There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
05-13-2021, 05:56 PM( This post was last modified: 05-13-2021, 05:59 PM by Charger01 )
I came across some data on shoulder heights of Amur tigers, which I guess has been previously discussed in this forum
I was confused by some things...
I calculated the averages and it says average from withers to tip of the extended paw = 114.9 cm .............. (i) (removing one emaciated tiger of 125 kg and tiger no. 8 because both measurements are not given)
Average from withers to wrist = 93.9 cm .............. (ii) (removing one emaciated tiger of 125 kg and tiger no. 8 because both measurements are not given)
Difference = 114.9 - 93.9 = 21 cm Meaning Paw length = 21 cm
But there was some discussion on the Baidu forum that the measurement from the withers to the wrist is somehow not the actual shoulder height. They suggested that to find the total height, we need to add the thickness of the paw pad as well, and in that case the difference of 21 cm between both the methods (i and ii) reduces to 14.2 cm. I tried searching in the forum on how they got the difference of 14.2 cm but couldn't find it
However, using this case, average from withers to tip of the extended paw = 114.1 cm (Here, tiger no. 8 is included because only first measurement is required)
And final average = 114.1 - 14.2 cm = 99.9 cm
I wanted to know if this discussion has already taken place, that how they reached the difference of 14.2 cm. Also, I wanted to know if the correct method of measurement is from withers to paw pad or withers to wrist as mentioned in the various tables that posters have made.
(05-13-2021, 05:56 PM)Khan85 Wrote: I came across some data on shoulder heights of Amur tigers, which I guess has been previously discussed in this forum
I was confused by some things...
I calculated the averages and it says average from withers to tip of the extended paw = 114.9 cm .............. (i) (removing one emaciated tiger of 125 kg and tiger no. 8 because both measurements are not given)
Average from withers to wrist = 93.9 cm .............. (ii) (removing one emaciated tiger of 125 kg and tiger no. 8 because both measurements are not given)
Difference = 114.9 - 93.9 = 21 cm Meaning Paw length = 21 cm
But there was some discussion on the Baidu forum that the measurement from the withers to the wrist is somehow not the actual shoulder height. They suggested that to find the total height, we need to add the thickness of the paw pad as well, and in that case the difference of 21 cm between both the methods (i and ii) reduces to 14.2 cm. I tried searching in the forum on how they got the difference of 14.2 cm but couldn't find it
However, using this case, average from withers to tip of the extended paw = 114.1 cm (Here, tiger no. 8 is included because only first measurement is required)
And final average = 114.1 - 14.2 cm = 99.9 cm
I wanted to know if this discussion has already taken place, that how they reached the difference of 14.2 cm. Also, I wanted to know if the correct method of measurement is from withers to paw pad or withers to wrist as mentioned in the various tables that posters have made.
The most accurate shoulder height measurements is from parallel to the top of the shoulder down to the heel pad in a straight line. There will definitely be a difference if you measure only to the wrist but how much of a difference I’m not sure of.
The following 1 user Likes Pckts's post:1 user Likes Pckts's post • Charger01
(05-13-2021, 05:56 PM)Khan85 Wrote: I came across some data on shoulder heights of Amur tigers, which I guess has been previously discussed in this forum
I was confused by some things...
I calculated the averages and it says average from withers to tip of the extended paw = 114.9 cm .............. (i) (removing one emaciated tiger of 125 kg and tiger no. 8 because both measurements are not given)
Average from withers to wrist = 93.9 cm .............. (ii) (removing one emaciated tiger of 125 kg and tiger no. 8 because both measurements are not given)
Difference = 114.9 - 93.9 = 21 cm Meaning Paw length = 21 cm
But there was some discussion on the Baidu forum that the measurement from the withers to the wrist is somehow not the actual shoulder height. They suggested that to find the total height, we need to add the thickness of the paw pad as well, and in that case the difference of 21 cm between both the methods (i and ii) reduces to 14.2 cm. I tried searching in the forum on how they got the difference of 14.2 cm but couldn't find it
However, using this case, average from withers to tip of the extended paw = 114.1 cm (Here, tiger no. 8 is included because only first measurement is required)
And final average = 114.1 - 14.2 cm = 99.9 cm
I wanted to know if this discussion has already taken place, that how they reached the difference of 14.2 cm. Also, I wanted to know if the correct method of measurement is from withers to paw pad or withers to wrist as mentioned in the various tables that posters have made.
The most accurate shoulder height measurements is from parallel to the top of the shoulder down to the heel pad in a straight line. There will definitely be a difference if you measure only to the wrist but how much of a difference I’m not sure of.
Yeah... in the paper it says that difference between tip of the paw and wrist is 21 cm
and according to the guys on Baidu, difference between tip of the paw and heel pad is 14.2 cm meaning that distance from wrist to heel pad is 6.8 cm
This should mean that in the tables for siberian tigers, 95 cm is less than the actual standing height
(05-13-2021, 05:56 PM)Khan85 Wrote: I came across some data on shoulder heights of Amur tigers, which I guess has been previously discussed in this forum
I was confused by some things...
I calculated the averages and it says average from withers to tip of the extended paw = 114.9 cm .............. (i) (removing one emaciated tiger of 125 kg and tiger no. 8 because both measurements are not given)
Average from withers to wrist = 93.9 cm .............. (ii) (removing one emaciated tiger of 125 kg and tiger no. 8 because both measurements are not given)
Difference = 114.9 - 93.9 = 21 cm Meaning Paw length = 21 cm
But there was some discussion on the Baidu forum that the measurement from the withers to the wrist is somehow not the actual shoulder height. They suggested that to find the total height, we need to add the thickness of the paw pad as well, and in that case the difference of 21 cm between both the methods (i and ii) reduces to 14.2 cm. I tried searching in the forum on how they got the difference of 14.2 cm but couldn't find it
However, using this case, average from withers to tip of the extended paw = 114.1 cm (Here, tiger no. 8 is included because only first measurement is required)
And final average = 114.1 - 14.2 cm = 99.9 cm
I wanted to know if this discussion has already taken place, that how they reached the difference of 14.2 cm. Also, I wanted to know if the correct method of measurement is from withers to paw pad or withers to wrist as mentioned in the various tables that posters have made.
The most accurate shoulder height measurements is from parallel to the top of the shoulder down to the heel pad in a straight line. There will definitely be a difference if you measure only to the wrist but how much of a difference I’m not sure of.
Yeah... in the paper it says that difference between tip of the paw and wrist is 21 cm
and according to the guys on Baidu, difference between tip of the paw and heel pad is 14.2 cm meaning that distance from wrist to heel pad is 6.8 cm
This should mean that in the tables for siberian tigers, 95 cm is less than the actual standing height
I think 2-3” seems fair if we include the heel pad.
The following 1 user Likes Pckts's post:1 user Likes Pckts's post • Charger01
06-02-2021, 07:27 PM( This post was last modified: 06-02-2021, 07:38 PM by Charger01 )
Dr. Jhala
Hi! On the average adult males weigh about 230-240 kg and adult females 130-140kg. The largest tiger I have darted was about 285 kg. I don’t have the body measurements in my mind and we are currently under a lockdown due to Covid second wave. Can send you later. Regards
Edit - My question regarding average weight was particularly for tigers of Kanha (he has darted >10 tigers there), but I am not sure if the figure is for general bengal tiger population or just Kanha tigers
Hi! On the average adult males weigh about 230-240 kg and adult females 130-140kg. The largest tiger I have darted was about 285 kg. I don’t have the body measurements in my mind and we are currently under a lockdown due to Covid second wave. Can send you later. Regards
Edit - My question regarding average weight was particularly for tigers of Kanha (he has darted >10 tigers there), but I am not sure if the figure is for general bengal tiger population or just Kanha tigers
He told me the same thing once, not in this details tho.
He hasn't worked in Terai or NE India AFAIK. Anyways, great job!
06-08-2021, 02:23 PM( This post was last modified: 06-08-2021, 02:24 PM by Charger01 )
@Pckts Regarding your last post in the thread "Amur tigers"
Imo, based off the measurements, Ramsay's tigers was even larger than Brander's tiger. Although measured over curves, he would have exceeded Brander's tiger in almost all departments except shoulder height (same for both, 109.22 cm)
A definite contender for one of the largest extant wild feline ever recorded!
Recently a Kaziranga Tiger was found dead in the park under suspected and unknown circumstances.
If the cat was poached I surely hope that the murderer will get what he deserves
I wonder if they will ever weigh the tiger since It seems a big one and it would be the first Kaziranga tiger to ever be weighed
Hi! On the average adult males weigh about 230-240 kg and adult females 130-140kg. The largest tiger I have darted was about 285 kg. I don’t have the body measurements in my mind and we are currently under a lockdown due to Covid second wave. Can send you later. Regards
Edit - My question regarding average weight was particularly for tigers of Kanha (he has darted >10 tigers there), but I am not sure if the figure is for general bengal tiger population or just Kanha tigers
I tihink that include next tigers.
Konda and Banda have been captured and put on radio collar febury and october in 2007,their weights are both over 225kg,but we don't know their weights exactly because the scale up to 225kg.
The tiger kankatta who beat Munna weight only 197kg because bad physical condition.
Bheema was weght over 225kg in 2.5 years old.
And tiger patte wala has been put on a radio collar,and he killed by Munna in 2011,but we don't know his weight.
The tiger K1 has been put on a radio collar too,and he didn't separate with K2 when they are both subadult male in 2007(the left tiger was K1,the right tiger was K2).So K2 might weght by scientists when k1 put on radio,too.K2 beat K1 in 2008 and K1 killed by other adult tiger or death in poach .
I don't know the other male tigers have been put on collar,but Jhala's figures should content those male tigers.
06-20-2021, 10:13 PM( This post was last modified: 08-24-2021, 05:39 PM by Charger01 )
(06-20-2021, 07:08 PM)woshiniya Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 07:27 PM)Khan85 Wrote: Dr. Jhala
Hi! On the average adult males weigh about 230-240 kg and adult females 130-140kg. The largest tiger I have darted was about 285 kg. I don’t have the body measurements in my mind and we are currently under a lockdown due to Covid second wave. Can send you later. Regards
Edit - My question regarding average weight was particularly for tigers of Kanha (he has darted >10 tigers there), but I am not sure if the figure is for general bengal tiger population or just Kanha tigers
I tihink that include next tigers.
Konda and Banda have been captured and put on radio collar febury and october in 2007,their weights are both over 225kg,but we don't know their weights exactly because the scale up to 225kg.
The tiger kankatta who beat Munna weight only 197kg because bad physical condition.
Bheema was weght over 225kg in 2.5 years old.
And tiger patte wala has been put on a radio collar,and he killed by Munna in 2011,but we don't know his weight.
The tiger K1 has been put on a radio collar too,and he didn't separate with K2 when they are both subadult male in 2007(the left tiger was K1,the right tiger was K2).So K2 might weght by scientists when k1 put on radio,too.K2 beat K1 in 2008 and K1 killed by other adult tiger or death in poach .
I don't know the other male tigers have been put on collar,but Jhala's figures should content those male tigers.
Yes, I saw those figures some time ago. Makes of total 7 tiger weights that we know from Kanha
1. MV-2 son of Umarpani (2.4 yo) - 195 kg
2. Kankatta Old male - 197 kg
3. Bhima 2.5 yo subadult - 225 kg
4. Banda - 225 kg+ (exceeded the scale)
5. Konda - 225 kg+ (exceeded the scale)
6. Poochkata - 230 kg+ (broke the machine, exceeded the scale)
7. Unknown male - 285 kg
Average - 226 kg (likely higher as some tigers exceeded the scale)
There are many unknown figures too, I hope to recontact Dr. Jhala and ask about them. Maybe he can share. 230-240 kg average really interests me, would be even better if there's a large sample with it.
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
