| 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: |
| Visual Comparisons Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 01:17 AM (507,248 Views) | |
| ManEater | Nov 15 2012, 01:35 AM Post #886 |
Omnivore
  ![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)
|
Update of my Big Cat size comparison: Feel free to give your opinion. PS: It is not average weight/size, or not even max weight/size, just a bunch of random specimen. Edited by ManEater, Nov 15 2012, 02:15 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| Carcharadon | Nov 16 2012, 11:11 AM Post #887 |
Shark Toothed Reptile
|
|
|
|
|
| SameerPrehistorica | Nov 16 2012, 09:28 PM Post #888 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
|
Sure it doesn't affect the body size...There is a guy in deviantart who had a animals comparison image and he had the lion standing like that .He mentioned as lion is upto 4 feet and for tiger 3.5.I replied to him...both are equal or may be lion is 1 or 2 inches taller..He said..don't try to change my mind..I have done enough research)..Now that is what i am talking about.People like him who say that lion is 4 feet tall just because the fact it is looking upward.That makes no sense.So that is why i said that if someone use a picture of a lion standing upright..then they should use a picture of tiger in that same pose as well.Anyway... |
|
|
|
| boldchamp | Nov 17 2012, 01:20 AM Post #889 |
|
Omnivore
|
Most pictures don`t have the tiger looking up like that while also being in a side view. Really, though....i pay little attention to the position of the head. I am only comparing body size, after all. |
|
|
|
| boldchamp | Nov 17 2012, 01:21 AM Post #890 |
|
Omnivore
|
Notice that when i put the head of the lion on a similar plane.....it still looked to be exactly the same size. |
|
|
|
| boldchamp | Nov 17 2012, 03:08 AM Post #891 |
|
Omnivore
|
A comparison using Waghdoh:
|
|
|
|
| ManEater | Nov 17 2012, 03:37 AM Post #892 |
|
Omnivore
|
What is the weight of wagdoh tiger ? I think he is bigger than that. |
|
|
|
| boldchamp | Nov 17 2012, 04:53 AM Post #893 |
|
Omnivore
|
Bigger than what? That lion? The tiger is longer, the lion taller. Just so happens that, at least in terms of robustness, that lion seems to be up on the top of the podium with Waghdoh. That lion actually has a lot of fat, suggesting that he is a big specimen, especially considering the normal height of lions, which is generally over 100 cm. I believe Waghdoh weighs slightly over 600 lbs. Edited by boldchamp, Nov 17 2012, 04:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
| MightyKharza | Nov 17 2012, 05:27 AM Post #894 |
Omnivore
|
 
Edited by MightyKharza, Nov 17 2012, 05:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
| ManEater | Nov 19 2012, 02:33 AM Post #895 |
|
Omnivore
|
You don't understand my coment, lions are taller than tigers, but wagdoh is an enormous tiger, i think an average lion and even a slighty bigger is not taller and wagdoh must look bigger than that. |
|
|
|
| theropod | Nov 19 2012, 02:49 AM Post #896 |
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
Looks good, but 7m crocs would be well above 1t, and leatherback seaturtles are more like 700kg... boldchamp, may I ask for a comparison of clearly given maximum figures? Reported lenghts or heights please, and maybe you should also give the sizes you are scaling the animals too, seeing how you are making so many comparisons of lions and tigers that all do not give the figures they show... |
|
|
|
| boldchamp | Nov 19 2012, 03:27 AM Post #897 |
|
Omnivore
|
Heights between 102 - 110 cm is quite routine for male lions, and i doubt Waghdoh exceeds those numbers. The comparison doesn`t make Waghdoh look smaller simply because, firstly, i am not trying to use or determine the actual height differences between the 2 (if there is any), but merely comparing the specimens at parity, and this reflects the robustness of each animal. If one animal is more robust compared to the other, it`ll look bigger when scaled to equal sizes. But, if you look closely, you`ll see that the tiger is ever so slightly taller, though i intended for the lion to be taller, but the tiger longer. I think Waghdoh is a heavy, robust looking tiger. But, i`ve seen nothing to suggest his height is anything out of the unusual for a tiger, and indeed, no one knows for sure. Edited by boldchamp, Nov 19 2012, 03:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
| ManEater | Nov 19 2012, 04:18 AM Post #898 |
|
Omnivore
|
I think that if wagdoh is something like 600lbs, it means he is taller than the average tiger, because he is a level above the average weight of a bengal tiger, and i guess it is because he is more muscular yes, but also because he is taller.
Edited by ManEater, Nov 19 2012, 04:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Shaochilong | Nov 19 2012, 04:33 AM Post #899 |
Herbivore
|
No, it isn't, Panthera tigris soloensis is. |
|
|
|
| Shaochilong | Nov 19 2012, 04:54 AM Post #900 |
|
Herbivore
|
Size comparrison of (from left to right) Panthera tigris altaica, Ursus maritimus, Ceratotherium simum, Elephas maximus. I really need to spread this around. Fanboys make the tigers way too big in their comparrisons.  Edited by Shaochilong, Nov 19 2012, 05:02 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Video & Image Gallery · Next Topic » |
6:05 PM Jul 13
