(04-28-2022, 09:44 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira I also saw this huge Tiger and it doesn’t seem like camera trickery because I tried comparing other Tiger photos while scaling the humans to the same size in the photos but this Tiger still appears much larger than any other Tiger. length of this rifle is perhaps 110cm-115cm usually . this tiger body length could be more than 210cm easily.

*This image is copyright of its original author

(04-28-2022, 10:26 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 09:44 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira I also saw this huge Tiger and it doesn’t seem like camera trickery because I tried comparing other Tiger photos while scaling the humans to the same size in the photos but this Tiger still appears much larger than any other Tiger. length of this rifle is perhaps 110cm-115cm usually . this tiger body length could be more than 210cm easily.

*This image is copyright of its original author

(04-28-2022, 06:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the Smythsonian Tiger of 389kg also similarly had a tail like this, about an 86cm tail, then the rest of the head body length would be 235cm and a Tiger of that body length (if has the same proportions of an average Bengal Tiger) can mathematically reach upto 396kg.

Now, in the case of the 389kg specimen, the stomach content would have been around 15kg in my opinion. That means a weight of about 370-375kg and if the Tiger was even 225-230cm in head body but was proportionally taller or had a proportionally wider chest then the 389kg is possible. (perhaps not practical but possible)

All we know is the total length between pegs for that Tiger which was 322cm, the rest of the details are unknown so if more measurements were available, then it would have been possible to make better judgements but with a small tail or by being tall and bulky or by having both, the Tiger could have reached that weight for real.

People say that 389kg is impossible but it’s physically possible. If he had that sort of length with a very short tail then the Tiger can definitely support this weight.

(04-28-2022, 09:41 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira Do you have the measurements of the Smithsonian Tiger? The 389kg one? I could only find that it’s total length was 322cm ‘between pegs’. No more details other than this.

(04-28-2022, 10:39 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 06:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the Smythsonian Tiger of 389kg also similarly had a tail like this, about an 86cm tail, then the rest of the head body length would be 235cm and a Tiger of that body length (if has the same proportions of an average Bengal Tiger) can mathematically reach upto 396kg.

Now, in the case of the 389kg specimen, the stomach content would have been around 15kg in my opinion. That means a weight of about 370-375kg and if the Tiger was even 225-230cm in head body but was proportionally taller or had a proportionally wider chest then the 389kg is possible. (perhaps not practical but possible)

All we know is the total length between pegs for that Tiger which was 322cm, the rest of the details are unknown so if more measurements were available, then it would have been possible to make better judgements but with a small tail or by being tall and bulky or by having both, the Tiger could have reached that weight for real.

People say that 389kg is impossible but it’s physically possible. If he had that sort of length with a very short tail then the Tiger can definitely support this weight.

We have a couple of other examples of big tigers and short tails:

The Bachelor of Powalgarh, for example, measured about 323 cm "over curves" and probably 310 cm "between pegs". We estimate a good size but the picture shows a true giant! Check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger certainly measured over 210 cm in head-body "between pegs", sadly we can't see its tail.


Other is the tiger of the Maharaha of Nepal that weighed 320 kg and total length of 328 cm  over curves" (at least 311 cm "between pegs"), the incredibly realistic paint shows a short tail in relation with its overall size, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger is another candidate for over 210 cm in head body length "straight".

Now, these two giants are very bulky as we can see and reflect huge body masses, but what about the Smithsonian tiger, well.........

*This image is copyright of its original author

Certainly this tiger is not near the size of the Bachelor or the Nepalese giant, it looks more like an average sized one, and the reported size for its skull confirm it. Honestly it do not look gorged or anything like that so that statement can't be use to justify its huge mass, check this other picture too:

*This image is copyright of its original author

But with this photographic evidence we can see that there is something wrong with the weight of this tiger, even the reported length of 323 cm "between pegs" seems too much for this specimen, unless than its tail was very long (up to 114 cm in the maximum records (Brander, 1927)), in that case the length seems reliable as this tiger can be a little over 200 cm in head-body straight. So, while this tiger did existed, was certainly measured and obviously weighed, the weight was certainly incorrect, maybe the scale used was bad, or something happen but from my point of view this tiger can't weight over 300 kg, leave alone the 389 kg claimed.

Evidence suggest that the biggest tigers can reach 320-330 cm in total length (up to 221 cm in head-body confirmed) and weights between 260-290 kg "empty". The Smithsonian tiger while cover all the levels of reliability of Slaght et al. (2005) and can be clasiffied as "highly reliable" is an example when we also need to use the logic and not only the raw data, as this tiger, alghouth of a good size, it can't be of that enormous weight, from my point of view at least.

The tiger of 389 kg and the lion 313 kg reported by Guinness are not reliable and should not be used for comparison. That is my final word on this.

(04-28-2022, 10:50 PM)LonePredator Wrote: True. It doesn’t look particuly big. I never knew a picture of this Tiger existed. For the 389kg weight of the Tiger to be considered, it should be at least 225cm in head-body and it doesn’t look like it. 

Anyways, which are the heaviest and longest Tigers and Lions which you know about?

(04-28-2022, 11:09 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 10:50 PM)LonePredator Wrote: True. It doesn’t look particuly big. I never knew a picture of this Tiger existed. For the 389kg weight of the Tiger to be considered, it should be at least 225cm in head-body and it doesn’t look like it. 

Anyways, which are the heaviest and longest Tigers and Lions which you know about?

Correct, the last time Dr Per Christiansen (unpublish data) says that the Ngandong tiger (biggest specimen) probably weighed 380 kg, and that is a real giant, with a femur of 48 cm and an estimated head-body between 230-240 cm "straight". This can show us how big needs to be a tiger to reach that body mass.

Tigers of c.220 cm like the one of Brander, the Amur tiger reported by Mazak and the giant tiger of Colonel Ramsay, are candidates for weighing 285-300 kg empty, depending of how you adjuts them. I think that is the highest figure for any living felid, above that are just the gigantic (and often fat) captive specimens.

Largest tiger "between pegs" on record is the one from Brander (221 cm head-body - 302.3 cm total length, weight estimated at c.600 lb); the heaviest "exceptional"  tiger is the one of the Maharaha of Nepal (320 kg, about 290 kg "empty"), heaviest normal tiger 260 kg "empty".

Largest lion "between pegs" on record is the one from Kirby (218 cm head-body - 307.4 cm total length, weight estimated at c.500 lb); the heaviest "exceptional" lion is one of Kenya and another of Kruger (272 kg each), heaviest normal lion 250 kg "empty".

(04-28-2022, 11:24 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Wasn’t Sauraha’s weight actually estimated from a chest-girth equation? I don’t remember very well but I think some specimen’s weight was determined like this.

Anyway, I think I actually saw one of your graphic about these largest Tigers and Lions. Sorry I forgot about it but after seeing this I remembered that I have seen these weights.

I’m sure there must’ve been more 300kg specimens but not many were weighed and there were also many fake weights floating around which certainly made people more sceptical about these weights and rightly so.

Plus the weights of North Indian Tigers are so few in historical records. All we have are lengths and that too total lengths. Only if we had more historical weights from Northern India.

(04-28-2022, 10:50 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 10:39 PM)GuateGojira u should try to extract few data from dudhwa or pilibhit authorities , they have treated and  measured few big males  too. Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 06:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the Smythsonian Tiger of 389kg also similarly had a tail like this, about an 86cm tail, then the rest of the head body length would be 235cm and a Tiger of that body length (if has the same proportions of an average Bengal Tiger) can mathematically reach upto 396kg.

Now, in the case of the 389kg specimen, the stomach content would have been around 15kg in my opinion. That means a weight of about 370-375kg and if the Tiger was even 225-230cm in head body but was proportionally taller or had a proportionally wider chest then the 389kg is possible. (perhaps not practical but possible)

All we know is the total length between pegs for that Tiger which was 322cm, the rest of the details are unknown so if more measurements were available, then it would have been possible to make better judgements but with a small tail or by being tall and bulky or by having both, the Tiger could have reached that weight for real.

People say that 389kg is impossible but it’s physically possible. If he had that sort of length with a very short tail then the Tiger can definitely support this weight.

We have a couple of other examples of big tigers and short tails:

The Bachelor of Powalgarh, for example, measured about 323 cm "over curves" and probably 310 cm "between pegs". We estimate a good size but the picture shows a true giant! Check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger certainly measured over 210 cm in head-body "between pegs", sadly we can't see its tail.


Other is the tiger of the Maharaha of Nepal that weighed 320 kg and total length of 328 cm  over curves" (at least 311 cm "between pegs"), the incredibly realistic paint shows a short tail in relation with its overall size, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger is another candidate for over 210 cm in head body length "straight".

Now, these two giants are very bulky as we can see and reflect huge body masses, but what about the Smithsonian tiger, well.........

*This image is copyright of its original author

Certainly this tiger is not near the size of the Bachelor or the Nepalese giant, it looks more like an average sized one, and the reported size for its skull confirm it. Honestly it do not look gorged or anything like that so that statement can't be use to justify its huge mass, check this other picture too:

*This image is copyright of its original author

But with this photographic evidence we can see that there is something wrong with the weight of this tiger, even the reported length of 323 cm "between pegs" seems too much for this specimen, unless than its tail was very long (up to 114 cm in the maximum records (Brander, 1927)), in that case the length seems reliable as this tiger can be a little over 200 cm in head-body straight. So, while this tiger did existed, was certainly measured and obviously weighed, the weight was certainly incorrect, maybe the scale used was bad, or something happen but from my point of view this tiger can't weight over 300 kg, leave alone the 389 kg claimed.

Evidence suggest that the biggest tigers can reach 320-330 cm in total length (up to 221 cm in head-body confirmed) and weights between 260-290 kg "empty". The Smithsonian tiger while cover all the levels of reliability of Slaght et al. (2005) and can be clasiffied as "highly reliable" is an example when we also need to use the logic and not only the raw data, as this tiger, alghouth of a good size, it can't be of that enormous weight, from my point of view at least.

The tiger of 389 kg and the lion 313 kg reported by Guinness are not reliable and should not be used for comparison. That is my final word on this.

True. It doesn’t look particuly big. I never knew a picture of this Tiger existed. For the 389kg weight of the Tiger to be considered, it should be at least 225cm in head-body and it doesn’t look like it. 

Anyways, which are the heaviest and longest Tigers and Lions which you know about?

(04-28-2022, 11:39 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 11:24 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Wasn’t Sauraha’s weight actually estimated from a chest-girth equation? I don’t remember very well but I think some specimen’s weight was determined like this.

Anyway, I think I actually saw one of your graphic about these largest Tigers and Lions. Sorry I forgot about it but after seeing this I remembered that I have seen these weights.

I’m sure there must’ve been more 300kg specimens but not many were weighed and there were also many fake weights floating around which certainly made people more sceptical about these weights and rightly so.

Plus the weights of North Indian Tigers are so few in historical records. All we have are lengths and that too total lengths. Only if we had more historical weights from Northern India.

The real weight of the Sauraha male/M105 was over 600 lb (272 kg+) as that was the maximum capacity of the scale available. The weight of 261 kg was obtained via a chest girth/weight equation and I got the figure of 260 kg when I adjusted its weight (assuming that was baited in its last capture). The same happen with the male M126.

Probably many other specimens were of about 300 kg, but hunters mostly mreasured total length, in some cases head-body and height, and rarely carried scales.

Total length was not a good estimator of size, but sadly that is all what many hunters recorded in the past.

(04-28-2022, 11:09 PM)GuateGojira https://www.youtube.com/watch?v='27OrcxCLSbg is that lion weight 250kg reliable , ximpoko looked even shorter in height than it , similar body length , smuts out of 41 adult healthy lions found heaviest as 225kg in krugar . Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 10:50 PM)LonePredator Wrote: True. It doesn’t look particuly big. I never knew a picture of this Tiger existed. For the 389kg weight of the Tiger to be considered, it should be at least 225cm in head-body and it doesn’t look like it. 

Anyways, which are the heaviest and longest Tigers and Lions which you know about?

Correct, the last time Dr Per Christiansen (unpublish data) says that the Ngandong tiger (biggest specimen) probably weighed 380 kg, and that is a real giant, with a femur of 48 cm and an estimated head-body between 230-240 cm "straight". This can show us how big needs to be a tiger to reach that body mass.

Tigers of c.220 cm like the one of Brander, the Amur tiger reported by Mazak and the giant tiger of Colonel Ramsay, are candidates for weighing 285-300 kg empty, depending of how you adjuts them. I think that is the highest figure for any living felid, above that are just the gigantic (and often fat) captive specimens.

Largest tiger "between pegs" on record is the one from Brander (221 cm head-body - 302.3 cm total length, weight estimated at c.600 lb); the heaviest "exceptional"  tiger is the one of the Maharaha of Nepal (320 kg, about 290 kg "empty"), heaviest normal tiger 260 kg "empty".

Largest lion "between pegs" on record is the one from Kirby (218 cm head-body - 307.4 cm total length, weight estimated at c.500 lb); the heaviest "exceptional" lion is one of Kenya and another of Kruger (272 kg each), heaviest normal lion 250 kg "empty".

(04-28-2022, 11:43 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: u should try to extract few data from dudhwa or pilibhit authorities , they have treated and  measured few big males  too.

(04-28-2022, 11:54 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v='27OrcxCLSbg is that lion weight 250kg reliable , ximpoko looked even shorter in height than it , similar body length , smuts out of 41 adult healthy lions found heaviest as 225kg in krugar .

(04-29-2022, 12:13 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 11:54 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v='27OrcxCLSbg is that lion weight 250kg reliable , ximpoko looked even shorter in height than it , similar body length , smuts out of 41 adult healthy lions found heaviest as 225kg in krugar . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27OrcxCLSbg   

It shows me a message that says that the video is no longer available. Can you check the link please?

@Pckts provided that point of view too, how is possible that from many adult male lions, Smuts found only one that weighed 225 kg? Make you think why now there are these new figures of males up to 250 kg "empty". Latter we can see that these figures came from private reserves and probably those lions are semi-wild or at least provided with food to increase they sizes. Is very confusing, specially in South Africa were a private reserve can be labeled as a "natural reserve" for business purposes, and the line is very thin to draw a difference between them. That is why the modern records from South Africa are so problematic, you don't know if they are real or at some point "artificial".