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
…
58
59
60
…
113

Visual Comparisons Thread
Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 01:17 AM (507,249 Views)
Superpredator	Nov 10 2012, 08:54 PM Post #871
Apex Predator Posts: 5,434 Group: Members Member #59 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 07:54 PM Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 07:47 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 07:39 PM Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 06:57 PM The head makes the Lion look taller. And I still can't believe you're still spreading your "Tigers are larger because the eat more" BS. As i`ll continue to say....how does the position of the head affect the body size of the lion? If he raises his head, will his shoulder not still be of the same height? Such a position is only deceptive to the untrained eye. And, as Packer and other authors has shown that single lions receive more meat by hunting alone (not necessarily bigger prey, though), and that, even in populations of lions where food intake is particularly high, the daily food intake, the average being over a year`s time being 8kg, per male lion, Sunquist indicated that, at least in the case of the Chitwan tiger....they eat more food. IT MAKES THE LION LOOK TALLER. Wow, because it equates to Chitwan Tigers, it equates to all Tigers? No, that doesn`t equate to all tigers. But, tigers eat alone, generally hunt medium sized prey that affords them, at least in some cases, a better meal than might be the case for the lion which, generally....has to share it`s prize. And, in my comparison, IT ONLY MAKES THE LION LOOK TALLER TO THE UNTRAINED EYE. I can use caps too. But...back to the point. Check this out: And....read my last post. Wow, more BS. A Tiger is not larger because it eats more. You used a Tiger facing sideways & a Lion facing up. I'm glad to hear that. And you still haven't done my request.



Superpredator	Nov 10 2012, 08:58 PM Post #872
Apex Predator Posts: 5,434 Group: Members Member #59 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 07:51 PM Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 06:58 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 06:37 PM And....as for only 16 tigers being used....well, that was ALL there is on the scientific data (all tigerfans complained when i used hunting data....regardless of whether it was reliable or not). I already used a kaziranga tiger. But....i could make another comparison using that tiger, as well. Well then the average for the Tigers isn't reliable now is it? Apparently....tigers fans use that same data to indicate tigers are bigger. When i use it here, though.....it isn`t reliable? But, if you want other, reliable data.....here you are: I could show more. But....looks quite similar to lions, to me. Yes 16 v 167 is unfair.



boldchamp	Nov 10 2012, 09:16 PM Post #873
Omnivore Posts: 1,028 Group: Members Member #88 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 08:58 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 07:51 PM Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 06:58 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 06:37 PM And....as for only 16 tigers being used....well, that was ALL there is on the scientific data (all tigerfans complained when i used hunting data....regardless of whether it was reliable or not). I already used a kaziranga tiger. But....i could make another comparison using that tiger, as well. Well then the average for the Tigers isn't reliable now is it? Apparently....tigers fans use that same data to indicate tigers are bigger. When i use it here, though.....it isn`t reliable? But, if you want other, reliable data.....here you are: I could show more. But....looks quite similar to lions, to me. Yes 16 v 167 is unfair. That`s all the scientific data there is on the weights of tigers (not including the last 2 sources i showed). Note that adding more data tends to decrease the average weight a bit....depending. This is because what little data we do have on the Bengal seems to inflate the weights of these animals, as majority showed large specimens, yet there should be a fairly high range in weights. With the tigers....there generally wasn`t, and this reflects the low sample size.



Superpredator	Nov 10 2012, 09:33 PM Post #874
Apex Predator Posts: 5,434 Group: Members Member #59 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 09:16 PM Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 08:58 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 07:51 PM Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 06:58 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 06:37 PM And....as for only 16 tigers being used....well, that was ALL there is on the scientific data (all tigerfans complained when i used hunting data....regardless of whether it was reliable or not). I already used a kaziranga tiger. But....i could make another comparison using that tiger, as well. Well then the average for the Tigers isn't reliable now is it? Apparently....tigers fans use that same data to indicate tigers are bigger. When i use it here, though.....it isn`t reliable? But, if you want other, reliable data.....here you are: I could show more. But....looks quite similar to lions, to me. Yes 16 v 167 is unfair. That`s all the scientific data there is on the weights of tigers (not including the last 2 sources i showed). Note that adding more data tends to decrease the average weight a bit....depending. This is because what little data we do have on the Bengal seems to inflate the weights of these animals, as majority showed large specimens, yet there should be a fairly high range in weights. With the tigers....there generally wasn`t, and this reflects the low sample size. Well it's hardly 100% accurate then, now is it?



boldchamp	Nov 10 2012, 10:07 PM Post #875
Omnivore Posts: 1,028 Group: Members Member #88 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 09:33 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 09:16 PM Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 08:58 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 07:51 PM Superpredator Nov 10 2012, 06:58 PM boldchamp Nov 10 2012, 06:37 PM And....as for only 16 tigers being used....well, that was ALL there is on the scientific data (all tigerfans complained when i used hunting data....regardless of whether it was reliable or not). I already used a kaziranga tiger. But....i could make another comparison using that tiger, as well. Well then the average for the Tigers isn't reliable now is it? Apparently....tigers fans use that same data to indicate tigers are bigger. When i use it here, though.....it isn`t reliable? But, if you want other, reliable data.....here you are: I could show more. But....looks quite similar to lions, to me. Yes 16 v 167 is unfair. That`s all the scientific data there is on the weights of tigers (not including the last 2 sources i showed). Note that adding more data tends to decrease the average weight a bit....depending. This is because what little data we do have on the Bengal seems to inflate the weights of these animals, as majority showed large specimens, yet there should be a fairly high range in weights. With the tigers....there generally wasn`t, and this reflects the low sample size. Well it's hardly 100% accurate then, now is it? If you`ve ever looked at many of my posts....you`ll note i`ve been saying the very same thing for years. But, it is suggestive of their average weights, which is why i think data such as those from hunters should be included (only the most reliable ones), to get an overall average. People claim that this cannot be done because they believe tigers were smaller many years back. But....we have very little data today, to compare it with.



221Extra	Nov 12 2012, 07:12 AM Post #876
Deny, deny, deny. Posts: 1,830 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: Jan 11, 2012	(Original credit to Tundra Eagle) Edited by 221Extra, Nov 12 2012, 07:14 AM.



boldchamp	Nov 12 2012, 07:31 AM Post #877
Omnivore Posts: 1,028 Group: Members Member #88 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	Superpredator....here`s the comparison you asked for: Edited by boldchamp, Nov 12 2012, 07:46 AM.



Superpredator	Nov 12 2012, 02:51 PM Post #878
Apex Predator Posts: 5,434 Group: Members Member #59 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	boldchamp Nov 12 2012, 07:31 AM Superpredator....here`s the comparison you asked for: Er...no it isn't.



boldchamp	Nov 12 2012, 09:18 PM Post #879
Omnivore Posts: 1,028 Group: Members Member #88 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	I just now saw that you tried to post 2 images, but i couldn`t see the second one (just re-checked)....it just says 'posted image', and so i right clicked and it said duba1, or something like that. I found the pic online....but, i guess that helped, because now it`s visible, but that lion isn`t in the proper position. His body is slightly turned to the side, but i`ll still make it. Edited by boldchamp, Nov 12 2012, 09:45 PM.



boldchamp	Nov 12 2012, 09:46 PM Post #880
Omnivore Posts: 1,028 Group: Members Member #88 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	Here it is: Looks quite similar in size to me.



Superpredator	Nov 13 2012, 02:56 PM Post #881
Apex Predator Posts: 5,434 Group: Members Member #59 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	boldchamp Nov 12 2012, 09:46 PM Here it is: Looks quite similar in size to me. Only because the Lion's looking up.



boldchamp	Nov 13 2012, 09:11 PM Post #882
Omnivore Posts: 1,028 Group: Members Member #88 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	Superpredator Nov 13 2012, 02:56 PM boldchamp Nov 12 2012, 09:46 PM Here it is: Looks quite similar in size to me. Only because the Lion's looking up. Not really. That only happens to the untrained eye. But, of course, since looking up doesn`t effect body size....i`m not fooled. Just focus on body size, which you can clearly see is near equal between the 2, with the head up or not.



ManEater	Nov 14 2012, 06:14 AM Post #883
Omnivore Posts: 1,112 Group: Members Member #113 Joined: Jan 18, 2012	Update of my comparison jaguar/leopard, i made the jaguar at a decent size(he was too big): Edited by ManEater, Nov 14 2012, 06:15 AM.



SameerPrehistorica	Nov 14 2012, 01:33 PM Post #884
Heterotrophic Organism Posts: 268 Group: Members Member #91 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	Superpredator Nov 13 2012, 02:56 PM boldchamp Nov 12 2012, 09:46 PM Here it is: Looks quite similar in size to me. Only because the Lion's looking up. Yes, in many tiger/lion picture comparisons...they use a picture of a lion looking up which makes no sense..I mean...if u use that picture..then u should use a picture of tiger in that same pose...The african lion is not 4 feet tall at shoulders..It's when looking up..The american lion only 4 feet tall at shoulders..But if u see the comparisons of american and african lion,then u will be seeing the picture of african lion lowering it's head...why is that ?



boldchamp	Nov 14 2012, 08:57 PM Post #885
Omnivore Posts: 1,028 Group: Members Member #88 Joined: Jan 15, 2012	SameerPrehistorica Nov 14 2012, 01:33 PM Superpredator Nov 13 2012, 02:56 PM boldchamp Nov 12 2012, 09:46 PM Here it is: Looks quite similar in size to me. Only because the Lion's looking up. Yes, in many tiger/lion picture comparisons...they use a picture of a lion looking up which makes no sense..I mean...if u use that picture..then u should use a picture of tiger in that same pose...The african lion is not 4 feet tall at shoulders..It's when looking up..The american lion only 4 feet tall at shoulders..But if u see the comparisons of american and african lion,then u will be seeing the picture of african lion lowering it's head...why is that ? Looking up doesn`t effect the body size of these animals, at all. If i compare 2 of the same animal, with one picture of him looking up, and the other of him looking down....there would still be no difference in body size (except perhaps to the untrained eye). Besides...i used the pictures that Superpredator wanted me to use. But, here you go: Edited by boldchamp, Nov 14 2012, 08:59 PM.



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


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

Pages:
1
…
58
59
60
…
113