(11-04-2015, 11:27 PM)tigerluver Wrote: All I've to add is that hunter weights should not be discarded. @peter explained it much more eloquently, but doing so would be a huge loss of data. More weights are not going to be published anytime soon, so I hear the issue of limited sample size often. It is a problem, but hunter records alleviate it a bit.

(11-05-2015, 12:16 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: In fact, that is what I have done in my tables, separate the old and the new weights for comparison.

Check the image of the Bengal and Amur tigers, there is the separation too.

(05-01-2015, 12:21 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: As far as I know captive amur tigers are around 215 kg, so they are basically of the same weight as wild bengal tigers. We know that captive tigers are usually smaller than wild ones, so wild amur tigers should be even heavier. On the other hand current wild amurs are around 190 kg, but this is probably due to insufficient prey base. I think that in good conditions wild amurs would be of the same weight as wild bengals or perhaps somewhat heavier. They would be taller and longer, but bengals would be more muscular.

Almost all sources say that amur tigers are the largest felids today. The realitiy is more complicated as bengals are heavier, but that statement is not essentially wrong.

(11-05-2015, 01:26 PM)BoldChamp Wrote:

(05-01-2015, 12:21 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: As far as I know captive amur tigers are around 215 kg, so they are basically of the same weight as wild bengal tigers. We know that captive tigers are usually smaller than wild ones, so wild amur tigers should be even heavier. On the other hand current wild amurs are around 190 kg, but this is probably due to insufficient prey base. I think that in good conditions wild amurs would be of the same weight as wild bengals or perhaps somewhat heavier. They would be taller and longer, but bengals would be more muscular.

Almost all sources say that amur tigers are the largest felids today. The realitiy is more complicated as bengals are heavier, but that statement is not essentially wrong.

Actually, the current food intake of Amurs is about 6-8 kg per day, more than enough food.

(11-04-2015, 10:26 PM)Pckts Wrote: Technically the largest were 272kg(bottomed out scale) and others bottomed out at 227kg, so true sizes are more than listed. (excluding adjustments)
I don't believe the idea that these cats represent "3%" of the total species available data, unless of course you are including sub adults, females and cubs as well as different sub species.

Out of the males that were adults and measured, ones ranging over the 220kg mark are quite abundant. Much more than 3%, so if we were using the 220kg mark as a gauge for "Large" of course, just figured it seemed like a good number to consider large, since its over the average mark we have available. 
We can only use the sample size available, if you were to use semi reliable hunting records, these marks are actually fairly similar.
We can now add 4 more males to the sample size of 240kg+, 220kg, 185kg, 220kg if we want to.

(11-04-2015, 09:53 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: @Dr Panthera, check this topic: http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-the-king-of-the-tigers

That is the original topic about the comparison, there is all the available data. My conclusion was that they are of the same size overall, with slight differences probably caused by sample size.

Greetings.

(11-06-2015, 05:30 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Dr Panthera
Respectful rebuttals to your points.

1- The method problem department really stops at length. There's only one way to weigh something.

2- Modern peer-review process doesn't care about the data points either. It's the entire scope of the work reviewed, not whether you weighed your cat perfectly. 

2 and 3- @peter also has thoroughly touched on how hunters had a lot to lose if they were caught exaggerating records. In such a competitive sport, the big ones would be questioned by your competitors. Also note that hunting record tigers are on average lighter than our modern records. So I wouldn't think much tampering had been done.

The only hunting record regarding tigers that is questionable is the 384 kg specimen. A 320 kg tiger of Smythies is very possible, albeit the very high end. Keep in mind that in Smythies' tiger's region, in scientific record, we have 2 +/- 270 kg tigers, if what I learned about Nuna and Island Bhale is true, make that 4. Same for lions, we have a few cases of ~250 kg cats, 300 kg would eventually be reached by the freakishly large one.

3- Tigers and lions (cave lions) well of 400 kg existed and were morphologically viable. If you mean the prey base wouldn't be enough, for one specimen it would be, but not for a whole population. Yes, for a modern tiger 380 kg is insane, but once every thousands of generations, it isn't out of the question, like a 8 foot human isn't out of the question.