|
Post by brobear on Apr 8, 2018 8:47:57 GMT -5
( IMO ) If you were to take the skeleton of a tiger and the skeleton of a grizzly, these at length-parity, the bear's bones would outweigh the tiger's bones. You would find that not only does the bear have thicker-bones but his broader build means a greater volume of bone material. The skeleton is the foundation to which muscles are attached; thus more muscle on the grizzly.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 8, 2018 18:00:23 GMT -5
Polar: I can't believe that you posted this over at wildfact.com/forum/ With data given by both @brotherbear and @pckts, we can conclude that chest girth isn't much of a difference between the two (and the grizzly weighs less here) but more data with greater number of specimens at once is needed. *Note: I gave several examples proving my point which has been totally ignored by everyone including you. At equal bipedal height or head-and-body-length, the grizzly has the greater girth of neck and chest - period.
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Apr 8, 2018 18:48:43 GMT -5
Weight is a more fair comparison. Weight is always separate from any other factor, size or height is always relative.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 8, 2018 19:05:47 GMT -5
Weight is a more fair comparison. Weight is always separate from any other factor, size or height is always relative. Polar... you got me pulling my hair out by the roots!!! Jezz! To compare girth, you must have both animals at equal length; otherwise the comparison is void. For the nine-hundredth time... the grizzly is heavier than the tiger because he has a greater girth. How in the name of the most high can you measure girth by removing girth? How can you compare their girth by shrinking the grizzly thus removing his girth advantage over the tiger? Once again... if we were to compare the girth of a reticulated python with that of a green anaconda, we would measure the girth of two snakes of equal length; otherwise the comparison is void.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 8, 2018 19:43:08 GMT -5
Weight is a more fair comparison. Weight is always separate from any other factor, size or height is always relative. Did you even read this topic; I mean starting at post #1? Did you read the topic JUST QUEST from post #1 including the examples I posted? Comparing neck girth or chest girth at weight-parity proves absolutely nothing. Its a completely wasted effort. At bipedal height or head-and-body-length ( pretty much the same ) you measure the girth and announce the winner. This is a completely fair comparison with meaningful results. You will discover that the grizzly has the greater girth and, because he has the greater girth, is heavier.
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Apr 8, 2018 20:41:52 GMT -5
Yes I read the whole topic. But what you might misunderstand is that weight is the ultimate determining factor of how these measurements come to existence, not equal height or equal length.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 9, 2018 1:51:01 GMT -5
Polar... I'm trying to find a way to make you understand that 2+2=4. What you might misunderstand is that to determine which animal has the greater girth ( be it neck, chest, or other ) you must have them at same size meaning bipedal height or head-and-body-length which, by the way are nearly identical. Such as six-foot-tall man compared with six-foot-tall man. Or 20-foot-long python compared with 20-foot-long anaconda. With both animals being the same-sized animal, then you can discover which one has the greater girth. Again...the reason that the bear is heavier is because he has the greater girth. What you and pckts are doing... Comparing the chest girth of a tiger standing 7-feet-tall with a grizzly standing 5-feet-tall and then saying that the tiger is stronger than the bear. How can you possibly not see how stupid that is!
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 9, 2018 2:02:05 GMT -5
Heavier bear = Larger Chest girth... Bear at equal lengths and taller shoulder height will have a larger chest grith Bear at equal weight will have a smaller chest girth *Grizzly at equal length ( this from pckts ) will have a larger chest girth... and this is the ONLY fair comparison. The reason that the bear is heavier at length-parity is because he has the greater girth. To compare at weight-parity is simply removing the bear's girth advantage; and thus the comparison is void ( nullified ). It makes no sense what-so-ever to remove the bear's girth so as to compare girth. Ridiculous to the ultimate extreme.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 9, 2018 2:49:50 GMT -5
Again, Yellowstone grizzlies which are not, as grizzlies go, exceptional bears. shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/674 Source: www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications/documents/NMBearStudy.pdfOf 55 adult males and 55 adult females from Yellowstone National Park (YNP), average body measurements and weights were: total length 1.643 m, 1.511 m; height 95.2 cm, 87.4 cm; girth 130.5 cm, 114.6 cm; neck circumference 78.6 cm, 65.4 cm; length of head 41.7 cm, 37.8 cm; length of hind foot 189 mm, 163 mm; and width of hind foot 136 mm, 118 mm; mean adult mass 193 kg, 135 kg (Pasitschniak-Arts 1993). The largest grizzly bear weighed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) registered 509 kg (Craighead 1979). Source: www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_7/Blanchard_Vol_7.pdfThe largest adult male measured 241 cm long (measure- ment A, Fig. 1), 117 cm at the shoulder (C), 95 cm around the neck (D), and had a hind foot pad 170 mm wide (K) and 216 mm long (L). The largest female was 193 cm long (A), 103 cm at the shoulder (C), 74 cm around the neck (D), and had a hind foot 135 mm wide (K) and 190 mm long (L).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 9, 2018 3:01:08 GMT -5
To start with, I know that when a study is performed on bears, very young bears are in the mix, from 5 years old and up. A male grizzly is full-grown at age 10. Average male Yellowstone grizzly ( from source in above post ). Head-and-body length - 5 feet 5 inches. Shoulder height - 3 feet 2 inches. Chest girth - 4 feet 3 inches. Neck circumference - 2 feet 7 inches. Weight - 425.5 pounds. Q: If we were to use this, a grizzly measuring 5 feet 5 inches long and compare his girth with a tiger measuring 7 feet long and weighing 425 and a half pounds, what the hell have we accomplished? A: Nothing what-so-ever.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 9, 2018 3:19:02 GMT -5
By Ngala - wildfact.com/forum/ C - SKULL STRUCTURE A professional hunter like a cat, skull-structure-wise, needs to find a balance between offence (hunting) and defense (protecting a kill). Based on the skulls I saw, I'd say that hunting is more important than defense. In brown bears, it seems to be the other way round. Their skulls, especially in the posterior part, are heavily reinforced, allowing them to take a lot of damage. www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html Grizzly bear pit fights: The Californians of the late 19th century staged well-documented pit fights with grizzlies and spanish bulls. The grizzlies, using their paw as a club, shattered the unfortunate bull's skull or shoulder bones so easily that the betting became poor. Eventually, and at considerable cost, African lions were brought in to raise the stakes. The most fierce of the adult males was sent in whilst the grizzly was already waiting in the pits. The lion was known for bravely charging straight in and looked good for the money, but the grizzly killed a male lion almost as easily as he'd killed the bull. The Californians never understood why. We now know that it was enormously strong bone density meeting a low density skull. At a range of 4 feet the blow crashed in before the lion could apply the wind pipe lock, which is lion and tiger learnt behaviour for taking down prey animals. The ferocity of this animal easily matches that of an unsettled African lion.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 9, 2018 10:55:07 GMT -5
Pckts says... Once again, lb for lb, the tiger is actually going to have the larger chest, neck and limbs most likely. inch for inch the bear is going to be the heavier individual, larger chest and taller shoulder. Bengals close the gap though and even at inch for inch they are near the same chest girth since their HBL average is actually less than the bears used which was surprising to me.
You choosing to favor the Inch for Inch comparison is your choice, it slightly favors the bear but not much to be honest. *In my own words... I do not choose inch-for-inch to favor the grizzly. I choose length-parity because this is the ONLY fair method of comparing girth. From my findings, even at pound-for-pound comparisons, the grizzly has the tiger beat... even the famous Bengal tiger. Never-the-less, pound-for-pound is a faulty method for comparing girth. How can you accurately compare girth by down-sizing the heavier animal when it is his girth which gives him his weight advantage? Makes no sense. The Bengal tiger, as shown in "Just Quest" post #10, has an equal chest girth with a grizzly only with the big cat having a length advantage of nearly a foot.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 9, 2018 11:16:39 GMT -5
Comparing Bengal tiger ( head-and-body length 6 feet 3 inches ) to Yellowstone grizzly ( head-and-body length 5 feet 5 inches ). Bengal tiger - Chest girth = 4 feet 3 inches / Shoulder height = 3 feet 3 inches / Weight = 489 pounds. Yellowstone grizzly - Chest girth = 4 feet 3 inches / Shoulder height = 3 feet 1 inch / Weight = 426 pounds. *Note: With a head-and-body length advantage of 10 inches, the tiger and the grizzly are equal in chest girth while the tiger has a weight advantage of 63 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 10, 2018 7:30:17 GMT -5
Yes I read the whole topic. But what you might misunderstand is that weight is the ultimate determining factor of how these measurements come to existence, not equal height or equal length. Polar; I do understand that when two animals are of the exact weight of each other, then there is an equal amount of each animal to be compared. This is simple science. However, what I'm trying to get across to you ( forget the tiger fan-boy ) is that when you measure both animals at head-and-body length parity, then the one with the greatest over-all girth will be the heaviest. You cannot compare girth at weight parity because it is the superior girth that gives the one a weight advantage over the other. At length parity, you have a completely fair girth comparison. If you cannot understand this, then I'm stumped.
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Apr 10, 2018 8:51:52 GMT -5
Yes I read the whole topic. But what you might misunderstand is that weight is the ultimate determining factor of how these measurements come to existence, not equal height or equal length. Polar; I do understand that when two animals are of the exact weight of each other, then there is an equal amount of each animal to be compared. This is simple science. However, what I'm trying to get across to you ( forget the tiger fan-boy ) is that when you measure both animals at head-and-body length parity, then the one with the greatest over-all girth will be the heaviest. You cannot compare girth at weight parity because it is the superior girth that gives the one a weight advantage over the other. At length parity, you have a completely fair girth comparison. If you cannot understand this, then I'm stumped. That part in bold is all that is needed. To compare how something measures up to the other in forms of energy intake, physical measurements, etc....that requires the same amount of stuff, so the same mass. Pckts is not really a big-cat fan, more like a reasonable big cat enthusiast (PT Sondaica on the other hand...), just like you and I are reasonable bear enthusiasts. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 10, 2018 9:34:32 GMT -5
Damn! You still don't get it.
So, if you were going to compare the girth of a reticulated python with that of a green anaconda, you would measure the girth of two snakes of the same weight, even though one might be six feet longer than the other. Really...!!?!!
|
|
|
Post by Polar on Apr 10, 2018 18:47:51 GMT -5
Damn! You still don't get it. So, if you were going to compare the girth of a reticulated python with that of a green anaconda, you would measure the girth of two snakes of the same weight, even though one might be six feet longer than the other. Really...!!?!! Yes, if the reticulated python is heavier/lighter on average than the anaconda...this is also a question of average weight. If the two snakes happen to be near each others weight on average, then length parity would be more achieved but only as a function of weight. The grizzly and tiger weigh about the same and have about similar chest girth.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 10, 2018 21:17:18 GMT -5
So answer me this, if you measure the girth of the two snakes and one is six feet longer than the other; what have you accomplished? You damn sure don't end up with a reliable girth comparison. You have proved nothing unless both snakes are of the same length. Then the results have meaning.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 11, 2018 4:57:15 GMT -5
www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/grizzlybear-sep2004.pdf Of 55 adult males and 55 adult females from Yellowstone National Park (YNP), average body measurements and weights were: total length 1.643 m, 1.511 m; height 95.2 cm, 87.4 cm; girth 130.5 cm, 114.6 cm; neck circumference 78.6 cm, 65.4 cm; length of head 41.7 cm, 37.8 cm; length of hind foot 189 mm, 163 mm; and width of hind foot 136 mm, 118 mm; mean adult mass 193 kg, 135 kg (Pasitschniak-Arts 1993). The largest grizzly bear weighed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) registered 509 kg (Craighead 1979). Males are usually 8-10% larger than females and skulls show some sexual dimorphism. Grizzly bears, like most bears, show a great degree of plasticity in physical dimensions; in general, size varies positively with amount and quality of food. *Note: Wyoming grizzlies are smaller than Montana grizzlies. Average male: Weight - 425.5 pounds. Neck circumference - 2 feet 7 inches. Chest girth - 4 feet 3 inches. Length - 5 feet 5 inches. It's all about method Polar. You just cannot compare the girth of two animals by comparing at equal weight. The reason is elementary; the animal with the greater girth is the heavier animal due to his greater girth. Simple as that. At equal weight, the tiger has a chest girth very near equal with the grizzly because the grizzly has been shrunk down to tiger-girth-size. At equal head-and-body length, the ONLY proper way to compare girth, the grizzly proves to have the superior girth.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 11, 2018 6:32:03 GMT -5
My LAST POST here on this topic. You can have the last word Polar; but I KNOW beyond the shadow of any doubt that I am RIGHT. - Five methods of comparing the girth of a tiger with that of a grizzly: 1 - At weight-parity... You just cannot compare the girth of two animals by comparing at equal weight. The reason is elementary; the animal with the greater girth is the heavier animal due to his greater girth. Simple as that. At equal weight, the tiger has a chest girth very near equal with the grizzly because the grizzly has been shrunk down to tiger-girth-size. This method void. 2 - At shoulder height-parity... Some animals are more long-legged than others. Plus the grizzly has from 4 to 10 inches of extra-muscle on his shoulders lacking in the tiger. This method void. 3 - At bipedal height-parity... This method would be good except it is too difficult to find the bipedal height of animals. Plus some have trouble standing bipedal without a lot of leaning/bending. This method void. 4 - At the average size for a mature male of each species. This would in all honesty be the best method; but there is no such animal as the average-size grizzly. Every population is different. This method void. 5 - At head-and-body-length parity... This is the ONLY workable method which would give an accurate girth comparison between a tiger and a grizzly.
|
|