Biggest of it's kind - Maybe

[brobear]

Our topic, "Size Comparisons (The Grand Arena and others)" is up there among my favorite threads here at the Domain. Great work by theundertaker45,  nocapakabl, and a few others. I would like to mention that "the biggest of it's kind" is not always a rock-solid cold hard fact. Some animals are so close in size that to say with a certainty that one is bigger than the other can be questioned. 
For me personally, when I look at two similar animals standing together and to decide which one is bigger than the other is a matter of choosing or guessing rather than obvious, then it remains pointless to mention any size difference. A few examples are Australian saltwater crocodile and Nile crocodile, African white rhinoceros and Great Indian rhinoceros, African lion and Amur or Bengal tiger, wild yak and gaur, and Kodiak bear and Alaskan peninsula brown bear.

[brobear]

Oct 19, 2020 15:09:58 GMT -5 theundertaker45 said:

Kruger Lion - Siberian Tiger

Biggest of it's kind - Maybe. 

[theundertaker45]

I'd say the largest big cat on earth is the Bengal tiger; modern Amur tigers and African lions from large populations seem to be about the same size nowadays. For bears it would be the polar bear, followed by Alaskan Peninsula grizzlies/Kodiak bears who I personally consider about equal in body size but vastly different in size/shape of the skulls. There is too limited data to conclude something for bovids but as of now I'd say the three top contenders would be the Malayan gaur/wild yak/wood bison. Saltwater crocodiles are definitely bigger than nile crocodiles, they outsize them by quite a bit as recovered skulls of gigantic specimens and actual figures show. There may be some overlap in terms of average weight between the two but at maximum dimensions the saltwater crocodile is the "King of Crocs" without any sort of competition from other extant crocodylians. The closest contest in my eyes would be between the Indian rhinoceros and the white rhinoceros, I'd say they are about equal or within 100/200kg of each other which is basically nothing at this weight class. 

[brobear]

Nov 7, 2021 17:44:46 GMT -5 theundertaker45 said:

Wow! Now I see what you mean 'Taker. Both the wild yak and the wood bison are competitors of the gaur as being the world's biggest Bovine.

[brobear]

Dec 5, 2020 8:29:49 GMT -5 theundertaker45 said:

Indian Gaur - Wild Yak (revised version)

Can we really place the name of a definite winner to the "world's biggest bovine"?

[brobear]

May 4, 2020 17:18:35 GMT -5 theundertaker45 said:

Battle of the Tanks: Indian Rhinoceros vs White Rhinoceros

Pictured is the biggest of the biggest living rhinoceros. 

[brobear]

Using the rhinoceros as an example, an African white rhinoceros was the heaviest rhinoceros ever weighed. However, how many rhinos are actually weighed? Perhaps a better question might be, what percentage of adult male rhinos are never weighed? This same question comes to mind when I consider the Alaskan peninsula brown bear and the Kodiak brown bear.

[brobear]

Apr 25, 2020 6:34:10 GMT -5 theundertaker45 said:

And here we have the battle of the gigantic brown bears: A Kodiak bear (left) taking on a coastal brown bear (right).

The two biggest brown bears with the Kamchatka bear running a close third.

[brobear]

About Reply #7.
The biggest bear cannot be determined by the size of footprints or skulls. The size proportions of body parts to body vary from individual to individual. Therefore, the Boone and Crockett trophy method is flawed.
Another factor; how many brown bears are actually hefted onto scales and weighed? What percentage of living bears? I feel certain that the answer to those questions is very few; a small fraction of Kodiak and Alaskan peninsula brown bears.
One last question to consider. How many Kodiak bears ( if any ) are bigger than the Alaskan grizzly named Van?
Observation: biologists list the Alaskan peninsula brown bear as a grizzly - Ursus arctos horribilis. / Sport hunters list the Alaskan peninsula brown bear as a Kodiak bear - Ursus arctos middendorffi.

[brobear]

The biggest polar bear ever recorded was a wild specimen who was recorded at, 2,210 pounds. Polar bears grow bigger in the wild than in captivity due to their natural diet of seal and whale blubber. The biggest brown bears on record are captive specimens such as Clyde and Goliath, each of which surpassed 2,000 pounds. The heaviest brown bear on record weighed 1,656 pounds. I'm uncertain whether or not this bear's weight was confirmed by biologists. The Famous Bart the Bear, another Kodiak, weighed 1,500, but he was also a captive animal.
Too few coastal brown bears are ever weighed to come to any positive conclusions. The weights we have posted in our own "Weight Collection" gives these weights:
Average fully grown male Kodiak bear (9 years+) - 1077.3 pounds.
Average fully grown female Kodiak bear (7 years+) - 446.5 pounds.
Average mature female Alaska Peninsula brown bear (5 years+) - 498.2 pounds.
Average fully grown male Alaska Peninsula brown bear (9 years+) - 857.6 pounds.

[Deleted]

I have to say that these comparison photos here don´t seem to be too good to start conversations which are biggest of the big.

Like the thing with gaur, it´s very commonly called as biggest bovine of the world, because they happen to be that. When making comparison photos and if wanting to be really accurate, then shoulder height alone isn´t good enough. There is also height-length ratio to think about. For instance lions and tigers with shoulder height of 1 meter can have body length anything in between 170-220 cm. Same goes with all species. And still, 2-dimensional comparison pictures can´t show all.

For instance pictures with Kruger lion and Siberian tiger... looks to me a bit so and so, I don´t think that it´s giving accurate impression. Same with Kodiak bear and Alaskan peninsula bear picture is frankly saying odd for me. After all they are basically same bear and in usual photos impossible to know which one is which unless knowing from where photo is taken. What comes to size, they are also very close call, whatever advantage Kodiak bear might have, is something which most likely couldn´t be seen but would demand accurate measuring and weighing. Like famous bear Van, based on all known information he would be in top 10% in size also if he would live at Kodiak Islands. 

Anyway, when using random photos and shoulder height alone, comparison pictures can be spot on or giving somewhat wrong impression. Body length is very important to take into account too and scale up photos in which height-length ratio is same as with average individuals or biggest possible, depending what is wanted to demonstrate. Especially when knowing that difference to reality can be around 20-25%  if using wrong kind of photo.

[Deleted]

To add a bit...

For instance when looking at gaur in that comparison picture and comparing it to these....



And this:




That "slim boy" in that comparison photo can be discussed how good representative of gaurs it is, if comparing to robust wood bisons. These guys here show maybe better what it means, when gaur is in good and robust condition.

[brobear]

Quote: That "slim boy" in that comparison photo can be discussed how good representative of gaurs it is, if comparing to robust wood bisons. These guys here show maybe better what it means, when gaur is in good and robust condition.

*Any animal can be pictured from a poor specimen to an above average specimen. I have also see more robust bison.

Quote: When making comparison photos and if wanting to be really accurate, then shoulder height alone isn´t good enough. There is also height-length ratio to think about.

*If two animals are pictured at equal shoulder height, wouldn't their HB length also be noticed? For a more complete comparison, we would need more than a single picture. Perhaps these might include photos taken straight-down from above and a shot of each facing the camera. These would show more clearly a girth comparison. But, all things considered, I really like these comparison pictures made by both 'Taker and Nocap.
But, if you ( Shadow ) would like to create some - the more the merrier.   
 
*Edit and add: I do like the idea of equal head-and-body length comparisons.

[Deleted]

brobear

Why I called that gaur as "slim boy" was because it was pretty slim in comparison with really robust individuals. There are some more robust bisons for sure, but that bison in photo was quite robust one already and also with similar body length as that gaur based on photo. 

And here we come to that other point which I made. When I mentioned body length I didn´t mean that it should be same when comparing to different species, it most likely isn´t. It´s not fair play so to speak when comparing biggest individuals or average individuals of different species. Numbers are what they are and based on current knowledge some gaurs reach size and weights which no other bovines do. 

When I talk about taking into account body length too I mean it, that when talking about for instance average shoulder height of a tiger there should be also average body length. For instance if assuming that 1 meter is average shoulder height and 2 meters for body length, then in comparison photo should be used a tiger with rate 1:2 shoulder height:body length.

I´ve seen nice looking comparison photos using lion with ratio 1:1,7 and tiger 1:2,2 making tiger look way bigger than it is in reality and similar things vice versa. 

So if scaling biggest possible lion of some area, let´s say 120 cm shoulder height and knowing that it has body length of 2 meters, then ratio should be 1:1,66 or if body length has been 2,2 meters, ratio would be 1:1,83. I have noticed that in most comparison photos shoulder height has been used as only thing to consider and it leads to random results. Sometimes one animal is spot on and other one is looking smaller or bigger than it should overall, sometimes both are spot on and sometimes neither aren´t showing what has been tried to.

So when making these photos, it has to be checked, that both measurements are taken into account to create a model of average or biggest possible individuals. These photos are easy way to give wrong impressions by accident or on purpose. I know that it happens usually by accident, but I´ve seen some photos in other sites, which have been done most likely on purpose. Tiger and lion fanatics have odd ways to use photos.

One problem is, that from all animals there are no good averages told, more like ranges in which body weights variate. In such case, if using for instance tallest possible shoulder height, it would be good to check, that body length is also longest known to avoid distortion. And if really demonstrating biggest possible, then also in photo should be really robust individual, not first animal which happens to be in right position. Making a good comparison picture, which has all aspects taken into consideration equally for both species can take some time. 

What comes to pictures here, some are better and some aren´t as good. I say as I see things and I´m pretty sure, that I´m not only one who looks comparison pictures carefully, especially if seeing something what doesn´t look quite right. And I think, that my reasoning above should explain what things I check and to what I pay attention. Dimensions and what kind of individuals are chosen to photos. When those things are taken into account it´s very difficult to criticize pictures. 

For instance in some sites/discussion have been often used comparison photo of Amur tiger and Ussuri brown bear made by one well known poster (what comes to animal forums) and I always thought that it was poor picture and not giving realistic impression. Measurement was done in "one dimensional way" only considering shoulder height and also not paying any attention to body length and in photo seemed to be some juvenile bear. Frankly saying one of the worst comparison photos I´ve seen. Then again here theundertaker45 made some time ago comparison photo of same animals and it was very spot on giving in my opinion quite realistic comparison between two adult individuals.  

Then again I´ve seen some pictures here, which I have to criticize in order to be honest. But I also tell what are the things I pay attention and why. If wanting to make best comparison pictures, then some details are important in my opinion. I like to see comparison pictures too. And I want them to be as good as possible. That´s why I think that it´s good to discuss about things, which are good and which seem to be wrong for some reason. 

[tom]

Nov 19, 2021 9:13:06 GMT -5 @shadow said:

I like to see comparison pictures too. And I want them to be as good as possible. That´s why I think that it´s good to discuss about things, which are good and which seem to be wrong for some reason. 

Then by all means make some Shadow if you have a better way of creating them. 

I to like what Undertaker has done here at the Domain with regards to comparison pictures. He does this as a favor to the forum. I don't think anyone can expect them to be 100% accurate, but they do present a good general idea or at least as best as he can make them with what he is working with.

[Deleted]

Nov 19, 2021 12:19:33 GMT -5 tom said:

Nov 19, 2021 9:13:06 GMT -5 @shadow said:

I like to see comparison pictures too. And I want them to be as good as possible. That´s why I think that it´s good to discuss about things, which are good and which seem to be wrong for some reason. 

Then by all means make some Shadow if you have a better way of creating them. 

I to like what Undertaker has done here at the Domain with regards to comparison pictures. He does this as a favor to the forum. I don't think anyone can expect them to be 100% accurate, but they do present a good general idea or at least as best as he can make them with what he is working with.

I have done many and people have seen them. But I do those only when I have time. When I give criticism I show reason why and it doesn´t mean that I would say that all pictures are bad, not at all. All people who do comparison pictures have to be ready to take criticism too, praising all the time even if seeing things which can be questioned doesn´t develop anything. Quality over quantity is how I see things.

I think, that all who do comparison photos try to make them as good as possible, I do so whenever I do those. It isn´t too easy thing to do and takes time when trying to take into consideration all those aspects I mentioned and one thing, which I forgot to say is how animal walks in the photo. It is one important thing to have both animals in same position to get shoulder height comparable. 

I commented here now, because these pictures in this thread aren´t best possible, imo, especially if with them is tried to justify questioning certain things and commonly accepted information. Like that gaurs are considered as largest bovines of the world. And that lion-tiger picture is pretty questionable if comparing Kruger lions with Siberian tigers.

But I can look if I have some pictures saved in some file and show. But what comes to pictures here, I have seen development if asked from me. As I mentioned for instance that latest picture with Siberian tiger and Ussuri browb bear by theundertaker45 was very good. And many others too. 

[Deleted]

Here is one picture, which I made once. Idea is to show how it looks like when scaling a lion and tiger with very similar shoulder height-body length ratio to same shoulder height. 

If I remember right I made this after someone had posted a comparison picture with "short" lion compared to "long tiger" and I wanted to show how it looks like when lion has as long body length as tiger, which they often have. All populations of tigers and lions have individuals with shorter and longer body length while shoulder height can be same.

I have added lines to make it easier to anyone to check measurement points which I have used. That thinner red line under tiger shows that loose fold of skin, which is easier to see with lion than tiger and it often makes tigers look a bit more robust than they are if looking some photo just briefly.

Idea of this picture wasn´t to compare averages or biggest possible, but to show how close call these biggest cats often are. If comparing biggest possible or averages, then more time and effort would be needed. But these animals have been scaled up as they are.

[brobear]

Most people, of which I am aware of, consider the tiger to be normally more 'long-bodied' than the lion; or the lion normally taller at shoulder height than the tiger. This same holds true when comparing a big cat with a bear. Bears are said to be 'short-bodied'.
Dogs, such as the dachshund or the Basset Hound are considered 'long-bodied dogs, when they are actually not. They simply have very short legs. So, are tigers normally more 'long-bodied' than lions or simply most often shorter in the leg department? Same question for big cat when compared with a bear.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2021 6:53:58 GMT -5 brobear said:

Most people, of which I am aware of, consider the tiger to be normally more 'long-bodied' than the lion; or the lion normally taller at shoulder height than the tiger. This same holds true when comparing a big cat with a bear. Bears are said to be 'short-bodied'.
Dogs, such as the dachshund or the Basset Hound are considered 'long-bodied dogs, when they are actually not. They simply have very short legs. So, are tigers normally more 'long-bodied' than lions or simply most often shorter in the leg department? Same question for big cat when compared with a bear.

It is how it´s usually considered, that tigers have longer bodies. Then again when looking at measurements from different places, they are in pretty similar range. If saying how long body approximately tiger has, for males answer would be 2 meters. If question would be concerning lions and males, answer would be again, approximately 2 meters. And for both approximately +- 20 cm. It can be, that tigers have there some edge, but based on what I´ve seen so far, difference isn´t significant. Same seems to be with shoulder height, biggest tigers and lions both are said to have shoulder height around 120 cm. But I think, that vast majority are around 90-100 cm. At least if talking about shoulder height in their natural standing position.

It seems to be so, that in scientific research shoulder height is measured with extended legs, which gives easily 10-20 cm more to natural standing position in which for instance shoulder height of domestic animals is measured. Dogs and horses are easy to measure while awake, but with lions, tigers, bears etc. it would be.... "challenging". Even in zoos they seem to make more estimations than real measurements what comes to shoulder heights.

When looking at tigers and lions in captivity and when in same enclosures, they look very same, what comes to shoulder height and body length. I have often wondered if lions benefit more from captivity what comes to reaching their potential body size.

[nocapakabl]

Nov 18, 2021 6:37:16 GMT -5 @shadow said:

I have to say that these comparison photos here don´t seem to be too good to start conversations which are biggest of the big.

Like the thing with gaur, it´s very commonly called as biggest bovine of the world, because they happen to be that. When making comparison photos and if wanting to be really accurate, then shoulder height alone isn´t good enough. There is also height-length ratio to think about. For instance lions and tigers with shoulder height of 1 meter can have body length anything in between 170-220 cm. Same goes with all species. And still, 2-dimensional comparison pictures can´t show all.

For instance pictures with Kruger lion and Siberian tiger... looks to me a bit so and so, I don´t think that it´s giving accurate impression. Same with Kodiak bear and Alaskan peninsula bear picture is frankly saying odd for me. After all they are basically same bear and in usual photos impossible to know which one is which unless knowing from where photo is taken. What comes to size, they are also very close call, whatever advantage Kodiak bear might have, is something which most likely couldn´t be seen but would demand accurate measuring and weighing. Like famous bear Van, based on all known information he would be in top 10% in size also if he would live at Kodiak Islands. 

Anyway, when using random photos and shoulder height alone, comparison pictures can be spot on or giving somewhat wrong impression. Body length is very important to take into account too and scale up photos in which height-length ratio is same as with average individuals or biggest possible, depending what is wanted to demonstrate. Especially when knowing that difference to reality can be around 20-25%  if using wrong kind of photo.

Except gaurs aren't the largest bovines on earth; that is a baseless claim from your part. Anyone who's gone through the data will know that wood bisons outweigh any sample of bull gaurs we have, and so do some yak populations potentially albeit there's little data on them.

FYI, Those are old size comparisons from undertaker, that's why they're so odd. Obviously, there isn't a point in criticising them any more given that undertaker has improved them massively. Anyone who's seen a good portion gaur bulls will know that they're built abit lean but ripped, exactly like the specimen undertaker used in his comparison, I could find plenty and by that i mean plenty of bisons that exceed the bison bull he used too. Sometimes it feels like you throw out more baseless claims and criticisms than contribute, on this site.