(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-30-2023, 06:32 PM)rigved12 Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 01:52 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 12:14 AM)Charger01 Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:33 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:22 PM)Charger01 Wrote: Measuring a corbett tigress 

https://youtu.be/w7F7HWcYZ-w

Claimed to be 9’4” over the curves and 230kg which obviously she’s not so I’m not sure where that weight is from.

Yeah I dont believe in those numbers, just shared as it shows how they measure bigcats now a days.

From what I can hear, they were in a hurry and just because someone requested them to take the measurements, they allowed it. They skipped the paws. Most probably didn't weigh her either. 

The measuring tape was 60" with a couple of extra inches left on the end. Tigress's body took the whole tape and still a few inches were left I believe. Give or take 67" or 170.2 cm for the body and as they said in the video, 23" / 58.4 cm for the tail. Total being 90" / 228.6 cm. Tail at 23" / 58.4 cm is quite short. Couldn't get the shoulder height. 

Edit: This is weird. I rewatched it and in the first go, they actually measured her total length to be about 102" / 259.1 cm. First the body which took whole length of the tape and couple of extra inches (63"), then kept a finger on the point they left at, then measured again which added 39". I took 39" from when then tail was on ground. They proceeded to pick the tail up to measure it which I think might have created an error. Then the tail measured separately gave 23" / 58.4 cm. 

Subtracting tail length from the total length, the body would be 79" / 200.7 cm.

No Tigress will be 200cm in HBL

What is the average weight of tigers bro

Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-30-2023, 06:32 PM)rigved12 Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 01:52 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 12:14 AM)Charger01 Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:33 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:22 PM)Charger01 Wrote: Measuring a corbett tigress 

https://youtu.be/w7F7HWcYZ-w

Claimed to be 9’4” over the curves and 230kg which obviously she’s not so I’m not sure where that weight is from.

Yeah I dont believe in those numbers, just shared as it shows how they measure bigcats now a days.

From what I can hear, they were in a hurry and just because someone requested them to take the measurements, they allowed it. They skipped the paws. Most probably didn't weigh her either. 

The measuring tape was 60" with a couple of extra inches left on the end. Tigress's body took the whole tape and still a few inches were left I believe. Give or take 67" or 170.2 cm for the body and as they said in the video, 23" / 58.4 cm for the tail. Total being 90" / 228.6 cm. Tail at 23" / 58.4 cm is quite short. Couldn't get the shoulder height. 

Edit: This is weird. I rewatched it and in the first go, they actually measured her total length to be about 102" / 259.1 cm. First the body which took whole length of the tape and couple of extra inches (63"), then kept a finger on the point they left at, then measured again which added 39". I took 39" from when then tail was on ground. They proceeded to pick the tail up to measure it which I think might have created an error. Then the tail measured separately gave 23" / 58.4 cm. 

Subtracting tail length from the total length, the body would be 79" / 200.7 cm.

No Tigress will be 200cm in HBL

What is the average weight of tigers bro

Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-30-2023, 06:32 PM)rigved12 Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 01:52 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 12:14 AM)Charger01 Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:33 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:22 PM)Charger01 Wrote: Measuring a corbett tigress 

https://youtu.be/w7F7HWcYZ-w

Claimed to be 9’4” over the curves and 230kg which obviously she’s not so I’m not sure where that weight is from.

Yeah I dont believe in those numbers, just shared as it shows how they measure bigcats now a days.

From what I can hear, they were in a hurry and just because someone requested them to take the measurements, they allowed it. They skipped the paws. Most probably didn't weigh her either. 

The measuring tape was 60" with a couple of extra inches left on the end. Tigress's body took the whole tape and still a few inches were left I believe. Give or take 67" or 170.2 cm for the body and as they said in the video, 23" / 58.4 cm for the tail. Total being 90" / 228.6 cm. Tail at 23" / 58.4 cm is quite short. Couldn't get the shoulder height. 

Edit: This is weird. I rewatched it and in the first go, they actually measured her total length to be about 102" / 259.1 cm. First the body which took whole length of the tape and couple of extra inches (63"), then kept a finger on the point they left at, then measured again which added 39". I took 39" from when then tail was on ground. They proceeded to pick the tail up to measure it which I think might have created an error. Then the tail measured separately gave 23" / 58.4 cm. 

Subtracting tail length from the total length, the body would be 79" / 200.7 cm.

No Tigress will be 200cm in HBL

What is the average weight of tigers bro

Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-30-2023, 06:32 PM)rigved12 Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 01:52 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 12:14 AM)Charger01 Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:33 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:22 PM)Charger01 Wrote: Measuring a corbett tigress 

https://youtu.be/w7F7HWcYZ-w

Claimed to be 9’4” over the curves and 230kg which obviously she’s not so I’m not sure where that weight is from.

Yeah I dont believe in those numbers, just shared as it shows how they measure bigcats now a days.

From what I can hear, they were in a hurry and just because someone requested them to take the measurements, they allowed it. They skipped the paws. Most probably didn't weigh her either. 

The measuring tape was 60" with a couple of extra inches left on the end. Tigress's body took the whole tape and still a few inches were left I believe. Give or take 67" or 170.2 cm for the body and as they said in the video, 23" / 58.4 cm for the tail. Total being 90" / 228.6 cm. Tail at 23" / 58.4 cm is quite short. Couldn't get the shoulder height. 

Edit: This is weird. I rewatched it and in the first go, they actually measured her total length to be about 102" / 259.1 cm. First the body which took whole length of the tape and couple of extra inches (63"), then kept a finger on the point they left at, then measured again which added 39". I took 39" from when then tail was on ground. They proceeded to pick the tail up to measure it which I think might have created an error. Then the tail measured separately gave 23" / 58.4 cm. 

Subtracting tail length from the total length, the body would be 79" / 200.7 cm.

No Tigress will be 200cm in HBL

What is the average weight of tigers bro

Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-30-2023, 06:32 PM)rigved12 Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 01:52 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 12:14 AM)Charger01 Wrote:

(01-25-2023, 11:33 PM)Pckts Wrote: Claimed to be 9’4” over the curves and 230kg which obviously she’s not so I’m not sure where that weight is from.

Yeah I dont believe in those numbers, just shared as it shows how they measure bigcats now a days.

From what I can hear, they were in a hurry and just because someone requested them to take the measurements, they allowed it. They skipped the paws. Most probably didn't weigh her either. 

The measuring tape was 60" with a couple of extra inches left on the end. Tigress's body took the whole tape and still a few inches were left I believe. Give or take 67" or 170.2 cm for the body and as they said in the video, 23" / 58.4 cm for the tail. Total being 90" / 228.6 cm. Tail at 23" / 58.4 cm is quite short. Couldn't get the shoulder height. 

Edit: This is weird. I rewatched it and in the first go, they actually measured her total length to be about 102" / 259.1 cm. First the body which took whole length of the tape and couple of extra inches (63"), then kept a finger on the point they left at, then measured again which added 39". I took 39" from when then tail was on ground. They proceeded to pick the tail up to measure it which I think might have created an error. Then the tail measured separately gave 23" / 58.4 cm. 

Subtracting tail length from the total length, the body would be 79" / 200.7 cm.

No Tigress will be 200cm in HBL

What is the average weight of tigers bro

Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-30-2023, 06:32 PM)rigved12 Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 01:52 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 12:14 AM)Charger01 Wrote: Yeah I dont believe in those numbers, just shared as it shows how they measure bigcats now a days.

From what I can hear, they were in a hurry and just because someone requested them to take the measurements, they allowed it. They skipped the paws. Most probably didn't weigh her either. 

The measuring tape was 60" with a couple of extra inches left on the end. Tigress's body took the whole tape and still a few inches were left I believe. Give or take 67" or 170.2 cm for the body and as they said in the video, 23" / 58.4 cm for the tail. Total being 90" / 228.6 cm. Tail at 23" / 58.4 cm is quite short. Couldn't get the shoulder height. 

Edit: This is weird. I rewatched it and in the first go, they actually measured her total length to be about 102" / 259.1 cm. First the body which took whole length of the tape and couple of extra inches (63"), then kept a finger on the point they left at, then measured again which added 39". I took 39" from when then tail was on ground. They proceeded to pick the tail up to measure it which I think might have created an error. Then the tail measured separately gave 23" / 58.4 cm. 

Subtracting tail length from the total length, the body would be 79" / 200.7 cm.

No Tigress will be 200cm in HBL

What is the average weight of tigers bro

Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-30-2023, 06:32 PM)rigved12 Wrote:

(01-26-2023, 01:52 AM)Pckts Wrote: No Tigress will be 200cm in HBL

What is the average weight of tigers bro

Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

(01-31-2023, 05:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-30-2023, 06:32 PM)rigved12 Wrote: What is the average weight of tigers bro

Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

It literally says “unpublished data”

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is per. Communication only. And like @Jerricson said this is based off a very small sample size. 

In regards to reliability and knowledge, no one has more experience with Tigers than the likes of the names I’ve mentioned and no one has presented a more complete and large data base. Age groups and health is generally stated as well and almost all presented are adults. Where as food content is also generally mentioned but not so by Jhala.

(01-31-2023, 07:28 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 05:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote: Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

It literally says “unpublished data”

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is per. Communication only. And like @Jerricson said this is based off a very small sample size. 

In regards to reliability and knowledge, no one has more experience with Tigers than the likes of the names I’ve mentioned and no one has presented a more complete and large data base. Age groups and health is generally stated as well and almost all presented are adults. Where as food content is also generally mentioned but not so by Jhala.

Brander was hunter ,he shot tigers not darted them , his expertize over scientists or vets is debatable , his ability to determine age perfectly and health is also debatable .  this journal "field guide for aging tigers" is uploaded by jhala and shahu in which he stated range as 200-260 , its not someone quoting him via personal communication . in panna tigers chart many 2.5 to 3.5 yr old sub-adults are 170-185kg which could have grown upto 210-230 kg easily , thats what i am saying , there could something like that in branders data .

(01-31-2023, 08:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 07:28 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 05:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote: jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

It literally says “unpublished data”

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is per. Communication only. And like @Jerricson said this is based off a very small sample size. 

In regards to reliability and knowledge, no one has more experience with Tigers than the likes of the names I’ve mentioned and no one has presented a more complete and large data base. Age groups and health is generally stated as well and almost all presented are adults. Where as food content is also generally mentioned but not so by Jhala.

Brander was hunter ,he shot tigers not darted them , his expertize over scientists or vets is debatable , his ability to determine age perfectly and health is also debatable .  this journal "field guide for aging tigers" is uploaded by jhala and shahu in which he stated range as 200-260 , its not someone quoting him via personal communication . in panna tigers chart many 2.5 to 3.5 yr old sub-adults are 170-185kg which could have grown upto 210-230 kg easily , thats what i am saying , there could something like that in branders data .

Brander was much more than just a “trophy hunter.” 
He is probably the foremost expert on Tigers and was responsible for their conservation throughout the majority of his life.

He measured and weighed more individuals in far more locations. Not just ones that were sick or died or translocated. He was hunting the largest and most dominate cats of the areas during his time. There is nothing to debate, in terms of wild interaction his experience is 2nd to none. It’s very easy to discredit someone because they were a Hunter but if you take the time to read their books and experiences you see their knowledge and experience shine through. 

I highly suggest you start reading these old hunters books, there’s a reason why every modern big cat expert references these people.

(01-31-2023, 08:58 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 08:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 07:28 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 05:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote: The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

It literally says “unpublished data”

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is per. Communication only. And like @Jerricson said this is based off a very small sample size. 

In regards to reliability and knowledge, no one has more experience with Tigers than the likes of the names I’ve mentioned and no one has presented a more complete and large data base. Age groups and health is generally stated as well and almost all presented are adults. Where as food content is also generally mentioned but not so by Jhala.

Brander was hunter ,he shot tigers not darted them , his expertize over scientists or vets is debatable , his ability to determine age perfectly and health is also debatable .  this journal "field guide for aging tigers" is uploaded by jhala and shahu in which he stated range as 200-260 , its not someone quoting him via personal communication . in panna tigers chart many 2.5 to 3.5 yr old sub-adults are 170-185kg which could have grown upto 210-230 kg easily , thats what i am saying , there could something like that in branders data .

Brander was much more than just a “trophy hunter.” 
He is probably the foremost expert on Tigers and was responsible for their conservation throughout the majority of his life.

He measured and weighed more individuals in far more locations. Not just ones that were sick or died or translocated. He was hunting the largest and most dominate cats of the areas during his time. There is nothing to debate, in terms of wild interaction his experience is 2nd to none. It’s very easy to discredit someone because they were a Hunter but if you take the time to read their books and experiences you see their knowledge and experience shine through. 

I highly suggest you start reading these old hunters books, there’s a reason why every modern big cat expert references these people.

bro i understand and respect your point of view but u dont understand my point of view , look at charger table and various modern data and measurements we have and rethink with open mind what i said , i respect brander but he didn't had a separate table for sub-adults , young adults and full grown adults like we have at panna , or done by smuts . brander didn't mentioned age of tigers he hunted . its not easy to differentiate between a 3.5 yr old male and 5 year old unless you are a scientist or know the profile of tiger from birth .

(01-31-2023, 10:02 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 08:58 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 08:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 07:28 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 05:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote: nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

It literally says “unpublished data”

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is per. Communication only. And like @Jerricson said this is based off a very small sample size. 

In regards to reliability and knowledge, no one has more experience with Tigers than the likes of the names I’ve mentioned and no one has presented a more complete and large data base. Age groups and health is generally stated as well and almost all presented are adults. Where as food content is also generally mentioned but not so by Jhala.

Brander was hunter ,he shot tigers not darted them , his expertize over scientists or vets is debatable , his ability to determine age perfectly and health is also debatable .  this journal "field guide for aging tigers" is uploaded by jhala and shahu in which he stated range as 200-260 , its not someone quoting him via personal communication . in panna tigers chart many 2.5 to 3.5 yr old sub-adults are 170-185kg which could have grown upto 210-230 kg easily , thats what i am saying , there could something like that in branders data .

Brander was much more than just a “trophy hunter.” 
He is probably the foremost expert on Tigers and was responsible for their conservation throughout the majority of his life.

He measured and weighed more individuals in far more locations. Not just ones that were sick or died or translocated. He was hunting the largest and most dominate cats of the areas during his time. There is nothing to debate, in terms of wild interaction his experience is 2nd to none. It’s very easy to discredit someone because they were a Hunter but if you take the time to read their books and experiences you see their knowledge and experience shine through. 

I highly suggest you start reading these old hunters books, there’s a reason why every modern big cat expert references these people.

bro i understand and respect your point of view but u dont understand my point of view , look at charger table and various modern data and measurements we have and rethink with open mind what i said , i respect brander but he didn't had a separate table for sub-adults , young adults and full grown adults like we have at panna , or done by smuts . brander didn't mentioned age of tigers he hunted . its not easy to differentiate between a 3.5 yr old male and 5 year old unless you are a scientist or know the profile of tiger from birth .

That table has numerous vague claims and flaws. It's far from valid compared to verified measurements mentioned from the people I named. People like Brander is why I was able to easily identify that Wagdoh was not weighed and have done so with numerous Tigers and Lions. The measurements and corresponding weights paint a much clearer picture. 
With regards to age, Brander did mention ages as well as every other one mentioned. Its certainly easy enough to identify young from old to a trained eye, especially when talking about people with real first hand experience. At the end of the day, it's pretty clear, a good sized Male Tiger will be around 200kgs. They can absolutely get larger than than but they can absolutely be smaller than that. You can have bloated cats with stomach content, you can have cattle killers, you can have old or young that all affect that number but when talking about a healthy, fairly empty male Tiger, 200kgs is going to be a good average.

(01-31-2023, 10:18 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 10:02 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 08:58 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 08:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 07:28 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 05:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote: Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

It literally says “unpublished data”

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is per. Communication only. And like @Jerricson said this is based off a very small sample size. 

In regards to reliability and knowledge, no one has more experience with Tigers than the likes of the names I’ve mentioned and no one has presented a more complete and large data base. Age groups and health is generally stated as well and almost all presented are adults. Where as food content is also generally mentioned but not so by Jhala.

Brander was hunter ,he shot tigers not darted them , his expertize over scientists or vets is debatable , his ability to determine age perfectly and health is also debatable .  this journal "field guide for aging tigers" is uploaded by jhala and shahu in which he stated range as 200-260 , its not someone quoting him via personal communication . in panna tigers chart many 2.5 to 3.5 yr old sub-adults are 170-185kg which could have grown upto 210-230 kg easily , thats what i am saying , there could something like that in branders data .

Brander was much more than just a “trophy hunter.” 
He is probably the foremost expert on Tigers and was responsible for their conservation throughout the majority of his life.

He measured and weighed more individuals in far more locations. Not just ones that were sick or died or translocated. He was hunting the largest and most dominate cats of the areas during his time. There is nothing to debate, in terms of wild interaction his experience is 2nd to none. It’s very easy to discredit someone because they were a Hunter but if you take the time to read their books and experiences you see their knowledge and experience shine through. 

I highly suggest you start reading these old hunters books, there’s a reason why every modern big cat expert references these people.

bro i understand and respect your point of view but u dont understand my point of view , look at charger table and various modern data and measurements we have and rethink with open mind what i said , i respect brander but he didn't had a separate table for sub-adults , young adults and full grown adults like we have at panna , or done by smuts . brander didn't mentioned age of tigers he hunted . its not easy to differentiate between a 3.5 yr old male and 5 year old unless you are a scientist or know the profile of tiger from birth .

That table has numerous vague claims and flaws. It's far from valid compared to verified measurements mentioned from the people I named. People like Brander is why I was able to easily identify that Wagdoh was not weighed and have done so with numerous Tigers and Lions. The measurements and corresponding weights paint a much clearer picture. 
With regards to age, Brander did mention ages as well as every other one mentioned. Its certainly easy enough to identify young from old to a trained eye, especially when talking about people with real first hand experience. At the end of the day, it's pretty clear, a good sized Male Tiger will be around 200kgs. They can absolutely get larger than than but they can absolutely be smaller than that. You can have bloated cats with stomach content, you can have cattle killers, you can have old or young that all affect that number but when talking about a healthy, fairly empty male Tiger, 200kgs is going to be a good average.

can u post branders detailed data here mentioning age and weight of tigers . i think avg weight of tigers in india is not similar thoughout , some parks have large no of big males like dudhwa ,may be kaziranga ,  terai west , also kanha in central india and some parks we can have avg as u suggest . yes 200-210kg tiger can be a avg tiger in good health , but also u have to include big males while calculating overrall avg which would add up extra 10-15 kg in overall avg .

(01-31-2023, 10:34 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 10:18 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 10:02 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 08:58 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 08:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 07:28 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 05:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote: i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058_Field_Guide_for_Aging_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

It literally says “unpublished data”

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is per. Communication only. And like @Jerricson said this is based off a very small sample size. 

In regards to reliability and knowledge, no one has more experience with Tigers than the likes of the names I’ve mentioned and no one has presented a more complete and large data base. Age groups and health is generally stated as well and almost all presented are adults. Where as food content is also generally mentioned but not so by Jhala.

Brander was hunter ,he shot tigers not darted them , his expertize over scientists or vets is debatable , his ability to determine age perfectly and health is also debatable .  this journal "field guide for aging tigers" is uploaded by jhala and shahu in which he stated range as 200-260 , its not someone quoting him via personal communication . in panna tigers chart many 2.5 to 3.5 yr old sub-adults are 170-185kg which could have grown upto 210-230 kg easily , thats what i am saying , there could something like that in branders data .

Brander was much more than just a “trophy hunter.” 
He is probably the foremost expert on Tigers and was responsible for their conservation throughout the majority of his life.

He measured and weighed more individuals in far more locations. Not just ones that were sick or died or translocated. He was hunting the largest and most dominate cats of the areas during his time. There is nothing to debate, in terms of wild interaction his experience is 2nd to none. It’s very easy to discredit someone because they were a Hunter but if you take the time to read their books and experiences you see their knowledge and experience shine through. 

I highly suggest you start reading these old hunters books, there’s a reason why every modern big cat expert references these people.

bro i understand and respect your point of view but u dont understand my point of view , look at charger table and various modern data and measurements we have and rethink with open mind what i said , i respect brander but he didn't had a separate table for sub-adults , young adults and full grown adults like we have at panna , or done by smuts . brander didn't mentioned age of tigers he hunted . its not easy to differentiate between a 3.5 yr old male and 5 year old unless you are a scientist or know the profile of tiger from birth .

That table has numerous vague claims and flaws. It's far from valid compared to verified measurements mentioned from the people I named. People like Brander is why I was able to easily identify that Wagdoh was not weighed and have done so with numerous Tigers and Lions. The measurements and corresponding weights paint a much clearer picture. 
With regards to age, Brander did mention ages as well as every other one mentioned. Its certainly easy enough to identify young from old to a trained eye, especially when talking about people with real first hand experience. At the end of the day, it's pretty clear, a good sized Male Tiger will be around 200kgs. They can absolutely get larger than than but they can absolutely be smaller than that. You can have bloated cats with stomach content, you can have cattle killers, you can have old or young that all affect that number but when talking about a healthy, fairly empty male Tiger, 200kgs is going to be a good average.

can u post branders detailed data here mentioning age and weight of tigers . i think avg weight of tigers in india is not similar thoughout , some parks have large no of big males like dudhwa ,may be kaziranga ,  terai west , also kanha in central india and some parks we can have avg as u suggest . yes 200-210kg tiger can be a avg tiger in good health , but also u have to include big males while calculating overrall avg which would add up extra 10-15 kg in overall avg .

"the classification of what is a mature animal has presented some difficulty, and would vary according to the views of the individual. Out of 39 tigress selected as mature, the smallest was 7'10'' and the largest 9'1''. The average is 8'4'' and the average weight was 343lb.
The shortest tiger classified as mature was 8'9'', the longest was 10'3''
The average works out at 9'3'',
The weights vary between 353lbs -515lb., averaging 420lb for a gorged tiger. I weighed one other animal over 500lbs.
The largest animal I actually ever saw, however only taped 9'11'' between the uprights. "
pg 52-53
*he estimated this male to be 600lbs and his measurements are presented in this thread*

With regards to Dudhwa or the Terai in general, remember Hewett who has the largest data base of any Tiger hunter was all from the Terai, Corbett also was throughout the Terai arc. 
Kaziranga is an unknown but it's where I would certainly wager the largest *heaviest* Tigers live. 


I agree that depending on the park you will see some Tiger averages larger than others, also depending on if there is cattle lifting involved. But if the sample size gets to a significant number, no matter the park you'll most likely see that number get fairly close to 200kg give or take.