(04-13-2022, 03:12 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 02:44 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Hello Guate, didn’t your most recent data give an average figure of 221kg for the modern mainland Bengal Tigers? Is there some change? Why is it 212kg now?

Also, for Amurs it says ‘along the curves’ so does it mean Amurs are actually less than 195cm in straight line? Would they not be as long as Bengals then?

Actually that figure of 221 kg for all mainland tigers is no longer accurate since years ago. The 212 kg is the last and correct one, including 40 males recorded, alghouth take in count that some specimens from Kanha bottomed the scales of 500 lb used and the weights from Nepal, Nagarahole and Panna are adjusted for stomach content. Also, there are two small males, probably youngs of about 3 years and other two males in bad shape. So, is a very inclusive sample. Taking this in count, is possible that the real average will be more than the stated figure.

About the Amur tigers, there is no concensus about how they were actually measured as the document of Kerley et al. (2005) suggested that were measured in straight line, but the pictures available shows a pletora of different forms, which is the what happen when different people measured the animals. At the end, I concluded that they were measured "along curves" but if the tape was held straight, or pressed on the ondulations, is not fully known. In my estimation, the head-body of Amur tigers from the Siberian Tiger Project probably measured 10-14 cm less, but remember that they were measured from nose to root of tail, not until the last bone of the hip, so even with this correction, they real body length was probably about 190 cm "straight" in males.

(04-13-2022, 03:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Just one more question, did you not include Sauraha’s 272kg weight in the modern data because it says the upper limit is 261?

(04-13-2022, 03:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 03:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Just one more question, did you not include Sauraha’s 272kg weight in the modern data because it says the upper limit is 261?

Yes, I included the weights of M-105 and M-126 but adjuted at 261 kg, also the other two tigers of 280 and 285 kg reported, but to a figure of 260 and 255 kg respectively. So, all the tigers reported to had some stomach content were adjusted.


I will provide the full table of the modern records of Bengal tigers that I have at this moment.

(04-13-2022, 03:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 03:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Just one more question, did you not include Sauraha’s 272kg weight in the modern data because it says the upper limit is 261?

Yes, I included the weights of M-105 and M-126 but adjuted at 261 kg, also the other two tigers of 280 and 285 kg reported, but to a figure of 260 and 255 kg respectively. So, all the tigers reported to had some stomach content were adjusted.


I will provide the full table of the modern records of Bengal tigers that I have at this moment.

(04-13-2022, 05:51 AM)woshiniya Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 03:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 03:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Just one more question, did you not include Sauraha’s 272kg weight in the modern data because it says the upper limit is 261?

Yes, I included the weights of M-105 and M-126 but adjuted at 261 kg, also the other two tigers of 280 and 285 kg reported, but to a figure of 260 and 255 kg respectively. So, all the tigers reported to had some stomach content were adjusted.


I will provide the full table of the modern records of Bengal tigers that I have at this moment.

I hear that a amur tiger more than 275kg 3 years old with 180cm chest girth,and this from a biology expert from China，the wild tiger from China ，and those information told us by private letter.

(04-13-2022, 03:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 03:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Just one more question, did you not include Sauraha’s 272kg weight in the modern data because it says the upper limit is 261?

Yes, I included the weights of M-105 and M-126 but adjuted at 261 kg, also the other two tigers of 280 and 285 kg reported, but to a figure of 260 and 255 kg respectively. So, all the tigers reported to had some stomach content were adjusted.


I will provide the full table of the modern records of Bengal tigers that I have at this moment.

(04-13-2022, 05:30 AM)woshiniya Wrote: M105 was longer 8cm in second capture than the first capture，and tiger'frame change by the age of 3 years old，so M105 probably only 3years old in the first capture and 4 years old in the second capture.

(04-13-2022, 10:58 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 05:30 AM)woshiniya Wrote: M105 was longer 8cm in second capture than the first capture，and tiger'frame change by the age of 3 years old，so M105 probably only 3years old in the first capture and 4 years old in the second capture.

You made an excelent observation! The measurements of M105 (Sauraha) that we all know were taken in December 31 of 1975 when Dr Sunquist was still using the scale of 500 lb. Now, we can see that Sauraha was still growing (check the difference between 1974 and 1975, both at December 31) and I can bet that in the next captures he probably was bigger in linear dimentions too, not only in weight. That means that when Sauraha weighed over 272 kg, probably he was larger than the dimentions that we know.

Interesting as it is, the head-body length of 197 cm that we normally quote, was calculated, not actually measured. Dr Sunquist said that they measured the total length first and latter they measured the tail from the root. Check that when we calculate the head-body (TL - Tail) the result is the length from the nose to the root of the tail, not to the end of the hip bone. That means that the real head-body taken in the form of the old hunters could be no less than 200 cm, and taking in count that the tail itself could be of 10 cm in diameter, that means that the real head-body of Sauraha was up to 205 cm, and that make sense when we compare it to the hunting records. I made this image some months ago, in my "always at hand" notebook, I put some color on it and I furnished a little for all of you:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The reconstruction shows the proportions of this large male, the shoulder height is speculative but I estimated that a real standing height of a little more of 100 cm is accurate. There you can also see where the measurement of the head-body start and end and why the real body length is larger than 197 cm.

About the age of M105, no documents do state the age in its first capture (only says "adult"), but probably it was no less than 4-5 years when captured for the first itme in 1974.

(04-13-2022, 10:58 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 05:30 AM)woshiniya Wrote: M105 was longer 8cm in second capture than the first capture，and tiger'frame change by the age of 3 years old，so M105 probably only 3years old in the first capture and 4 years old in the second capture.

You made an excelent observation! The measurements of M105 (Sauraha) that we all know were taken in December 31 of 1975 when Dr Sunquist was still using the scale of 500 lb. Now, we can see that Sauraha was still growing (check the difference between 1974 and 1975, both at December 31) and I can bet that in the next captures he probably was bigger in linear dimentions too, not only in weight. That means that when Sauraha weighed over 272 kg, probably he was larger than the dimentions that we know.

Interesting as it is, the head-body length of 197 cm that we normally quote, was calculated, not actually measured. Dr Sunquist said that they measured the total length first and latter they measured the tail from the root. Check that when we calculate the head-body (TL - Tail) the result is the length from the nose to the root of the tail, not to the end of the hip bone. That means that the real head-body taken in the form of the old hunters could be no less than 200 cm, and taking in count that the tail itself could be of 10 cm in diameter, that means that the real head-body of Sauraha was up to 205 cm, and that make sense when we compare it to the hunting records. I made this image some months ago, in my "always at hand" notebook, I put some color on it and I furnished a little for all of you:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The reconstruction shows the proportions of this large male, the shoulder height is speculative but I estimated that a real standing height of a little more of 100 cm is accurate. There you can also see where the measurement of the head-body start and end and why the real body length is larger than 197 cm.

About the age of M105, no documents do state the age in its first capture (only says "adult"), but probably it was no less than 4-5 years when captured for the first itme in 1974.

(04-14-2022, 08:07 AM)woshiniya Wrote: I am agree with your analysis about the length of M105，because it is almost wholy match with my thoughts and opinion on it，but I have some defferen
ce about the age，basing on my a lot of obserations the most of tiger’s nose begin to appear black point in their age about 3-4，although there are a few exceptions. We can saw the whole pinkness nose of those pictures about M105，and we need to notice the collar  on his neck in those pictures，so it must had been captured  in the shooting time. And according to the paper of Jhala，wild tiger frequently improve their length up to 3  years old，so according to the defference of 8cm that length of M105 in the first and second captured，I think M105 about 3 years old in the first captured personally.

(04-12-2022, 05:04 AM)GuateGojira U Havn\t  included many large tigers in the list some of them are well documented too' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v='p4UydvVBovU and some of them are well verified like 320kg tiger hunted in nepal 1942 or 317kg colonal wagh tiger , these tigers have photographs and have large measurements  which looks in their picture . Wrote: The largest tiger subspecies/populations:

In order to return to the point of this topic, here are a couple of comparative images about the largest tiger subspecies.

Here is the one with the storic populations, including modern and old records:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The second one is only with the modern records, using only the current largest tiger populations:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Take in count that, based in Singh et al. (2015), the Sundarbans tigers should not be included in the populations of the other India/Nepal/Bhutan tigers as they are different with they own genetic and morphological adaptations.

If you want any detail about these images, feel free to ask.

Greetings.

(04-13-2022, 10:58 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 05:30 AM)woshiniya Wrote: M105 was longer 8cm in second capture than the first capture，and tiger'frame change by the age of 3 years old，so M105 probably only 3years old in the first capture and 4 years old in the second capture.

You made an excelent observation! The measurements of M105 (Sauraha) that we all know were taken in December 31 of 1975 when Dr Sunquist was still using the scale of 500 lb. Now, we can see that Sauraha was still growing (check the difference between 1974 and 1975, both at December 31) and I can bet that in the next captures he probably was bigger in linear dimentions too, not only in weight. That means that when Sauraha weighed over 272 kg, probably he was larger than the dimentions that we know.

Interesting as it is, the head-body length of 197 cm that we normally quote, was calculated, not actually measured. Dr Sunquist said that they measured the total length first and latter they measured the tail from the root. Check that when we calculate the head-body (TL - Tail) the result is the length from the nose to the root of the tail, not to the end of the hip bone. That means that the real head-body taken in the form of the old hunters could be no less than 200 cm, and taking in count that the tail itself could be of 10 cm in diameter, that means that the real head-body of Sauraha was up to 205 cm, and that make sense when we compare it to the hunting records. I made this image some months ago, in my "always at hand" notebook, I put some color on it and I furnished a little for all of you:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The reconstruction shows the proportions of this large male, the shoulder height is speculative but I estimated that a real standing height of a little more of 100 cm is accurate. There you can also see where the measurement of the head-body start and end and why the real body length is larger than 197 cm.

About the age of M105, no documents do state the age in its first capture (only says "adult"), but probably it was no less than 4-5 years when captured for the first itme in 1974.

(04-14-2022, 11:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: GuateGojira U Havn\t  included many large tigers in the list some of them are well documented too' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v='p4UydvVBovU and some of them are well verified like 320kg tiger hunted in nepal 1942 or 317kg colonal wagh tiger , these tigers have photographs and have large measurements  which looks in their picture . 

(04-15-2022, 12:08 AM)Pckts Wrote: I've always been curious how this male weighed so much in comparison to Branders Tiger. He's pretty much outsized in every department that is registered in both. I wish we knew shoulder height and forearm girth for the Sauraha male and neck girth for Branders. But regardless, this male is a bit smaller than Branders.

(04-15-2022, 01:08 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Definitelly the tiger of Brander was bigger than just 600 lb, smaller males reached bigger weights, and thanks to the giant Nepalese tiger, we know that an "empty belly" tiger can weight up to 290 - 300 kg at maximum.