(04-15-2022, 03:12 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: If I remember correctly you gave as "average" weight of that Nepalese male of about 290 kg with a range of like 286 - 306 kg empty (based on the highest food intake of 34 kg and 14-19 kg average stomach content calculations).

Quote:电子邮件说这是曲线测量。

(04-15-2022, 04:21 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-15-2022, 03:12 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: If I remember correctly you gave as "average" weight of that Nepalese male of about 290 kg with a range of like 286 - 306 kg empty (based on the highest food intake of 34 kg and 14-19 kg average stomach content calculations).

Correct, the figure of 286 kg came in the scenario that the tiger of 320 kg gorged itself with 34 kg, the maximum food intake actually measured for a tiger. The figure of 306 kg came in the case that the tiger of 320 kg did only ate the minimum amount recorded for a tiger in 24 hours, which is 14 kg. Both extreme scenarions are unlikely.

In this case, we can estimate a consumption of about 20 kg, based in the largest intake recorded for male M-91 in Panna which is described that was in a full belly. In that case we can estimate a body mass of about 300 kg "empty" for the Nepalese tiger, which is the most likely situation. The estimation of 290 kg came from the estimations used by Dr Karanth of his tigers, which were corrected with 30 kg, but this also seems unlikely as Smythies described that the tiger was able to run and even jump, something that a gorged tiger will hardly do.

That is why I think that the most likely scenario is that this tiger weighed between 290-300 kg "empty", based in the evidence and been generous.

(04-15-2022, 01:00 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(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 .  yeah this is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4UydvVBovU this male was estimated live 272kg on very old  documentary ,yes 320 kg nepal tiger is very much reliable (could be 290-306 empty ), but what i meant to say those hunted  tigers who have measurements and pics you should keep them in valid hunting record and those verified by scientist like 320kg male you should keep it in scientific records .

I made a short analisys about all the exceptional weights of tigers above 272 kg in litterature, the list is not too long.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now, why I did not include them? Well, one reason is the reliability, which at least two of them are reliable enough to actually include them with no problem (281 kg and 320 kg), but the other reason is that they are "exceptional" and I want to show that I am not biased in my figures and also that we don't need to include exceptional especimens to inflate the figures in order to show that tigers are bigger, like other "people" do with the maned cat (you know what I mean).

By the way, the link of the video doesn't work, please check it and put it again.

(04-16-2022, 07:31 PM)Pantherinae Wrote: Very interesting topic, these monster tigers. Do you know what scales were used? Especially interesting regarding the 320 kg tiger?

(04-16-2022, 05:46 PM)Chooser Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:电子邮件说这是曲线测量。

(04-16-2022, 11:14 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: yeah this is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4UydvVBovU this male was estimated live 272kg on very old  documentary ,yes 320 kg nepal tiger is very much reliable (could be 290-306 empty ), but what i meant to say those hunted  tigers who have measurements and pics you should keep them in valid hunting record and those verified by scientist like 320kg male you should keep it in scientific records .

(04-19-2022, 02:48 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-16-2022, 05:46 PM)Chooser Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:电子邮件说这是曲线测量。

That is a very old email that, apparently, was an answer of Dr Dale Miquelle to an old user named Waveriders. We have no idea if that email is correct or even real, but the description says that the animal itself was placed in a straight line and latter they put the tape along the body, which was already in a straight form, reducing the curves. So is a mix between "straight line" and "over curves", which means that the difference with the method "straight" was probably no more than 10 cm. After all modern scientists do not search for "records" but for reliable information.

The pictures that I have saw of tigers been measured in the Russian Far East seems to confirm that mix of methods, and that is why in my comparative images I add the label "along the curves" in the figures of the Amur tiger.

(04-19-2022, 04:01 AM)Chooser Wrote: If the method used in Russia in the period 1992-2004 was applied in the same way as in northeastern India in the period 1870-1908, it means we have to deduct 5,45 inches (13,84 cm) from the total length 'over curves' to get to the total length measured in a straight line ('between pegs'). The result (294,00 - 13,83 = 280,17 cm、195-13.84＝181.16cm) The correct shoulder height should be the length from shoulder to claw minus the front palm, that is, the male tiger is 115-14.2 = 100.8 cm, and the female tiger is 99-11.9 = 87.1 cm.

(04-19-2022, 04:31 AM)瓜特戈吉拉 Wrote:

(04-19-2022, 04:01 AM)选择器 Wrote: 如果俄罗斯在 1992-2004 年期间使用的方法与 1870-1908 年期间在印度东北部使用的方法相同，这意味着我们必须从总长度中减去 5.45 英寸（13.84 厘米）'过曲线”以获得以直线测量的总长度（“钉之间”）。结果（294,00 - 13,83 = 280,17 cm、195-13.84＝181.16cm）正确的肩高应该是肩到爪的长度减去前掌，即雄虎为115-14.2 = 100.8 厘米，雌虎是 99-11.9 = 87.1 厘米。

基本上是相同的，但不是以相同的形式应用，因为过去的猎人确实比现代动物学家更多地使用磁带来增加某些位置的大小。Brander、Cooch Behar 的 Maharaja 和 Hewett 等专家估计了 3 到 7 英寸之间的差异，平均约为 5 英寸（13 厘米），但我认为俄罗斯科学家对磁带的压力并不大，这就是为什么我估计至少 10 厘米。

即便如此，在 13-14 厘米的情况下，你应该考虑其他东西，俄罗斯虎的头身是从鼻子到尾巴的 roth，当这个角度为 90 度时（参见 Kerley等人.(2005) for details), 不是到臀部末端，这意味着即使男性的头身大约是直的 180 厘米（我在我的图形中估计大约 183 厘米），真正的头身大约是 190厘米计算尾基的直径约为 10 厘米，这是一条直线。

关于肩高，老实说，你的计算是完全没有必要的，即使是像大君这样的猎人也测量了“钉子之间”的肩高，即使他们在曲线上测量了身体长度，你应该阅读 Brown (1893) 了解这方面的详细信息，现在在阿穆尔虎检查这个：

*This image is copyright of its original author

肩高已经计算出从肩部到手腕的高度，这将是站立高度。我看到了一个视频（顺便说一句，可以在 Youtube 上找到）我们可以看到俄罗斯母老虎的身高是用碎片来测量的，所以这表明臂长不是直的，这会低估真实身高，但即便如此，男性 95 厘米和女性 81 厘米的高度是可靠和准确的。

(04-19-2022, 05:28 AM)Chooser Wrote: 我同意你对体长的看法，但我不认为肩到手腕是站立高度。躺着的肩高和站着的高度确实是有区别的，但是肩高应该是肩膀到掌垫的高度而不是手腕的高度是不合理的。

(04-20-2022, 12:59 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-19-2022, 05:28 AM)Chooser Wrote: 我同意你对体长的看法，但我不认为肩到手腕是站立高度。躺着的肩高和站着的高度确实是有区别的，但是肩高应该是肩膀到掌垫的高度而不是手腕的高度是不合理的。

I think that you have a valid point here, as the real standing height should be a little more than the length between shoulder and wrist. However, as long as we don't have any other corroboration, those values are the closer to a real standing height, or at least, the height of the animal in motion with legs not to much streched.

(04-20-2022, 03:28 AM)Chooser Wrote: The biggest problem with the shoulder height of the Northeast Tiger is that the measurer didn't pull the forelimb straight like the lion and Bengal Tiger, and it didn't measure from the shoulder to the palm pad, so some dimensions were lost.

(04-19-2022, 02:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-16-2022, 11:14 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: yeah this is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4UydvVBovU this male was estimated live 272kg on very old  documentary ,yes 320 kg nepal tiger is very much reliable (could be 290-306 empty ), but what i meant to say those hunted  tigers who have measurements and pics you should keep them in valid hunting record and those verified by scientist like 320kg male you should keep it in scientific records .

They are valid and interesting, is just that for space issues I don't include them in my comparative images, in an special Appendix for "exceptional" records. 

But even if we include them (the six of them), the average is not more than 205 kg, as that sample is so even that the curve do not move too much, if at all.