ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

PC

I read the book of Tony de Almeida ('Jaguar hunting in the Mato Grosso and Bolivia', Safari Press, 1990) some years ago. It's informative and, datawise, very reliable. He's one of the few who measured jaguars in the correct way ('between pegs'). De Almeida lived and breathed jaguars from day one, but Batalov compares. As this thread is about wild tigers, his opinion has quite a bit of weight. When he talks about the correlation between prints, heels and weights, you pay attention. 

The topic turned to skulls, because the information needed to discuss the (average) length and weight of today's wild Amur tigers just isn't there. This means those interested have no option but to use the same (old) sources to get to the same conclusions time and again. That's still apart from the countless discussions about the reliability of both historic and recent records and the method used to measure wild big cats today ('over curves'). Meaning we're going nowhere. 

There are, in other words, good reasons to decide for a different approach (referring to indirect information about the size of wild Amur tigers). I opted for captive Amur tigers and skulls and started with captive Amur tigeres about a year ago. The result was a bit disappointing. The reason, again, was a lack of accurate information. 

In the skull department, things are different. One reason is I started measuring skulls about a quarter of a century ago, meaning I already have a lot of information. Another is many articles about big cat skulls have been published in the last two decades.  

Another advantage of skulls is they're still here. Furthermore, skulls are measured in the same way all over the globe. The method used is reliable, meaning different people measuring the same skull will produce very similar results. 

The only problem is some skulls tend to disappear every now and then. With 'some', I mean large skulls in particular. Just after our former member 'WaveRiders', loaded with knowledge (and contacts), left, he told me the largest skull Mazak measured (I'm referring to the skull of a Manchurian tiger in Berlin) was gone. And he was right, I later learned. The second largest, very close in all respects and also from Manchuria, is also gone. I heard more stories about large skulls disappearing from collections.  

Anyhow. 

The only reliable table (referring to the size of wild Amur tigers today), as far as I know, is the one in a document published in 2005. I'm referring to the table with information about tigers of 3 years and older captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve and it's surroundings in the period 1992-2004. It said 'adult' males averaged 294 cm in total length measured 'over curves'. I don't know how they got to the average of 176,4 kg, but assume it was the correct average. 

However. 

Miquelle, a few years later, said male Amur tigers averaged about 430 pounds (195 kg). Guate, following the proceedings, got to 420 about a decade later and my average was 185 kg (referring to a post in this thread). Guate, still closely following the proceedings, recently concluded it could be closer to 200 kg (442 pounds). The averages (176,4-200 kg for males in the period 1992-2023) are largely based on the table published in 2005. Although reliable information was added later, the sample still is quite small. Furthermore, it's from a few districts only. 

A few years ago, rumours about large males in northeastern China and the Khabarovsk Krai emerged. Feng Limin, in a recent video, said some tigers have been weighed in northeastern China. The two heaviest reached (or exceeded) 250 kg. A young adult male arrested for attacking a car was 225 kg. Maybe he, as you said, was loaded, but that isn't the point. The point is northeastern China, in spite of the limited population (about 60 individuals), seems to produce heavy tigers.   

Batalov said there is a correlation between the width of the heel and the weight of a tiger. In most wild adult males, the heel width ranges between 10,5-12,0 cm. A heel width of 12,0 cm is considered as 'large'. Batalov thought 'Odor', who had heel width of 12,0 cm, was close to 200 kg. Most males he knew ranged between 160-200 kg, but some might have been heavier. Gotvansky, in the Anyuysky National Park, measured prints with heel widths ranging between 13,5-16,0 cm in the period 2015-2022. 

Was Gotvansky unable to measure a print in the correct way? Did Feng Limin decide to misinform the public? Were tigers captured in the period 1992-2004 not as heavy as those seen today? Is Dr. Lukarevsky wrong?     

What to conclude? 

All I can say is captive male Amur tigers average about 495 pounds. Those I consider to be 'in the know', however, told me a typical adult male is about 550 pounds in his prime, whereas a large one exceeds that mark by 50-100 pounds. 

What to make of that regarding their wild relatives? There's reliable information about the weight of both captive and wild Indian and Sumatran tigers. It suggests wild and captive tigers are two very different animals.                           

APEX

Yet another good find. Many thanks. The information of Dr. Victor Lukarensky is interesting. If you're able to reach him, see if he's willing to answer a few questions.

The first question is why the difference between his average and that of others is so pronounced. The second is if there are differences in size between regions or districts. The third is why individual variation is so pronounced. Another question is if wild Amur tigers are different from their captive relatives and, if so, in what respects. I don't doubt you have a few questions yourself. I would be interested in what he knows about the way tigers and brown bears interact.  

Lukarevsky apparently worked with Miquelle. If Lukarevsky says adult males average well over 200 kg, it's likely Miquelle knows as well. Maybe it's best to contact Miquelle yourself. Another option is to contact Kerley, Goodrich or Kolchin. Ask them what they think about the table published in 2005 and Lukarevsky's opinion. We're very interested. Reply