(02-12-2015, 05:49 PM)'WaveRiders' Wrote:  
A brief summary to make things easier for GuateGojira “to clarify a lot of misconceptions created by Waveriders in the tiger topic”. The issues raised for Chitawan and Nagarahole tiger weights and measurements are probably part of these “many misconceptions”.
 
I just kindly invite him to carefully read at least 5 times my previous posts and the present one in order not to misinterpret my statements and not to twist them. It is not very exciting have to answer to repeat the same concepts again and again.
 
 
1)
Bottoming a 272 kg scale capacity, Sauraha M105 and M026 male tigers evidently weighed more then 272 kg not accounting for the weighing equipment (likely 4 to 8 kg). Regardless of the scale used being a spring or an electronic one and provided with an adjustable zero, it could therefore be more correctly stated that they weighed more then 264-268 kg or more then 265 kg (rounded figure).

 
2)
I am not aware of any comments of possible estimation of stomach contents in official and/or scientific (peer-reviewed) documents. Nothing appears to have been written on them. The animals have been weighed after have likely spent a whole night, 12 hours or so, feeding at a baited kill. Should this circumstance have actually been the case, as it appears because of the capturing technique using baits if not in some cases after the first capture, it is reasonable to estimate that these two very large male tigers had likely 15-20+ kg of food/liquid contents in the stomach and guts. This estimate comes from have observed adult male tigers in Chitawan NP to eat 56 kg and 57 kg of food in 3 days of undisturbed eating and from a detailed statistics obtained by observation of prevalently adult female tigers feeding habits suggesting an average of 14,0 kg of food eaten in the first day (disturbed kill as for a weighing operation). Following tiger behaviour at a kill the very most if not all of the first day food intake is presumably eaten during the first night after the kill and not during the following day.
 
 
3)
There are apparently private communications of Sunquist circulated in the web suggesting an estimated weight of 261 kg for the Sauraha male M105 has been obtained from a regression equation using morphological parameters. Another e-mail from Sunquist states that Sauraha Male M105 was captured by him in 1974 and that weighed 258,2 kg. Presumably it is another weight estimate.
 
 
4)
There is an apparent private communication of Sunquist circulated in the web suggesting he was not struck by belly size while capturing tigers in Nepal and that he thought “they had not yet eaten their fill when captured”. He does not refer specifically to any one tiger, but speaks in general. The implication of this statement in tiger ecology is that when a tiger kills he can spent even 12 hours or so of a night sitting after a kill with little or no feeding. I wonder how this can be confirmed.
With Sunquist statement considered valid, the Chitawan tigers have presumably been weighed with no relevant amount of food contents in the stomach.

 
5)
I am not aware of any confirmation from Sunquist, Smith or anybody else involved in the 1970s/1980s tiger study in Nepal that the weight of 261 kg appearing as maximum weight in the N=7 sample of adult males in Smith et al. (1983) is either the weight of an individual different from M105 and M026 that therefore actually scaled 261 kg or the estimated weight of Sauraha M105 suggested by Sunquist or an actual weight of M026 at one of his captures. Should the first case or the third case be true this is an actual weight of either a distinct individual (as I am inclined to believe) or M026. Should the second case be true we do not have 261 kg as the precise figure of maximum recorded weight for a wild tiger in scientific publications. We can only say >272 kg or > ca. 265kg or > ca. 245 kg or whatever.
 
 
6)
The official document from Dr Tamang (PhD Dissertation, 1982, pag. 63) written under Sunquist supervision states the total length of Sauaraha M105 tiger as long as 3100 mm was measured “along the curves of the back” and that the tail measured 1030 mm. I strongly believe all relevant member of AVA and this board have seen the scanned page of this document reporting the method of measurement.
 
 
7)
There are apparently private communications of Sunquist circulated in the web referring to the tigers he studied in Chitawan stating the following:
a) “Animals were measured in a straight line, between the pegs. We did try to position the animals so that the back was in a straight line, thus avoiding the curves of the back”
b) “Straight-line measurements but tried to make sure that animals were straight, reduce the number of curves”
 
I just wonder how an American scientist of Sunquist’ calibre with English mother tongue could provide answers with such syntax errors and bizarre way to explain himself.
 
 
8)
In the book “Tigers” Karanth (2003, pag 47) writes “most biologists now measure the length of tigers along the contours of the spine from the tip of the nose to the end of the tails”.
 
His statement would implicate that the Nagarahole tigers he studied during late 1980s and early 1990s have been measured along the curves of the back, in accordance with the official document highlighted above from Tamang (1982) describing how the Chitawan tigers have been measured. This would not be a surprise as Karanth began to study tigers under Sunquist teaching and supervision.
 
 
As much as I can recall, this is I what we know. I have tried not to provide personal interpretation or comments unless really forced to do it.
 
In previous threads I have seen contorted way to explain that the official document from Tamang (1982) made under Sunquist teaching and supervision does not count, that only the private e-mails from Sunquist count (!), that Karanth does not know how to measure a tiger as he measured only 2 of them, that Karanth did not realize what he was doing when he measured a tiger, that Karanth misinterpreted himself (!) and so on. All of that is very bizarre.
 
 
                           WaveRiders
 

 

 

(02-09-2015, 05:17 AM)'WaveRiders' Wrote: From Sunquist (1981) pag. 76
 
“RESULTS.—Estimates of the amount of food that can be eaten by a single tiger are shown in Table 27. The average quantity consumed in one day may be too low since most of this information was from animals that were disturbed at bait sites. On two occasions the tiger was known to be eating when we arrived. If the tiger is left undisturbed the average amount eaten in two days is more than double that of the first day, suggesting that the one-day value is low. A hungry tiger probably eats more on the first day of feeding than on successive days.”
 
The darting operation implicated a “disturbed kill” similar to the one caused by the weighing of the carcass on the day following the kill. For sure at least the first day of table 27 fully reflects the average of a disturbed kill (also the other days when occurring, but the average after 2 or more days does not necessarily implicate the kill was also disturbed in any day before in principle, although in my opinion it was more often then not the case because of the purpose of the study on feeding habits).
 
The only likely difference was that the darting and weighing operation occurred during the early/mid morning while the weighing of the carcass to study the food habits may likely have generally occurred later, perhaps late morning or even in the early afternoon. For you that makes a lot of difference. For me no because the tiger had already had the kill at disposition for 10-12 hours or so and because for a night kill tigers ate during the night and normally leaves the kill during the day to come back in the following evening if they know there is more to eat from the carcass. When a predator kill he start to eat immediately regardless how much hungry he is. He always eats, and if he is hungry he eats more. Sometimes baits were not killed, because tigers were not interested to kill it, perhaps because they were not hungry, or because baits were not located by the them. Or because they may have not feel comfortable to do it. It is obvious that if a tiger kills during the day it eats during the day as he starts to eat at least something immediately. This is not the case if the tiger has killed in the late afternoon/early evening/night of the day before.
 
In my opinion day 1 of table 27 reasonable reflects on a statistical basis what you could expect the “unsexed” tiger (actually females contributed much more then males to that figure) had eaten on average before the weighing operation if the tigers were located at a kill like when baited. Then that amount of 14,0 kg is not too far from the stomach contents on average (considering metabolic consumption over 10-12 hours, urination, defecation, blood and water drinking). We could discount something perhaps even 2-4 kg. But then we have the issue of males and females differentiation. Bear in mind that according to Sunquist females contributed much more then males to that figure. He states he substantially studied female tigers feeding habits.
 
So those statistically 10-12 kg or so of likely stomach contents at weighing operations can basically be attributed to the adult female class. Corresponding amount for adult males would be 15-18 kg or so on average on a statistical basis and applying Kleiber’s Law like I suggested to get an estimate.
 
 
                    WaveRiders
 



 

Quote: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

Quote:However remember that the period of 24 hours of feeding refers basically entirely to the night only as tigers during the day leave the kill to come back in the following evening if they know there is more to eat from it.