(02-07-2015, 07:14 AM)WaveRiders Wrote:  
Karanth has been a student of Sunquist during the 1980s. He learnt a lot of things from him. He seems to have measured his tigers along the curves to be consistent to the methodology used in Chitawan by his teacher a decade before his PhD.
 

(02-06-2015, 03:47 PM)'WaveRiders' Wrote: Pckts
 
The first scan you showed as Smuts document is a second hand source that does explain very little about the topic (and it has a typing mistake as well). I suggest you to read the original document. However the final and much more detailed paper from Smuts is the one from which the second scan belongs to. If you read both papers you should be able to clear understand that the one presenting the whole bunch of work from Smuts is the second one (published by him and others in 1980 – Comparative Growth of Wild Male and Female Lions Panthera leo). If you will not understand that and still refer to the previous one, well … Data from both papers have been known in AVA Forum for over a decade and please allow me to highlight that I believe it was just me who first detailed in (AVA) forum back in 2004 Smuts et al. data from their 1980 paper as well as details from other either sufficiently reliable or scientific sources like Meinertzhagen (1938), Bertram & King (1976), Orford et al. (1988), Burton (1918), Cooch Behar (1908), Brander (1931), Hewett (1938), Sunquist (1981), Smith et al. (1983), Karanth (1993), Siberian Tiger Project and other recent scientific Russian sources, etc. That rather detailed info I released was part of what at that time became the first reference megapost on lion and tiger body size for all relevant members of that forum I am sure soe of this board heard of (Apollyon, Bigbonns, erikde, Perrault, P Pardus, Vick and many other good guys) regardless of their bias if present. Over the years after I had to soon disappear my old friends and other knowledgeable people kept going releasing more and more info and data from quality or sufficiently reliable sources as well as interesting considerations on the matter. I believe that was in all respect the foundation of the further great efforts over the last few years made by other high quality posters like Peter, just to name one, to also cover different kind of topics.
 
I remind that back in the old days of just 10-12 years ago, the majority of people still believed at 240-250 kg as an average Amur or Indian male tiger as well as that an average African male lion was not too far off from those figures. Furthermore many believed both species, particularly the Amur but also the Indian tiger, would regularly peak at 280-300 kg and freak individuals even significantly more. Dreams of kids … I also had them when I was a kid imaging 4 meters tiger before begin to wander how on earth that could have been true. Unbelievable that some crap info like that has still been published in respected compendiums up to a dozen years or so.
 
 
I am totally confident this board knows all the data about Smuts et al. (1980) paper as well as the info it contains. That paper is still one of the very best single publication on big cats morphology ever published to date, although very few raw data on single individuals are detailed in it which is a pity (it took me quite some effort to get part of those raw data, unfortunately only a very much minority of the whole bunch). However the statistics summaries say a lot.
 
I suggest you to carefully read that paper and do not stop to the pure numbers to fully understand it.
 
BTW
 
1)
I did mine consideration, you can make yours. Arguable to say what is a better average and what it is not. Actual data are actual data and that’s fine. Manipulating data could be risky and that’s fine. However it is up to the brained individual to interpret data. I remind you that if you do not understand things properly it is likely you will never go anywhere in life. Fine … two male tigers (M105 and M026) bottomed the scale. So the correct actual average for those 7 or 8 well fed adult males could have been 240-250 kg. If this makes you happier I am happy to make you happier.
 
I would guess that for you the above range is likely a more correct average then the averages of 187,5 kg and 124,2 kg obtained by Smuts et al. (1980) from the very large sample of 41 male lion and 95 female lion individuals 4 years old and older out of a sample of 158 males and 184 females of all ages and all randomly collected during 1974-1978 in the 20000 Km2 Kruger park where anything can happen (and thus including small size individuals, large ones, those in poor conditions, sick, injured, healthy, very healthy, some found dead, some shot, territorial, nomadic, past-prime, very old, breeding, fasting, gorging, etc.) weighed by him and including the subtraction from the scale weight of the estimated or the actual stomach contents (weighed in case of dead animals) for each individual. The major focus of the paper was the growth in wild lions. If he would have not subtracted the estimated or actual stomach contents from the scale weights his growth curves would have been screwed up to some extent (I am aware of many more details on that). So many of his scale weights had to be manipulated.
 
Mine manipulation on Chitawan tiger weights was a speculation or an educated estimate if you want and not at all comparable to the properly done data manipulation that Smuts did of course (properly done because he could estimate or measure the stomach contents for each individual case by case). In any case I prefer to stick to my consideration as far as Chitawan tiger weights from Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983) is concerned rather then doing nothing at all. That was a clear case of baited animals and 12/18 hours of uninterrupted feeding.
 
Any morphometrics dataset of tiger sample in scientific studies in India and published either in peer-reviewed publications or released in the web or privately is from very far to extremely far to have the sounded statistics foundation of Smuts lion sample of Kruger NP. The only one with some statistical meaning but the stomach contents issue (an evident issue given the capturing technique) it is the one from Chitawan. However it is still very far from being comparable to the size and criteria followed by Smuts during all those years he worked in the Kruger NP. The truth is that in India it is impossible to collect a sample of Smuts quality because the tiger populations are not contiguous and a 20000 km2 park including nearly 3000 animals do not exist.
 
In the Russian Far East the situation in some respect is significantly better then in India as far as sounded statistical properties of the sample are concerned (and the stomach contents issue is not a major limitation if not accounted for like it was the case).
 
 
2)
It does not seem to me I wrote that the heaviest female tiger weighed in Chitawan was the heaviest female tiger ever weighed by scientists. I just wrote she was the heaviest among those tracked from Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983).
 
 
tigerluver
 
I have studied and investigated allometric scaling in animals quite in depth over the course of many years. The issue you are raising is much more complex then reducing it to a simple lack of logarithmic scaling for non linear bi-variate relationships.
 
It is interesting to have a look at the morphological data of the Sauraha male 105 in relationships to his extreme body mass able to bottom a 600 lb scale although after a whole night of feeding (please forget this for the moment, it is just a reminder).
 
The very much known body data of Sauraha male are
 
Head-and-body length measured following the curves along the back (and not in straight line as somebody believe) 1970 mm
Tail length 1030 mm
Total length 3100 mm
Chest girth 1400 mm
Neck girth 800 mm
Upper canine crown height from the gum line 65 mm
Lower canine crown height from the gum line 55 mm
 
On the basis of the length measured along the curves of the back (undisputable official info) I estimate head-and-body length in straight line of Sauraha male 105 most likely around 1830 mm.
 
Statistics from sufficiently reliable historical data concedes realistic and tangible, although rather low, probabilities that an Indian tiger male with 1400 mm of chest girth and 800 mm of neck girth would weigh in the region of 270 kg (such a chest girth would however much more likely match an animal weighing in the range 225-240 kg). At the same time statistics from sufficiently reliable historical data suggests that it is a significant harder proposition that an individual measuring 1970 mm in head-and-body length along the curves (estimable at 1830 mm in straight line even if you like) would weigh around 270 kg. I mean, it is possible, but the probabilities are really very low. I recall a few relatively short and much stocky male tigers from sufficiently reliable historical records. Among those individuals I remind for instance a male as long as 1854 mm in straight line with a chest girth of 1308 mm bottoming a scale of 232,7 kg (estimated weighing ca. 238-240 kg by applying a lifting pressure on the scale of 6-8 kg) and another male as long as 1930 mm in straight line with a chest girth of 1422 mm bottoming a scale of 255,4 kg (estimated weighing ca. 265 kg by applying a lifting pressure on the scale of 9-13+ kg). According to my statistics applied to sufficiently reliable historical data an Indian adult male tiger as long as 1970 mm along the curves without the tail (or 1830 mm in straight line) of average build would likely weigh in the range 180 -205 kg.
 
Should Sauraha male 105 morphometrics data and those from Dumbar Brander relative to his massive, fat and biggest tiger shot be both all correct and the former having little or no stomach contents, the latter with his 2210 mm straight length without tail and 1499 mm chest girth should have been for sure a heavy weight fat champion significantly heavier then the 270 kg weight Brander suggested for him (he was a tiger 280 mm longer then the Sauraha male 105 and with ca. 100 mm longer chest girth).
 
The above consideration might increase speculation that the Sauraha male was weighed with relevant amount of food in the stomach and guts.
 
However, I would conclude stating that there are also quite relevant probabilities that the Sauraha male was likely not accurately measured for a number of reasons. He may have not been stretched enough while being measured and/or the measurement was faulty somewhere reading pessimistically like due for instance to not pressing the tape sufficiently hard on the body to follow the contour and/or the animal was badly positioned to appreciate its full size for measurement (although it is easier the other way around while measuring along the curves) and/or the tail measured separately and subtracted from the total length was considered longer then it actually was.
 
If all my speculative hypotheses were correct the animal was actually significantly larger then how it appears from the official data perhaps by even 100-150 mm or more. At the end it would seem the length measurements was a straight line measurements. Unfortunately it was not.
 
 
                            WaveRiders
 

 
 

(02-08-2015, 09:26 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I was not aware that, "the period between the kill of the bait and the capture was less than 10 hours (they were revisited before the 6:00 am)." Therefore, say a tiger got to the bait immediately and ate during those 10 hrs, from the average intake reported of 14 kg/24 hr (disregarding portions of bait no actually eaten by the tiger), would have eaten 5.8 kg. Likely, most tigers did not reach the bait that early, and even if they did, 5.8 kg of food mass would not be the mass in stomach at weighing due to metabolism. All in all, from the average figure and the reported timings, the average tiger would only have 3 kg of stomach content from the bait as weighing.

The complex situation on food correction as presented in all this information is another reason why it may be superfluous in most cases. There was already metabolism and competition intricating the equation, and Guate has pointed out time as another factor. All these factors and yet there is a poor grasp of what these parameters were for each specimen, thus food content estimations would be just as poor.