(10-24-2014, 12:18 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: M105 is Sauraha, who tragically died during the drowning accident.

 

(10-24-2014, 12:09 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: A tidbit on the Nepal weights. 261 kg is not literally a correction for food intake, as we'll never know that due to the scale's capacity. It's a best estimate based on regression of about r^2=.80-.90 (quite enough room for variability).

And I guess it's time for some exciting news I've held for a while. We know M105 and M026 being the 270 kg exceeding specimens. M026 initially was not 270 kg in his first weighing for the Nepal document giving the average of 235 kg. 4 years later Dr. Dinerstein's massed him, this time exceeding 270 kg. Well, during my research for a better database of regression, I found out there were two more males in Nepal during the Smithsonian project that were Sauraha's size, give or take, 270+ kg. Off the top of my head when I was putting together the data, the new Chitwan average was 246 kg.

 

(10-24-2014, 01:41 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(10-24-2014, 12:18 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: M105 is Sauraha, who tragically died during the drowning accident.


 

Indeed, one unnecessary collaring and tranq'ing contributed to the death of that large boy.

 

(10-24-2014, 10:16 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:

(10-24-2014, 01:41 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(10-24-2014, 12:18 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: M105 is Sauraha, who tragically died during the drowning accident.



 

Indeed, one unnecessary collaring and tranq'ing contributed to the death of that large boy.


 

In fact, although the dead of the Sauraha male was a tragic accident, it was not biologically significant:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
The Sauraha male had tenure of 5 years and monopolized all the females in the entire Chitwan Park. This is good for the individual tiger, but not for the genetic of the area. After all, at some time, there was a level of inbreeding there (father and daughters), and as no male was able to defeat him, through several fights in his entire life, we can suggest that indirectly, the accidental death of the Sauraha male was an opportunity for new arrivals.
 
After the death of Sauraha, there were several months of chaos and instability among the tiger population, but that ended with the arrival of new strong males from other regions and this gives new blood to the population. The genetic of the Sauraha male is still living in Chitwan, by the way.
 
This could sound as a cold description, but is the correct way of how we can interpret the situation. By the way, it was not an unnecessary capture, they were to change its radiocollar. Fortunately, this never happened again in the rest of the study.
 

 

(10-24-2014, 10:41 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: At least in modern Chitwan, it probably isn't an overstatement to say your average dominant male hovers around 270 kg. The tigers of this area seem to have up-sized through the century. Now the question is, how do the Chitwan specimens compare to the rest of the form?

 

(10-23-2014, 02:59 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote:

Quote:The 'Killer of Men', who got his nickname for obvious reasons, was the largest tiger Bengt Berg ever saw. The largest he actually measured (292,1 cm. straight and 256,28 kg.) was much less robust. Here's the tiger again:

So peter, according to this statement. the heaviest male Bength Berg measured came out with the following measurements (292.1cm straight and 256.28kg) but the Killer of Men was the largest male he's seen ? now let's assume he was a 256kg + potential Tiger. that's very interesting because i never thought of Killer of Men as an exceptionally large male. Now this gives us a real size perspective of males residing in all parts of India. 'Forty years among the wild animals of India, from Mysore to the Himalayas' of F.C. Hicks (Allahabad, 1910):


[img]http://i.imgur.com/gPACqQv.jpg" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title="">

*This image is copyright of its original author

Hicks entered India as an Assistent-Conservator of the Imperial Forest Service of India in August 1866. He wrote his book in 1906. In a period of forty years only, Hicks saw enormous changes:

" ... But he (another officer of the Imperial Forest Service of India) had shot fifty tigers in the course of a comparatively few years, in localities where I had been a Forest Officer for more than twenty years before him - when there were no railways as now, and when there were ten tigers for every one tiger there is in the same place now ... " (pp. 13).

Assuming there were about 20.000 tigers in India at the turn of the last century (say 1895-1905) and assuming Hicks was close regarding his statement on the number of tigers in the middle of the 19th century (which seems likely, as he was supported by many), India could have had 200.000 tigers in the period 1800-1870 (...).

A bit over the top, I think. But we know tigers lost 95-98% of their territory in the last century. I propose to settle for 40.000 a century and a half ago (1860-1870).

About 40.000 tigers in a very large country of which as much 50% was covered with forest. And all that in near-pristine conditions, countless big herbivores and, apart from a few Forest Officials and a few railways and roads, close to zero human interference. Would these conditions allow for a few exceptions? More than in a population of about 2.000 divided in little islands with very little, if any, exchange? In other words: does a one-legged duck swim in circles?

a - Burma. A bit over a century ago. This tiger was over 10 feet straight and very big in every way:

 

*This image is copyright of its original author

  


b - Assam, twenties of the last century. No words needed:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

   

c - Kumaon, almost a century ago. This tiger was 10.7 'over curves' and as big as a Shetland pony:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - Nepal. About the same period. Watch the tiger in the centre:

*This image is copyright of its original author

e - South-India, first decade of the last century. This tiger was over 20 years old when he was shot. As fit as they come, Wiele wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

f - South-India, less than a century ago. Old One Eye was 11 feet 'over curves' and about 700 pounds. I propose to deduct 100 for starters as a result of baiting and speculation (the tiger wasn't weighed, but estimated). But he was plenty big. Watch the photograph from a distance:  

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now let's have a look at three tigers mentioned by Hicks. It's true he selected the largest tigers, but 'large' meant massive, not long. 


g - A tiger with a body circumference of 190,5 cm. (...) shot in Central-India. The circumference seems incredible, but he was measured by an experienced Forest Officer who measured tigers in a straight line and had an eye for details:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 


h - Another big tiger shot in the Siwaliks in 1904: " ... This tiger, although so large, was very compactly built and had nothing of the loose flabby look about him that a similar tiger down in the plains would have had ... " (pp. 600). It was a very old (at least twenty years) game-killer with paw prints hardly larger than those of a large panther. But that was typical for hill-tigers: " ... If you find very large footprints of a tiger right up on the top of a high hills, he probably does not belong there ...". Have a look at the circumference of the body:

*This image is copyright of its original author

i - Another giant tiger shot in Shimoga. This male was 292,10 cm. in total length straight. Longish, but not exceptional. The circumference of his skull, however, was 106,68 cm. and his chest was 162,56 cm., whereas his neck was 96,52 cm. Compare these measurements to those of the 261 kg. Sauraha tiger and the tigers mentioned above. The conclusion is he was much more robust:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is the cover of a book written by Captain J. Forsyth and published in 1889. Forsyth, that is, was right in the thick of it: he hunted tigers when there were so many man-eaters that some regions in Central and South India were completely deserted:

*This image is copyright of its original author

j - The tiger mentioned below was an obese fellow filled with beef and, for that reason, a true mountain of fat. At 10.1 straight, he touched 700 pounds, Forsyth thought:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

k - Did I tell you about Inglis, who published before Forsyth did? Inglis hunted tigers, but he was an amateur compared to a number of others who had lived a few decades longer in North-India. Between 1830-1860, I mean. One of these shot an exceptional tiger well over 11 feet (measured 'over curves') in total length. Inglis was amazed at the size and dimensions of the tiger, but the one who shot him said the tiger would have been dwarfed by others shot some years earlier. Dwarfed (...).  

l - I could continue for quite some time, but I think the point is made. Indian tigers today could be very similar to those shot a century and a half ago in length and could be heavier as a result of well-stocked reserves and competition. The largest tigers live just south of the Himalayas. Those in north-east India, able to hunt very large herbivores, could top the list.

In spite of all that, there would have been relatively more exceptional animals in the days there really were ten tigers for every one today. I also think these exceptions would have been larger than today's exceptions, because the conditions were near-pristine and more tigers would have been able to reach twenty years or more. As more years usually means more length and more length is more weight in tigers, one would expect more tigers reaching 700 pounds or more a century and a half ago. But according to Inglis and a number of others in those days, the actual maximum could have been well over that mark.

m - Some of the tigers they saw could have been close to the tigers below, perhaps. But they saw more robust animals. Difficult to imagine, but there were there.

But were they?

We could, as many biologists seem to do, just dismiss them. I propose, however, to regard the people who wrote these books as our equals. The thing we can't imagine is they lived in a different time and faced different conditions.

Would you have started a rescue centre for displaced tigers and other outcasts in a time in which many thousands in India alone were killed by animals (buffaloes, some species of deer, muggers, snakes, wild boars, bears, leopards, lions and tigers) and numerous smaller organisms every year?

Some of those who lived and worked in enormous forests saw things we can't imagine today. They wrote about their experiences, only to be ridiculed and dismissed many years later.

Today, wildlife is all but gone and attitudes of animals have changed as well. But every now and then, even we see things difficult to imagine. When you have, it isn't that difficult to take those before us serious.

This tiger in a rescue centre (an Amur tiger) has great length. Just imagine him in a natural state. He would have been much more muscular:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is Wagdoh, the famous giant. He's on his way out, but still very big. Those who saw him in his prime, and there are many, now believe some tigers can get over 600 pounds empty. It's not that difficult to add another 100 pounds, is it?

*This image is copyright of its original author

---