(08-25-2022, 02:45 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 03:06 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 07:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: This young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 was sedated in April 2021 when he was about 2 - 2.5 years old, and weighed about 225 kg.

He was hungry therefore attacked the villager nearby, therefore we can assume he was empty-bellied during the sedation.

Do you have any verification of his weight?
That would put him near the males weighed in Kanha at the same age who bottomed 225kg scales.

He was sedated and captured alive, most likely got weighed by the authority.


https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-rare-siberian-tiger-caught-after-attacking-a-villager-in-heilongjiang-2422044

(08-24-2022, 02:26 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: More about Hassinger's tiger.
 
Normally the size of a large tiger skull corresponds to a large body size, although it is true that there is no exact correlation in such a way that the largest skull will not always belong to the largest tiger, although it can give us at least an approximation .

We have the measurements of the skull of Hassinger's tiger, 14 inches long by 9 inches wide, 23 inches totall (35.56 cm x 22.86 cm, 58.42 cm total) and we can compare them with the skulls recorded both in Rowland Ward, XXVII edition as well as in the SCI XII edition. Bearing in mind that not all the hunted tigers are recorded, we found no fewer than 34 bigger skulls at Rowland Ward, the largest of which was 16 ½ inches long, 11 ¼ wide, total 27 ¾ (41.91 cm x 28,575, total 70,485 cm) and another 7 more in the SCI. Apparently the skull that we have seems relatively small to belong to the largest measured tiger.
 
We can look for another reference, Bengt Berg, in his book "El tigre y el hombre", tells that the largest tiger he hunted, in Bengal, weighed 565 English pounds (256.5 Kg) and when freshly dead it measured "between pegs" nine feet and seven English inches (2,922 m). The same tiger, measured the next morning, with muscles already stiff, measured just nine feet four inches (2,845 m). This is probably the tiger that appears in Rowland Ward, hunted by this author in 1933, in the 14th position of the classification with a measurement of 14 11/16 x 10 7/16, total 25 ⅛ inches (37.3 cm x 26.51, total 63.5 cm) and so, we would also have one of the best records of skull size, length and weight of a specific tiger.
 
The same author says that the size of the hunted tigers not only influenced the prestige of the hunter, but also that of the host and sometimes that of the State, so when it came to princely hunts, a tape measure was sometimes used with Swedish inches (2.474 cm) shorter than English inches (2.54 cm) to get a few extra inches.

Rowland Ward, XXVII edition

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(08-25-2022, 08:11 PM)Khan85 Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 02:26 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: More about Hassinger's tiger.
 
Normally the size of a large tiger skull corresponds to a large body size, although it is true that there is no exact correlation in such a way that the largest skull will not always belong to the largest tiger, although it can give us at least an approximation .

We have the measurements of the skull of Hassinger's tiger, 14 inches long by 9 inches wide, 23 inches totall (35.56 cm x 22.86 cm, 58.42 cm total) and we can compare them with the skulls recorded both in Rowland Ward, XXVII edition as well as in the SCI XII edition. Bearing in mind that not all the hunted tigers are recorded, we found no fewer than 34 bigger skulls at Rowland Ward, the largest of which was 16 ½ inches long, 11 ¼ wide, total 27 ¾ (41.91 cm x 28,575, total 70,485 cm) and another 7 more in the SCI. Apparently the skull that we have seems relatively small to belong to the largest measured tiger.
 
We can look for another reference, Bengt Berg, in his book "El tigre y el hombre", tells that the largest tiger he hunted, in Bengal, weighed 565 English pounds (256.5 Kg) and when freshly dead it measured "between pegs" nine feet and seven English inches (2,922 m). The same tiger, measured the next morning, with muscles already stiff, measured just nine feet four inches (2,845 m). This is probably the tiger that appears in Rowland Ward, hunted by this author in 1933, in the 14th position of the classification with a measurement of 14 11/16 x 10 7/16, total 25 ⅛ inches (37.3 cm x 26.51, total 63.5 cm) and so, we would also have one of the best records of skull size, length and weight of a specific tiger.
 
The same author says that the size of the hunted tigers not only influenced the prestige of the hunter, but also that of the host and sometimes that of the State, so when it came to princely hunts, a tape measure was sometimes used with Swedish inches (2.474 cm) shorter than English inches (2.54 cm) to get a few extra inches.

Rowland Ward, XXVII edition

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now that's interesting information. Rowland Ward's 27th edition of Big Game Hunting. 

Is it possible for you to post the scans of pages mentioning the methods of measurements used in the book (eg. Method of Measurement. 17)

Also, can you post the pages with other records of bengal tigers in the book (length, height, weight, etc)

Thanks

(08-24-2022, 04:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 03:06 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 07:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: This young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 was sedated in April 2021 when he was about 2 - 2.5 years old, and weighed about 225 kg.

He was hungry therefore attacked the villager nearby, therefore we can assume he was empty-bellied during the sedation.

Do you have any verification of his weight?
That would put him near the males weighed in Kanha at the same age who bottomed 225kg scales.

225kg is likely an estimate and not an actual weight. This weight came from a news website article. And on the other hand, another website article had claimed 200kg for this male so it’s most likely an estimate and not an actual weight. I’ll try to find the other article.

(08-27-2022, 03:11 PM)acutidens150 Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 04:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 03:06 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 07:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: This young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 was sedated in April 2021 when he was about 2 - 2.5 years old, and weighed about 225 kg.

He was hungry therefore attacked the villager nearby, therefore we can assume he was empty-bellied during the sedation.

Do you have any verification of his weight?
That would put him near the males weighed in Kanha at the same age who bottomed 225kg scales.

225kg is likely an estimate and not an actual weight. This weight came from a news website article. And on the other hand, another website article had claimed 200kg for this male so it’s most likely an estimate and not an actual weight. I’ll try to find the other article.

Hi, now, I know the 'along to curves' to 'in a straight line' length ratio of tigers, but what about height? Also, what's the rate for lions?

(08-25-2022, 03:01 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(08-25-2022, 02:45 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 03:06 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(08-24-2022, 07:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: This young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 was sedated in April 2021 when he was about 2 - 2.5 years old, and weighed about 225 kg.

He was hungry therefore attacked the villager nearby, therefore we can assume he was empty-bellied during the sedation.

Do you have any verification of his weight?
That would put him near the males weighed in Kanha at the same age who bottomed 225kg scales.

He was sedated and captured alive, most likely got weighed by the authority.


https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-rare-siberian-tiger-caught-after-attacking-a-villager-in-heilongjiang-2422044

Unfortunately it’s a 2nd hand source sighting officials posted on a social media sight. Can’t put much stock in that with regards to the 2-3 year old males weight. Xinhua is the same as TOI, you’d need real sources to confirm any claims.

(08-24-2022, 02:26 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: More about Hassinger's tiger.
 
Normally the size of a large tiger skull corresponds to a large body size, although it is true that there is no exact correlation in such a way that the largest skull will not always belong to the largest tiger, although it can give us at least an approximation .

We have the measurements of the skull of Hassinger's tiger, 14 inches long by 9 inches wide, 23 inches totall (35.56 cm x 22.86 cm, 58.42 cm total) and we can compare them with the skulls recorded both in Rowland Ward, XXVII edition as well as in the SCI XII edition. Bearing in mind that not all the hunted tigers are recorded, we found no fewer than 34 bigger skulls at Rowland Ward, the largest of which was 16 ½ inches long, 11 ¼ wide, total 27 ¾ (41.91 cm x 28,575, total 70,485 cm) and another 7 more in the SCI. Apparently the skull that we have seems relatively small to belong to the largest measured tiger.
 
We can look for another reference, Bengt Berg, in his book "El tigre y el hombre", tells that the largest tiger he hunted, in Bengal, weighed 565 English pounds (256.5 Kg) and when freshly dead it measured "between pegs" nine feet and seven English inches (2,922 m). The same tiger, measured the next morning, with muscles already stiff, measured just nine feet four inches (2,845 m). This is probably the tiger that appears in Rowland Ward, hunted by this author in 1933, in the 14th position of the classification with a measurement of 14 11/16 x 10 7/16, total 25 ⅛ inches (37.3 cm x 26.51, total 63.5 cm) and so, we would also have one of the best records of skull size, length and weight of a specific tiger.
 
The same author says that the size of the hunted tigers not only influenced the prestige of the hunter, but also that of the host and sometimes that of the State, so when it came to princely hunts, a tape measure was sometimes used with Swedish inches (2.474 cm) shorter than English inches (2.54 cm) to get a few extra inches.

Rowland Ward, XXVII edition

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(08-23-2022, 10:56 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: @GuateGojira 
The length for the Siberian tiger is listed as 195 cm but is along the curves, right? So what would be a good length estimate for in a straight line? Is there a method?
Also the height of 95 cm I heard, is not the full height to the end of the paw from shoulder tip. So what would be a good full height?

(08-10-2023, 12:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Body size of the Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), modern records:

Well, this is something that I wanted to do several years ago, but the few time available and also the lack of data stoped me many times. However, now I manage to get both in my hands and I finally made the tables about the body size of the Bengal tiger using only modern records. This is also something that many people requested to me, so now is ready. I attach the PDF document here and I also share the images of the tables, here we go:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, the tables include an explanation about the details, and also you can see that I separated the weights and measurements in reliability levels, but also added a table with only the 100% confirmed figures that you expect will be quoted by scientists, as that is information that is review by peers. The list exhaust the measurements available but not the weights, as some of them were not included because are still not confirmed by me. So, this is an extra table NOT included in my document, where I do include all the weights that I could get, if there are missing figures you are free to add them:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As we can see, the diference is very few, the 100% reliable average 212 kg for males, those that are via other sources but still confirmed and reliable average 213 kg and the overall sample is of 215 kg. So basically independently of the sample the average of the male Bengal tigers seems to be over 210 kg in modern records, using males over 3 years old. The Bhutan tigers are not published in any document but the figures were confirmed by me via Messenger, so I included them, and we can see that they are of the same body mass than the Thailand tigers, however the sample is still small and for the moment I don't know if there are more specimens (males and females) captured. The male of 166 kg I still have my doubts, as is too small for an adult male and the next one is of 180 kg, so maybe it was not in good shape (it was a little over 3 years), the table do not clarify that and even the body measurements do not match, so I made corrections that  make sense.

I also noted that the interest is focused in males, as there is no weight of females that I could add in an extra tables. Do we have some bias about the sex here? It seems so.

Appart from all this  I am happy that finally we have a good collection of figures of modern measurements and weights and we reached a moment when we no longer need to use the old hunting records as the main source. Of course I am not suggesting to discard them (like Dr Karanth or Dr Yamaguchi suggest, as they do not trust in them), but we can use it like a secondary reference and take the modern ones as the main source of data.


I hope you like it, you can share it and use it. As always, any question, feel free to ask.

Greetings and cheers.

(08-10-2023, 01:52 AM)Balam Wrote: Excellent job per usual! My advice is to upload this compilation on Google docs just like I did with mine for jaguars. This means that as newer weights and measurements come to light you can update the sheet in real-time without having to publish new ones on the forum. Members who want the most up-to-date information can simply refer to the online sheet.