not perfect , i took subjective specimens. I do not post here much; but when I say this, I can support it with data. I have every modern document regarding sizes and verified hunting records between lions & tigers. 220kg is below average for some tiger reserves like Panna, Nagarahole, Chitwan, etc. Especially Assam tigers, they are well above 220kg (though they haven't been weighed yet). Regarding African lions, they are not 200kg average, the largest average ever taken was from Rhodesia, male lions presented a mean of 193.3 kg (426.2 lbs) non adjusted for content. You can't just say "that lion is obviously taller then that tiger" 1. I have data that shows they are relatively equal heights, and sometimes the tiger is taller 2. The current tallest measured cat is the tiger Lions: * 101 cm (n=50). Range: 86-109 cm. Stevenson-Hamilton (1947) – South Africa. * 96.2 cm (n=14). Range: 81.3 cm-107 cm. Meinertzhagen (1938) – Kenya, East Africa. * 110 cm (n=8). No range. Tefera (2003) – Addis Ababa Zoo, Ethiopia. * 97 cm (n=?). No range. Pocock (1939). * 114 cm Max. recorded in the Wild (Pitman, 1945). * 112 cm. Max. recorded in captivity (Wood, 1983). Bengal tigers: * 99 cm (n=42). Range: 91-112 cm. Brander (1923) – Central India. * 93.3 cm (n=5). Range: 89-99 cm. Mazák (1983). * 91 cm (n=?). No range. Pocock (1939). * 112 cm Max. recorded in the Wild (Brander, 1923). * 118 cm Max. recorded standing height in any big cat (Ward, 1914). Amur tiger: * 95 cm (n=11). Range: 82-106 cm. Kerley et al. (2005) – Sikhote-Alin ZP, Russia. * 102 cm (n=7). Range: 96-106 cm. Mazák (1983). * 106 cm Max. recorded in the Wild (Kerley et al., 2005). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not take my post offensive, I am simply stating that instead of posting common secondary source, you can revise data for yourself, because some common rumors are "The lions mane protects it" --- Wrong (Packer) "Lions are taller then tigers" --- Wrong (modern data shown) "Lions fight more then tigers" --- Wrong, I proved it myself (n=11) yr.



Bandog	Apr 15 2012, 07:22 PM Post #319
Everything else is just a dog. Posts: 2,948 Group: Members Member #25 Joined: Jan 8, 2012	You can't really say modern data given that the source you stated for the taller tiger was from 1914. The mean weight is also an ineffective way of determining the avg weight as exceptionally large or exceptionally small specimens will alter the outcome. I'm not making any claims it's just skepticism on my part.



DinosaurMichael	Apr 16 2012, 12:19 AM Post #320
Apex Predator Posts: 6,985 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: Jan 6, 2012	Scale between Megatherium and Acrocanthosaurus. Made by Prehistoric Cat.



Megafelis Fatalis	Apr 16 2012, 12:38 AM Post #321
Carnivore Posts: 2,590 Group: Members Member #44 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	Drawings by Scott Hartman Tyrannosaurus = ~ 12.8M long Acrocanthosaurus = ~ 11.6M long



P Tigris	Apr 16 2012, 01:30 AM Post #322
Autotrophic Organism Posts: 140 Group: Members Member #243 Joined: Mar 18, 2012	Amphicyon Apr 15 2012, 07:22 PM You can't really say modern data given that the source you stated for the taller tiger was from 1914. The mean weight is also an ineffective way of determining the avg weight as exceptionally large or exceptionally small specimens will alter the outcome. I'm not making any claims it's just skepticism on my part. All modern data gathered, what ever age it is from, it is verified and confirmed.



Bandog	Apr 16 2012, 06:20 AM Post #323
Everything else is just a dog. Posts: 2,948 Group: Members Member #25 Joined: Jan 8, 2012	P Tigris Apr 16 2012, 01:30 AM Amphicyon Apr 15 2012, 07:22 PM You can't really say modern data given that the source you stated for the taller tiger was from 1914. The mean weight is also an ineffective way of determining the avg weight as exceptionally large or exceptionally small specimens will alter the outcome. I'm not making any claims it's just skepticism on my part. All modern data gathered, what ever age it is from, it is verified and confirmed. Fair enough



SameerPrehistorica	Apr 16 2012, 11:20 PM Post #324
Heterotrophic Organism Posts: 268 Group: Members Member #91 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	Prehistoric Cat Apr 14 2012, 07:33 PM SameerPrehistorica Apr 13 2012, 12:04 AM Deinosuchus http://sameerprehistorica.deviantart.com/art/Deinosuchus-295626412 I think you should make the Head larger. In a TV series i saw, it's head seemed like it is 7 feet or so.In some site, it was mentioned as only 5'10.Mostly in many sites, it is mentioned as 6 feet.When i read about it first time, i remember somewhere i saw, it was mentioned as it's skull is estimated to be more than 6'7.( David Schwimmer, the leading authority on this species, now writes that this skull was mistakenly reconstructed and the species was not quite this big, but still was almost as large…big enough to kill and eat tyrannosaurs.) I put it's skull to 6 and half feet.I thought that is enough since these are estimates. Edited by SameerPrehistorica, Feb 1 2013, 09:26 PM.



Megafelis Fatalis	Apr 17 2012, 02:43 AM Post #325
Carnivore Posts: 2,590 Group: Members Member #44 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	I meant that the head looks small compared to the body.



coherentsheaf	Apr 17 2012, 02:50 AM Post #326
Kleptoparasite Posts: 2,296 Group: Members Member #29 Joined: Jan 9, 2012	Prehistoric Cat Apr 17 2012, 02:43 AM I meant that the head looks small compared to the body. I donot think so,inodern very large crocodilians the head - total length ratio is 1:9, which imeans a smaller head compared to total length than shownin this deinosuchus reconstruction. For comparison, here is a pic of lolong:



SameerPrehistorica	Apr 17 2012, 07:34 AM Post #327
Heterotrophic Organism Posts: 268 Group: Members Member #91 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	coherentsheaf Apr 17 2012, 02:50 AM Prehistoric Cat Apr 17 2012, 02:43 AM I meant that the head looks small compared to the body. I donot think so,inodern very large crocodilians the head - total length ratio is 1:9, which imeans a smaller head compared to total length than shownin this deinosuchus reconstruction. For comparison, here is a pic of lolong: Yup..I noted how they looked. Only in the Prehistoric park series,I have seen the head of deinosuchus which was longer comparing its body.It was like 7 feet or may be more.



Lycaon	Apr 17 2012, 10:41 AM Post #328
Omnivore Posts: 1,226 Group: Members Member #84 Joined: Jan 14, 2012	redone; Culpeo v Serval (Culpeo not max length as such an animal seems much larger than the stated weight. Perhaps more studies need to be done on this canid.) Edited by Lycaon, Apr 17 2012, 10:43 AM.



Megafelis Fatalis	Apr 17 2012, 11:20 PM Post #329
Carnivore Posts: 2,590 Group: Members Member #44 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	@coherentsheaf @SameerPrehistorica I think you are right



SameerPrehistorica	Apr 17 2012, 11:50 PM Post #330
Heterotrophic Organism Posts: 268 Group: Members Member #91 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	Prehistoric Cat Apr 17 2012, 11:20 PM @coherentsheaf @SameerPrehistorica I think you are right Yup... If i make the head larger like in that TV series, it would look cool.But in Crocodiles,their heads are not so long comparing body.In the TV series, it's head was like 7 and half feet or so and the body length was somewhat reduced.Anyway..Whatever i use to make..First i use to see how similar animal like that looks like.



2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Video & Image Gallery · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
21
22
23
…
113