(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh

There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.

I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.

I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.

(10-16-2022, 07:21 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira 

Do you have the pdfs of the STP site from this link? 

https://russia-wcs-org.translate.goog/en-us/About-Us/Publications/Tiger-Monograph.aspx?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

When I click on any of the chapters it gives an xml error. Can you send the pdf of the 7th chapter if possible? Thanks.

(10-18-2022, 06:57 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:

(10-16-2022, 07:21 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira 

Do you have the pdfs of the STP site from this link? 

https://russia-wcs-org.translate.goog/en-us/About-Us/Publications/Tiger-Monograph.aspx?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

When I click on any of the chapters it gives an xml error. Can you send the pdf of the 7th chapter if possible? Thanks.

Here's the working link:

https://russia.wcs.org/en-us/About-Us/Publications/Tiger-Monograph.aspx

You can download the PDF links (studies) and translate them via Google translate.

(10-17-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh

There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.

I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.

I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.

Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.

(10-17-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh

There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.

I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.

I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.

Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.

(10-19-2022, 03:44 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-17-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh

There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.

I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.

I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.

Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRbyZvcYb7o CM VS UMA ....

(10-19-2022, 03:19 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-17-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh

There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.

I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.

I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.

Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.

I already said that the comparison would give an approximate result, there is no way to make a photo accurately match measurements taken on a lying, dead or sedated animal.

However, I have tried to do my best, the distance between the tip of Wagdoh's nose and the start of the tail is somewhat less than 10 squares, that is, less than 2 m, no matter how much we stretched the image, hardly it would come to occupy another box, so it may be true that there is a difference of a few centimeters in the animal, but for global vision purposes it would not change much.

As for the height at the level of the shoulders is not the one I invented, nor the size of the chest, it is the one that results from adjusting the length of the body to the length of 207 cm, remember that it is a real photograph of Wagdoh, not a drawing of mine. In any case, even if I reduce the size of our tiger a little, the height on the shoulders could drop from approximately 110 cm to 105, but no more. Length and height are associated, if I alter one, the other will also alter to the same extent.

(10-19-2022, 10:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-19-2022, 03:19 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-17-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh

There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.

I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.

I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.

Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.

I already said that the comparison would give an approximate result, there is no way to make a photo accurately match measurements taken on a lying, dead or sedated animal.

However, I have tried to do my best, the distance between the tip of Wagdoh's nose and the start of the tail is somewhat less than 10 squares, that is, less than 2 m, no matter how much we stretched the image, hardly it would come to occupy another box, so it may be true that there is a difference of a few centimeters in the animal, but for global vision purposes it would not change much.

As for the height at the level of the shoulders is not the one I invented, nor the size of the chest, it is the one that results from adjusting the length of the body to the length of 207 cm, remember that it is a real photograph of Wagdoh, not a drawing of mine. In any case, even if I reduce the size of our tiger a little, the height on the shoulders could drop from approximately 110 cm to 105, but no more. Length and height are associated, if I alter one, the other will also alter to the same extent.

Why?
The animals measurements are specified.
The height represented is 101cm and generally speaking these measurements are usually exaggerated. Unfortunate that the whole image shrinks when reducing his shoulder size to it's actual measurement.

(10-20-2022, 03:30 AM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-19-2022, 10:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-19-2022, 03:19 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-17-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh

There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.

*This image is copyright of its original author

The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.

I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.

I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.

Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.

I already said that the comparison would give an approximate result, there is no way to make a photo accurately match measurements taken on a lying, dead or sedated animal.

However, I have tried to do my best, the distance between the tip of Wagdoh's nose and the start of the tail is somewhat less than 10 squares, that is, less than 2 m, no matter how much we stretched the image, hardly it would come to occupy another box, so it may be true that there is a difference of a few centimeters in the animal, but for global vision purposes it would not change much.

As for the height at the level of the shoulders is not the one I invented, nor the size of the chest, it is the one that results from adjusting the length of the body to the length of 207 cm, remember that it is a real photograph of Wagdoh, not a drawing of mine. In any case, even if I reduce the size of our tiger a little, the height on the shoulders could drop from approximately 110 cm to 105, but no more. Length and height are associated, if I alter one, the other will also alter to the same extent.

Why?
The animals measurements are specified.
The height represented is 101cm and generally speaking these measurements are usually exaggerated. Unfortunate that the whole image shrinks when reducing his shoulder size to it's actual measurement.

I guess I am not explaining myself well, if I reduce the height of the shoulders to 101 cm, then the length of the body will be much less than 207 cm. 
Simply the measures taken are not consistent with what the photograph tells us.

Quote:Simply the measures taken are not consistent with what the photograph tells us.

(10-20-2022, 11:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Simply put, this picture is taken in a completely different pose while Wagdoh’s body measurements were taken in a completely different pose which is why this picture will not scale according to his measurements.

And the measurements can’t be neglected or denied just by looking at a picture scaling like the one above.

However, it’s still a good way to get a rough visual feel of the sheer size of the specimen.

(10-20-2022, 09:42 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-20-2022, 11:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Simply put, this picture is taken in a completely different pose while Wagdoh’s body measurements were taken in a completely different pose which is why this picture will not scale according to his measurements.

And the measurements can’t be neglected or denied just by looking at a picture scaling like the one above.

However, it’s still a good way to get a rough visual feel of the sheer size of the specimen.

I know, I know, and I agree. I was the first to alert that a photograph cannot replace a tape measure. The infographic is only intended to give an approximate image of what it would appear in life.

But, despite all that, a shoulder height of 101 cm is not compatible with a body length of 207 cm, that rather corresponds to an animal of approx. 190 cm, the proportions are constant, with a certain margin of error, in living beings.
 
You can contrast what I say by looking, for example, at the infographics presented by Guate on pages 1 an 25 of this same topic to see the proportions. Even so, it is totally true that there are animals with bodies proportionally somewhat shorter or longer than others, but from a certain limit an obvious distortion occurs. Wagdoh was a large, bulky tiger but did not appear to be very long.
 
I enclose another infographic, with the image of the original photograph and another one distorted to adjust the height while maintaining the length. Which one do you think is more real?

*This image is copyright of its original author

(10-20-2022, 09:42 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote:

(10-20-2022, 11:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Simply put, this picture is taken in a completely different pose while Wagdoh’s body measurements were taken in a completely different pose which is why this picture will not scale according to his measurements.

And the measurements can’t be neglected or denied just by looking at a picture scaling like the one above.

However, it’s still a good way to get a rough visual feel of the sheer size of the specimen.

I know, I know, and I agree. I was the first to alert that a photograph cannot replace a tape measure. The infographic is only intended to give an approximate image of what it would appear in life.

But, despite all that, a shoulder height of 101 cm is not compatible with a body length of 207 cm, that rather corresponds to an animal of approx. 190 cm, the proportions are constant, with a certain margin of error, in living beings.
 
You can contrast what I say by looking, for example, at the infographics presented by Guate on pages 1 an 25 of this same topic to see the proportions. Even so, it is totally true that there are animals with bodies proportionally somewhat shorter or longer than others, but from a certain limit an obvious distortion occurs. Wagdoh was a large, bulky tiger but did not appear to be very long.
 
I enclose another infographic, with the image of the original photograph and another one distorted to adjust the height while maintaining the length. Which one do you think is more real?

*This image is copyright of its original author

(07-13-2022, 01:18 AM)Charger01 Wrote: Some large tigers of 21st century.

Over the past year and a half, me as well as others have communicated with many scientists and forest officials from India and nearby countries. A large database for weights of Bengal Tigers has been compiled. Here, I am going to list and make remarks on some of these large tigers that have been documented by scientists and researchers and I have permission to talk about freely. Some of these have been confirmed twice. I will not add direct names of sources to avoid spam.

*(+) sign - exceeded / more than

Following is the list in ascending order:

1. M-125 aka "Madla"
Weight: Exceeded 250 kg scale (adjusted minimum 220-230 kg+)
Age: 8 - 8.5 
Capture date: 12-01-2002
Location: Panna Tiger Reserve
Region: Central India
Remarks: Madla exceeded a scale of 250 kg used by Dr. Raghunandan Chundawat. This included around 10 kg weighing bed and est. 20 - 30 kg food. Minimum empty was estimated to be no less than 220 - 230 kg+

2. T-3 aka "Betal" 
Weight: 240 kg
Age: 10
Capture date: 13-01-2013
Location: Panna Tiger Reserve
Region: Central India
Remarks: This tiger was captured multiple times. The weight was confirmed by Head of Forest Department in an email. 

3. M-91 aka "Old King" 
Weight: Exceeded 250 kg scale (adjusted 240 kg+)
Age: 6 - 6.5
Capture date: 11-04-1996
Location: Panna Tiger Reserve
Region: Central India
Remarks: After recovering, he regurgitated the food he had eaten before being darted. To eyes, M-91 appeared fully gorged with 25 - 30 kg meat but the amount in vomit was only 19 kg thus adjusted to 240 kg+ empty 


4. MT-3 
Weight: 243 kg 
Age: 4
Capture date: March of 2020
Location: Mukundra Tiger Reserve
Region: Central-Western India
Remarks: Originally from Ranthambore, he was darted after a maggot infection in his face which hindered him from hunting. A few months later, he died due to illness and it was found he lost over 52 kg in this period.


5. T-04 aka "Mara" 
Weight: 250 kg (empty or near empty?)
Age: 2 - 3
Capture date: 29-01-1990
Location: Nagarahole National Park
Region: Southern India
Remarks: A young tiger that was attracted to bait but captured within 10 mins of taking it. 


6. Unknown 
Weight: 250 kg empty
Age: Adult
Capture date: 2008
Location: Tezpur (near Kaziranga)
Region: North-Eastern India
Remarks: A very large (long and tall) tiger that was rescued after being stuck in a well after annual floods in the region. 


7. Unknown
Weight: 250 kg empty
Age: Adult
Capture date: 17-06-2021
Location: Valmiki Tiger Reserve
Region: Terai Arc
Remarks: This problem tiger was causing chaos in a village near Valmiki Tiger Reserve. He was said to be hungry for 4-5 days


8. Unknown 
Weight: 250 kg+
Age: 6 - 7
Capture date: 28-06-2022
Location: Dudhwa Tiger Reserve
Region: Terai Arc
Remarks: This tiger was accidently captured in a trap set up for another tiger. A "highly reliable" source confirmed this tiger weighed more than 250 kg. 


9. T-24 aka "Ustad" 
Weight: 240 kg / 258 kg empty
Age: 3 / 9
Capture date: 2009 / 16-05-2015
Location: Ranthambore National Park
Region: Central - Western India 
Remarks: Ustad was moved to zoo for alleged attacks on humans. 


10. "Poochkata" 
Weight: 285 kg gorged (adjusted 255 kg)
Age: Adult
Capture date: Unknown
Location: Kanha Tiger Reserve
Region: Central India
Remarks: Weighed by Dr. Jhala of Wildlife Institute of India. He was gorged at the time of capture so adjusted value for 30 kg meat, resulting in c. 255 kg empty. 

11. Unknown
Weight: 260 kg 
Age: Adult
Capture date: Unknown
Location: Unknown
Region: Central India
Remarks: In the paper, "Field Guide for Ageing Tigers" by Dr. Jhala, a range of adult tiger weights is given as 200 - 260 kg and Dr. Jhala's unpublished data is quoted. This leads me to believe that this 260 kg tiger is an individual tiger, although I could be wrong. 

12. Unknown
Weight: 280 kg (adjusted 260 kg)
Age: Adult
Capture date: Unknown
Location: Ranthambore National Park
Region: Central-Western India
Remarks: Large tiger that had recently eaten before being weighed. So adjusted value for 20 kg meat, resulting in c. 260 kg empty.


13. Unknown 
Weight: 280 kg (adjusted 270 - 280 kg)
Age: Could be a young adult or adult
Capture date: Unknown
Location: -
Region: Central India
Remarks: The source could not comment on if the tiger was empty but confirmed that it was 100% not gorged, meaning the tiger had nothing noticeable amount food in him (little to non). Hence I adjust for 10 kg or less than 10 kg food, resulting in c. 270 kg+ empty, making him one of the biggest felids. 


14. M-126 
Weight: Exceeded scale of 272 kg 
Age: Adult
Capture date: 1984
Location: Chitwan National Park
Region: Terai Arc
Remarks: A large tiger captured by Dr. Dinerstein and his team in 1984. The tiger exceeded a weighing scale of 272 kg. 


15. M-105 aka "Sauraha" 
Weight: Exceeded scale of 272 kg
Age: 11
Capture date: 1980
Location: Chitwan National Park
Region: Terai Arc
Remarks: One of the largest tigers of all time, Sauraha exceeded a scale of 272 kg on his 4th capture. As the researchers who captured him described, he was a walking hunk of rippling muscle without an ounce of fat.