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.
(01-25-2022, 04:14 AM)Pckts Wrote: It's possible but the shoulder height and chest girth both are too large for a 226kg cat.
Also T-7's growth in a year of 15cm or almost 6'' is too much in that short of a time span, especially on a cat that is already 5 years old.
Shoulder heights are all taken from shoulder to tip of paw (like the famous 120 cm tall for lions quoted in all the great cat books), so we can discard them already.
About chest girth, remember that may be animals with big chests that weighs not too much, so no big deal. Even the growth of 15 cm do not present problem, as animals may grow in jumps.
But what concerns me is the ups and downs of some figures that certainly are not correct. That is why I focused in the animals were we can see a constant growth and that is why I got to the preliminary conclution that those measurements are mixed, that some one made an error in the worksheet and mix all this. It happens, so I will not be surprise, but like I say, this is just an hypotesis that try to explain the issue.
For the moment, I will use only the weights and measurements that make sense, until we get an explanation about the other measurements.
(01-25-2022, 04:14 AM)Pckts Wrote: It's possible but the shoulder height and chest girth both are too large for a 226kg cat.
Also T-7's growth in a year of 15cm or almost 6'' is too much in that short of a time span, especially on a cat that is already 5 years old.
Shoulder heights are all taken from shoulder to tip of paw (like the famous 120 cm tall for lions quoted in all the great cat books), so we can discard them already.
About chest girth, remember that may be animals with big chests that weighs not too much, so no big deal. Even the growth of 15 cm do not present problem, as animals may grow in jumps.
But what concerns me is the ups and downs of some figures that certainly are not correct. That is why I focused in the animals were we can see a constant growth and that is why I got to the preliminary conclution that those measurements are mixed, that some one made an error in the worksheet and mix all this. It happens, so I will not be surprise, but like I say, this is just an hypotesis that try to explain the issue.
For the moment, I will use only the weights and measurements that make sense, until we get an explanation about the other measurements.
Even from tip of the paw to tip of the shoulder, that would be a stretch.
The chest girth is questionable at best, it's in the top tier of all Tigers chest girth ever recorded. Larger than Branders or the Sauraha Male for instance which just doesn't coincide with cat of his weight.
In regards to a growth of 15 cm's over a year, that is unheard of for any adult Tiger over the age of 5, especially just in head and body.
If he were a youngster, let's a year or so and then he were measured a year later after that then it's possible but no such growth spurt would be seen in an adult, mature male at 5.
If you're aware of any, I'd definitely be curious.
That being said, they're your tables so it's up to.
(01-23-2022, 04:43 AM)Khan85 Wrote: Here you can find very detailed measurements on 38 bengal tigers (11 males + 19 females) along with age - growth curve chart, collared in Panna and some other National Parks.
Remarks about the biggest male I think that P-111 is the biggest male tiger in the study.
- Captured 5 times in total
Capture 3
- Age = 5yr 6 mn - Weight = 226.7 kg - Head Body length = 184 cm - Total length = 283 cm - Shoulder height = 127 cm - Neck girth = 70 cm - Chest girth = 154 cm
Capture 4
- Age = 8yr 10 mn - Weight = N/A - Head Body length = 211 cm - Total length = 311 cm - Shoulder height = 120 cm - Neck girth = 76 cm - Chest girth = 154 cm
Measurements were taken in straight line, I believe (first, the length of head and then the length of body). In capture 3, his head-body length was 184 cm and total length was 283 cm at the age of 5yr 6mn. On his 4th capture, his head-body length increased to 211 cm and total length increased to 311 cm.
Since the strongest correlation of weight is with HBL/TL, he could have been heavier than 226.7 kg on his 4th capture.
I was checking the information on the tables and also checking the comments from other posters about it. So, this is my first impresion on the data:
1 - The information is good, but it has errors, however that is not necesarily a dissaster, I have saw other studies when the data is even more problematic, like that of Hobatere lions for example. Like many other modern documents on great cats, like for the example the Indian lions reported by Dr Jhala or the Kalahari lions from Dr MacFarlane, the tables do had errors but this is probably because they manage to much information and one incorrect movement in your keyboard may create an important damage.
2 - There are a few incongruences in the data, that is why in the next table, were I summarize the information of the adult specimens over 3 years old, I decided to include also the measurements and weights of some specimens when they were cubs or young adults in order to see if there is an increase or what effect is presented. Check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
In the table you can see that, with the males at least, the problem is with male P-111. What I noted is that some information make sense IF we order it in a different form. For example, that chest girth of 132 cm definitelly is not from a cub of less than 2 years, but it correspond with a male over 5 years old. The body length of 211 cm definitelly is not the one from when he has less than 3 years, that is for a older male. So what I see here, and what I suspect, is that they put the incorrect information in the incorrect ages. Interestingly the tail length did make sense, so I guess that the data may be correct but is mixed. Finally the very small chect girth of 75 and the abdomen girth of 90 cm do not appear in pages 25 - 28 where is the summarization of the information, so again, I guess that this is human error and that information came from a cub or small young adult female.
Other thing that I see is with female T-4, check that the body measuremenst when she was over 8 years old are very small, in fact, it looks like a cub, so again, I think that is another error. With female P-213 we can see all her changes since more than 1 year up to 9 years, It looks like she was decreasing in size since the 3 years old, which do not make sense and the chest girth of 136 cm with the belly girth of 104 cm as definitelly of a male, or if we put it at other way around, the chest of 104 cm is an adult female not a cub, and the belly of 136 is a big male or a heavelly gorged female, which is not the case for a cub of only 87 kg.
Finally the female P-213 (22), at less than 2 years, are reported with measurements from an adult female and a very large one (chest of 124 cm is more for a male). So again, is this an error of mixed information? That is my only explanation.
So, the data is useful, I think that we can use it if we ignore the information that seems incorrect, but at the end the main issue that the measurements in red do not match the age reported or in some cases, the sex of the animal. If someone can contact one of the authors and get an explanation that will be great.
I know its not the right topic but as you mentioned it i wanted to mentioned it. If you play with the numbers from the Hobatere study you come to a easy conclusion that the BL from the lion LEO was already his overall body length. Substract neck, head and you get 129cm which is in the normal range for just body length excluding head and neck. Same goes for the lion named Spot.
The lion Volkel was huge but looking at his dimensions like chest girth it may be possible to reach a HBL of 223-228cm(using diff head lengths). As its the ALPRU protocol it could have been 210cm between pegs. If the neck length was a typo (31 instead of 41 because its 10cm longer than the necks from the other lions) and 44cm head length his absolute minimum length would be 213 cm over curves.
Thats just my opinion although im pretty sure about the body length of both spots and Leo.
Look at the whole time span of P111 and you might see that the numbers arent matching up. Beside the thought of pckts hat the size in general wasnt enough to reach such dimensions. Im guessing its a mixture of typo and wrong numbers.
Unfortunately it's irresponsible to "play with numbers'' since that's making an assumption that we know what the researchers "meant to say" without having real verification to back it. Better to use the actual data at hand.
We've seen this mistake before from estimated weights that we took as factual, like Jhumroo *forget his name* from Ranth. or the numerous Lions mentioned by photographers or Lodges *Caesar, Leingmara, Kwandwe etc* that were claimed to be weighed but never were.
Unless you hear it from the ones responsible for the capture and weighing, all claims should not be taken as fact.
(01-25-2022, 10:46 PM)Pckts Wrote: Even from tip of the paw to tip of the shoulder, that would be a stretch.
The chest girth is questionable at best, it's in the top tier of all Tigers chest girth ever recorded. Larger than Branders or the Sauraha Male for instance which just doesn't coincide with cat of his weight.
In regards to a growth of 15 cm's over a year, that is unheard of for any adult Tiger over the age of 5, especially just in head and body.
If he were a youngster, let's a year or so and then he were measured a year later after that then it's possible but no such growth spurt would be seen in an adult, mature male at 5.
If you're aware of any, I'd definitely be curious.
That being said, they're your tables so it's up to.
And that is why I clearly said that we can discard the shoulder height, as is not height at all, just the length of the arm.
About the chest girth, yes you are right, is a big chest girth, and could be an error in the measurement method (we can see it in the images in the document), so I think that the one of 136 cm is more realistic, but even then, we will need to confirm if the chest girth of 154 cm is reliable and why was so high. I remember that with the Siberian Tiger Project they said that they took the measurement after the momento of exhalation of the tiger, so it was the minimum chest girth. Is possible that this will be the explanation for the large chest girth.
The increase in lenght of 15 cm could be actually a difference in the methods, because as we have saw that Bengal tigers are measured in straight line, thanks to pictures available, we can't denied the fact that human error may exist. I think that making an average of all the measurements, as the Siberian Tiger Project staff done will fix any error or exageration that may happen.
This are just suggestions for the usage of the information of course, but is better than just ignore the data available.
(01-23-2022, 04:43 AM)Khan85 Wrote: Here you can find very detailed measurements on 38 bengal tigers (11 males + 19 females) along with age - growth curve chart, collared in Panna and some other National Parks.
Remarks about the biggest male I think that P-111 is the biggest male tiger in the study.
- Captured 5 times in total
Capture 3
- Age = 5yr 6 mn - Weight = 226.7 kg - Head Body length = 184 cm - Total length = 283 cm - Shoulder height = 127 cm - Neck girth = 70 cm - Chest girth = 154 cm
Capture 4
- Age = 8yr 10 mn - Weight = N/A - Head Body length = 211 cm - Total length = 311 cm - Shoulder height = 120 cm - Neck girth = 76 cm - Chest girth = 154 cm
Measurements were taken in straight line, I believe (first, the length of head and then the length of body). In capture 3, his head-body length was 184 cm and total length was 283 cm at the age of 5yr 6mn. On his 4th capture, his head-body length increased to 211 cm and total length increased to 311 cm.
Since the strongest correlation of weight is with HBL/TL, he could have been heavier than 226.7 kg on his 4th capture.
I was checking the information on the tables and also checking the comments from other posters about it. So, this is my first impresion on the data:
1 - The information is good, but it has errors, however that is not necesarily a dissaster, I have saw other studies when the data is even more problematic, like that of Hobatere lions for example. Like many other modern documents on great cats, like for the example the Indian lions reported by Dr Jhala or the Kalahari lions from Dr MacFarlane, the tables do had errors but this is probably because they manage to much information and one incorrect movement in your keyboard may create an important damage.
2 - There are a few incongruences in the data, that is why in the next table, were I summarize the information of the adult specimens over 3 years old, I decided to include also the measurements and weights of some specimens when they were cubs or young adults in order to see if there is an increase or what effect is presented. Check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
In the table you can see that, with the males at least, the problem is with male P-111. What I noted is that some information make sense IF we order it in a different form. For example, that chest girth of 132 cm definitelly is not from a cub of less than 2 years, but it correspond with a male over 5 years old. The body length of 211 cm definitelly is not the one from when he has less than 3 years, that is for a older male. So what I see here, and what I suspect, is that they put the incorrect information in the incorrect ages. Interestingly the tail length did make sense, so I guess that the data may be correct but is mixed. Finally the very small chect girth of 75 and the abdomen girth of 90 cm do not appear in pages 25 - 28 where is the summarization of the information, so again, I guess that this is human error and that information came from a cub or small young adult female.
Other thing that I see is with female T-4, check that the body measuremenst when she was over 8 years old are very small, in fact, it looks like a cub, so again, I think that is another error. With female P-213 we can see all her changes since more than 1 year up to 9 years, It looks like she was decreasing in size since the 3 years old, which do not make sense and the chest girth of 136 cm with the belly girth of 104 cm as definitelly of a male, or if we put it at other way around, the chest of 104 cm is an adult female not a cub, and the belly of 136 is a big male or a heavelly gorged female, which is not the case for a cub of only 87 kg.
Finally the female P-213 (22), at less than 2 years, are reported with measurements from an adult female and a very large one (chest of 124 cm is more for a male). So again, is this an error of mixed information? That is my only explanation.
So, the data is useful, I think that we can use it if we ignore the information that seems incorrect, but at the end the main issue that the measurements in red do not match the age reported or in some cases, the sex of the animal. If someone can contact one of the authors and get an explanation that will be great.
I know its not the right topic but as you mentioned it i wanted to mentioned it. If you play with the numbers from the Hobatere study you come to a easy conclusion that the BL from the lion LEO was already his overall body length. Substract neck, head and you get 129cm which is in the normal range for just body length excluding head and neck. Same goes for the lion named Spot.
The lion Volkel was huge but looking at his dimensions like chest girth it may be possible to reach a HBL of 223-228cm(using diff head lengths). As its the ALPRU protocol it could have been 210cm between pegs. If the neck length was a typo (31 instead of 41 because its 10cm longer than the necks from the other lions) and 44cm head length his absolute minimum length would be 213 cm over curves.
Thats just my opinion although im pretty sure about the body length of both spots and Leo.
Look at the whole time span of P111 and you might see that the numbers arent matching up. Beside the thought of pckts hat the size in general wasnt enough to reach such dimensions. Im guessing its a mixture of typo and wrong numbers.
Unfortunately it's irresponsible to "play with numbers'' since that's making an assumption that we know what the researchers "meant to say" without having real verification to back it. Better to use the actual data at hand.
We've seen this mistake before from estimated weights that we took as factual, like Jhumroo *forget his name* from Ranth. or the numerous Lions mentioned by photographers or Lodges *Caesar, Leingmara, Kwandwe etc* that were claimed to be weighed but never were.
Unless you hear it from the ones responsible for the capture and weighing, all claims should not be taken as fact.
Im pretty sure thats the case with Leo at least but as i said a assumptions.
About the Kwandwe male you should see my summary about the Madikwe lions i made on the lion thread. The same person actually confirmed to a other staff member the weight(Then this conversation was forwarded to the user), then a other user emailed the reserve to confirm the weight and they did. And lastly there was a mail with completely different results. Note the one who responded to these mails was the same person.
So the Kwandwe lion will be in discussion until the final answer from the person is given about that topic. The other lions werent weighed obviously.
(01-25-2022, 10:46 PM)Pckts Wrote: Even from tip of the paw to tip of the shoulder, that would be a stretch.
The chest girth is questionable at best, it's in the top tier of all Tigers chest girth ever recorded. Larger than Branders or the Sauraha Male for instance which just doesn't coincide with cat of his weight.
In regards to a growth of 15 cm's over a year, that is unheard of for any adult Tiger over the age of 5, especially just in head and body.
If he were a youngster, let's a year or so and then he were measured a year later after that then it's possible but no such growth spurt would be seen in an adult, mature male at 5.
If you're aware of any, I'd definitely be curious.
That being said, they're your tables so it's up to.
And that is why I clearly said that we can discard the shoulder height, as is not height at all, just the length of the arm.
About the chest girth, yes you are right, is a big chest girth, and could be an error in the measurement method (we can see it in the images in the document), so I think that the one of 136 cm is more realistic, but even then, we will need to confirm if the chest girth of 154 cm is reliable and why was so high. I remember that with the Siberian Tiger Project they said that they took the measurement after the momento of exhalation of the tiger, so it was the minimum chest girth. Is possible that this will be the explanation for the large chest girth.
The increase in lenght of 15 cm could be actually a difference in the methods, because as we have saw that Bengal tigers are measured in straight line, thanks to pictures available, we can't denied the fact that human error may exist. I think that making an average of all the measurements, as the Siberian Tiger Project staff done will fix any error or exageration that may happen.
This are just suggestions for the usage of the information of course, but is better than just ignore the data available.
I believe the chest girth of 154 cm for tiger P111 is reliable. Chest girth has a weak correlation with weight. For example, the siberian tigers in the research studies that Peter mentioned had chest girth of 145-155 cm on average but weighed only 190-200 kg.
01-26-2022, 03:46 AM( This post was last modified: 01-28-2022, 08:35 PM by GuateGojira )
The information provided by Khan85 definitelly changed the results of my tables. However, while there is no problem to add the weights, the measurements did caused controversy and are problematics in some points.
The following tables contain all the body meaurements of modern Bengal tigers. The first table in each pair present the raw measurements like they are in the original document, while the second one shows the average of all the measurements (when the animals were measured more than one time). You can see the differences.
IMAGE UPDATED
IMAGE UPDATED
Please take in count that these are just preliminary tables made just to show the results and how they will look in the two posibilities.
I will try to contact the authors through the email in the document, but I can't guarantee anything at this moment.
(01-20-2022, 09:27 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Save it for your records and if new information is available, I will update the tables again
Very nice! So the current average male bengal tiger weight is 221 kg? Very high. I guess this is overall an ungoing table, that can be updated as new weights and measurements are recorded
(01-26-2022, 04:39 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote: Very nice! So the current average male bengal tiger weight is 221 kg? Very high. I guess this is overall an ungoing table, that can be updated as new weights and measurements are recorded
That is correct. This is an ongoing project that I have since many years ago. That is why you may see documents from 2007 in the web and images from 2015, but I try to update all the information that I have.
For the moment, with the new records from Panna TR, and including only modern records from Scientists, the average weight for Bengal tigers is: males at 220 kg and females at 135 kg. So, that means that my "new" tables are now outdated again, in less than one week!
Funny think that more updates may be done depending of the answers that I may got in the next weeks (or months). This is a labor of love and patience.
(01-23-2022, 04:43 AM)Khan85 Wrote: Here you can find very detailed measurements on 38 bengal tigers (11 males + 19 females) along with age - growth curve chart, collared in Panna and some other National Parks.
Remarks about the biggest male I think that P-111 is the biggest male tiger in the study.
- Captured 5 times in total
Capture 3
- Age = 5yr 6 mn - Weight = 226.7 kg - Head Body length = 184 cm - Total length = 283 cm - Shoulder height = 127 cm - Neck girth = 70 cm - Chest girth = 154 cm
Capture 4
- Age = 8yr 10 mn - Weight = N/A - Head Body length = 211 cm - Total length = 311 cm - Shoulder height = 120 cm - Neck girth = 76 cm - Chest girth = 154 cm
Measurements were taken in straight line, I believe (first, the length of head and then the length of body). In capture 3, his head-body length was 184 cm and total length was 283 cm at the age of 5yr 6mn. On his 4th capture, his head-body length increased to 211 cm and total length increased to 311 cm.
Since the strongest correlation of weight is with HBL/TL, he could have been heavier than 226.7 kg on his 4th capture.
I was checking the information on the tables and also checking the comments from other posters about it. So, this is my first impresion on the data:
1 - The information is good, but it has errors, however that is not necesarily a dissaster, I have saw other studies when the data is even more problematic, like that of Hobatere lions for example. Like many other modern documents on great cats, like for the example the Indian lions reported by Dr Jhala or the Kalahari lions from Dr MacFarlane, the tables do had errors but this is probably because they manage to much information and one incorrect movement in your keyboard may create an important damage.
2 - There are a few incongruences in the data, that is why in the next table, were I summarize the information of the adult specimens over 3 years old, I decided to include also the measurements and weights of some specimens when they were cubs or young adults in order to see if there is an increase or what effect is presented. Check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
In the table you can see that, with the males at least, the problem is with male P-111. What I noted is that some information make sense IF we order it in a different form. For example, that chest girth of 132 cm definitelly is not from a cub of less than 2 years, but it correspond with a male over 5 years old. The body length of 211 cm definitelly is not the one from when he has less than 3 years, that is for a older male. So what I see here, and what I suspect, is that they put the incorrect information in the incorrect ages. Interestingly the tail length did make sense, so I guess that the data may be correct but is mixed. Finally the very small chect girth of 75 and the abdomen girth of 90 cm do not appear in pages 25 - 28 where is the summarization of the information, so again, I guess that this is human error and that information came from a cub or small young adult female.
Other thing that I see is with female T-4, check that the body measuremenst when she was over 8 years old are very small, in fact, it looks like a cub, so again, I think that is another error. With female P-213 we can see all her changes since more than 1 year up to 9 years, It looks like she was decreasing in size since the 3 years old, which do not make sense and the chest girth of 136 cm with the belly girth of 104 cm as definitelly of a male, or if we put it at other way around, the chest of 104 cm is an adult female not a cub, and the belly of 136 is a big male or a heavelly gorged female, which is not the case for a cub of only 87 kg.
Finally the female P-213 (22), at less than 2 years, are reported with measurements from an adult female and a very large one (chest of 124 cm is more for a male). So again, is this an error of mixed information? That is my only explanation.
So, the data is useful, I think that we can use it if we ignore the information that seems incorrect, but at the end the main issue that the measurements in red do not match the age reported or in some cases, the sex of the animal. If someone can contact one of the authors and get an explanation that will be great.
I know its not the right topic but as you mentioned it i wanted to mentioned it. If you play with the numbers from the Hobatere study you come to a easy conclusion that the BL from the lion LEO was already his overall body length. Substract neck, head and you get 129cm which is in the normal range for just body length excluding head and neck. Same goes for the lion named Spot.
The lion Volkel was huge but looking at his dimensions like chest girth it may be possible to reach a HBL of 223-228cm(using diff head lengths). As its the ALPRU protocol it could have been 210cm between pegs. If the neck length was a typo (31 instead of 41 because its 10cm longer than the necks from the other lions) and 44cm head length his absolute minimum length would be 213 cm over curves.
Thats just my opinion although im pretty sure about the body length of both spots and Leo.
Look at the whole time span of P111 and you might see that the numbers arent matching up. Beside the thought of pckts hat the size in general wasnt enough to reach such dimensions. Im guessing its a mixture of typo and wrong numbers.
Unfortunately it's irresponsible to "play with numbers'' since that's making an assumption that we know what the researchers "meant to say" without having real verification to back it. Better to use the actual data at hand.
We've seen this mistake before from estimated weights that we took as factual, like Jhumroo *forget his name* from Ranth. or the numerous Lions mentioned by photographers or Lodges *Caesar, Leingmara, Kwandwe etc* that were claimed to be weighed but never were.
Unless you hear it from the ones responsible for the capture and weighing, all claims should not be taken as fact.
Im pretty sure thats the case with Leo at least but as i said a assumptions.
About the Kwandwe male you should see my summary about the Madikwe lions i made on the lion thread. The same person actually confirmed to a other staff member the weight(Then this conversation was forwarded to the user), then a other user emailed the reserve to confirm the weight and they did. And lastly there was a mail with completely different results. Note the one who responded to these mails was the same person.
So the Kwandwe lion will be in discussion until the final answer from the person is given about that topic. The other lions werent weighed obviously.
"Other staff members" isn't verifiable.
Unless you're hearing it directly from the one's responsible or at least referenced, it's not to be taken seriously and can lead to many discrepancies.
(01-20-2022, 09:27 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Weights of modern tigers - Updated
Here is an updated list of the modern records of tigers. It includes only males over 3 years old (classified as adults). This table still don't include the male of 1|70 kg from Malaysia (yet to confirm) but did include the other 5 males reported to other posters here, even the male of 285 kg gorged (I put it at 250+ kg "empty" but could be heavier).
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Save it for your records and if new information is available, I will update the tables again.
Greetings and cheers.
The information provided by Khan85 definitelly changed the results of my tables. However, while there is no problem to add the weights, the measurements did caused controversy and are problematics in some points.
The following tables contain all the body meaurements of modern Bengal tigers. The first table in each pair present the raw measurements like they are in the original document, while the second one shows the average of all the measurements (when the animals were measured more than one time). You can see the differences.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Please take in count that these are just preliminary tables made just to show the results and how they will look in the two posibilities.
I will try to contact the authors through the email in the document, but I can't guarantee anything at this moment.
Hello,
I have some more interesting data here that you might like. The tigers have been measured in a straight line in this case.
Also, the weight of M102 was 200 kg or not? Or is this based on an empty stomach? In my personal communication with Sunquist, I came to the conclusion that M105 and M102 ate an average of 19 kg of meat. One ate 56 kg and the other 57 kg in 3 days.
1- Male tiger from Corbett
Quote:Length: 190.5 cm , Total Length: 297 cm, Girth: 127 cm, Weight: 184 kg
I have some more interesting data here that you might like. The tigers have been measured in a straight line in this case.
Also, the weight of M102 was 200 kg or not? Or is this based on an empty stomach? In my personal communication with Sunquist, I came to the conclusion that M105 and M102 ate an average of 19 kg of meat. One ate 56 kg and the other 57 kg in 3 days.
1- Male tiger from Corbett
Quote:Length: 190.5 cm , Total Length: 297 cm, Girth: 127 cm, Weight: 184 kg
Quote:Length: 167 cm , Total length: 269 cm, Chest Girth: 144cm, Weight: 192 kg
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
OH MY GOD!!! This is so good and also so bad! I just finished to update my tables a few minutes ago and now I need to update them again!
Well, I will take at least one month to update again, I suspect that new information may arise in the next days. So thank you ver much for this information, it will increase our database.
In the video that you share we can see how the tigers are measured in India, and like I suspected, they are measured in straight line, so the measurements of Panna were probably in the same form and we should include them. Again, thank you for corroborate my hipotesis.
Finally, about male M-102 and M-105. The male M-102 AKA "Dakre male" was weighed two times and both times weighed 200 kg, however according with the description of the capture, it seems that both times he was baited so I estimated an "empty" weight of about 184 kg, based in the fact that the tigers recorded in Chitwan eated an average of 14 - 19 kg in 24 hours (that also suggest that the emtpy weight could be higher, but I prefer to leave it like that).
Now, about M-105, that tiger weighed over 600 lb in the last captures, that is more than 272 kg, so with the same method we can estimate an empty belly weight of about 256 kg, but as the real weight was more than the capacity of the scale used, I calculated an empty belly weight of no less than 260 kg, which match the weight of 261 kg calculated by Dr Dave Smith based in a chest girth-weight equation.
Hope this helps, and again, thank you for the information.
I have some more interesting data here that you might like. The tigers have been measured in a straight line in this case.
Also, the weight of M102 was 200 kg or not? Or is this based on an empty stomach? In my personal communication with Sunquist, I came to the conclusion that M105 and M102 ate an average of 19 kg of meat. One ate 56 kg and the other 57 kg in 3 days.
1- Male tiger from Corbett
Quote:Length: 190.5 cm , Total Length: 297 cm, Girth: 127 cm, Weight: 184 kg
Quote:Length: 167 cm , Total length: 269 cm, Chest Girth: 144cm, Weight: 192 kg
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
OH MY GOD!!! This is so good and also so bad! I just finished to update my tables a few minutes ago and now I need to update them again!
Well, I will take at least one month to update again, I suspect that new information may arise in the next days. So thank you ver much for this information, it will increase our database.
In the video that you share we can see how the tigers are measured in India, and like I suspected, they are measured in straight line, so the measurements of Panna were probably in the same form and we should include them. Again, thank you for corroborate my hipotesis.
Finally, about male M-102 and M-105. The male M-102 AKA "Dakre male" was weighed two times and both times weighed 200 kg, however according with the description of the capture, it seems that both times he was baited so I estimated an "empty" weight of about 184 kg, based in the fact that the tigers recorded in Chitwan eated an average of 14 - 19 kg in 24 hours (that also suggest that the emtpy weight could be higher, but I prefer to leave it like that).
Now, about M-105, that tiger weighed over 600 lb in the last captures, that is more than 272 kg, so with the same method we can estimate an empty belly weight of about 256 kg, but as the real weight was more than the capacity of the scale used, I calculated an empty belly weight of no less than 260 kg, which match the weight of 261 kg calculated by Dr Dave Smith based in a chest girth-weight equation.
Hope this helps, and again, thank you for the information.
Thanks,
I think there were even more discovered. I just listed the ones that came in my mind.
The tigers in Panna are measured over curves as Sunal Told me. The only areas where straight line is used is in UP (Pillibhit) and Corbett at least from the infos we have now. The method used by Sunquist is a mixture which should have just slight differences.
About M105 i agree. Using his daily food intake and possibility of being gorged his empty weight must have been exactly c.260 kg and i got also 256 kg. Even if he would be totally full (30 kg region) he still wouldnt be lower than 250 kg ig, which justifies the estimate. And combined with the Chest Girth - Weight calculation there should be no problem at all.
Also i was recently checking some datas. There was a 6-7 year old male weighed in Bhutan by the GTC. Found a twitter post by a wildlife biologist who is working "there" reporting about that as well. It was collared in 2018
Quote:A team from global tiger centre (GTC) in Gelephu trapped a male tiger, weighing 170 kgs and 2.78 meters long from the Tali ridge in Nangkhor, Zhemgang on October 4. https://kuenselonline.com/tiger-collared-in-zhemgang/
*This image is copyright of its original author
Measurement method is unknown.... never saw any datas from that area. So its not clear
(01-27-2022, 04:42 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: The tigers in Panna are measured over curves as Sunal Told me. The only areas where straight line is used is in UP (Pillibhit) and Corbett at least from the infos we have now. The method used by Sunquist is a mixture which should have just slight differences.
About M105 i agree. Using his daily food intake and possibility of being gorged his empty weight must have been exactly c.260 kg and i got also 256 kg. Even if he would be totally full (30 kg region) he still wouldnt be lower than 250 kg ig, which justifies the estimate. And combined with the Chest Girth - Weight calculation there should be no problem at all.
Also i was recently checking some datas. There was a 6-7 year old male weighed in Bhutan by the GTC. Found a twitter post by a wildlife biologist who is working "there" reporting about that as well. It was collared in 2018
I will like to add a few remarks.
Technically all the great cats are measured "over curves" by scientists so we need to know specific details of the measurement method used, if they hold the tape straight, or if they pressed the tape in all the curves of the back, or it they press it just in a few points to hold the tape, etc. (Yes, measuring over curves is a mess, it depends of who made the measurements). I saw the answer from Sunal and is a very short one and we will need more details. The straigh line method used by Dr Sunquist is the closest one to the method "between pegs", he explained this to me twice, and those from north of India look like if they used the same method. We will need more details from the tigers of Panna to actually be sure that they pressed the tape in all the contours of the back, or if they only hold the tape on the back, in a straigh form from the tip to tip, with no pressing. Those are the important details.
About the food intake of Nepalese tigers, you need to remember that none of the tigers was fully feed at the capture, again confirmed by Dr Sunquist. Also, as Fiona Sunquist describes in the book "Tiger Moon", all the tigers were disturbed at they kills, so none of them had the daily food intake, in fact if you take in count that the baits were prepared in the afternoon before sunset, that tigers killed the tigers in the pure nigh at about 8 pm (maybe latter than that) and that the capture party drived the tigers as earlier than 5 am and captures are all in the very morning, the tigers had a window of just 10 hours more or less to eat, that is not enough time to get the 14-19 kg calculated to be eat in a day. Take in cound that those meausrements of food intake were not taken during the tiger captures, as they focused in the tigers itselfs, they weighed the carcases in different situations, from tigers that were already tagged. Dr Sunquist recorded 38 events, that is more than the 15 capture events during his work time. So, capture of tigers were focused on that, and measurement of food intake was done in a different event. In conclution, the amount of food of 14 - 19 is in a 24 hours period and captured tigers that all were disturbed at they kills do not had the time to eat in full (in fact, some of them returned to continue to eat after they capture and collaring), so the amount in each tiger was less than the 24 hours intake. I explained all this process in previous posts for clarification.
I have the information of the 3 tigers from Bhutan (one male and 2 females), but I did not use it because I still don't have personal confirmation of the numbers. However I will include them now as I will add a note that these weights are reported but still not verified by me. Maybe in the future we could see a document with details of they captures.
Unfortunately measuring between the pegs is very difficult for a healthy animal, generally their vitals need to be monitored and moving them around isn’t good for that. We even see some use the tactic of multiplying single girth measurements by two just to avoid lifting or flipping the animal over.
In regards to past tigers compared to now, I don’t think there’s a difference in size. Because the sample size is so much larger then compared to now, we see the averages come down but generally at max sizes the largest and smallest come from historical data and again this is due to the large sample size. Another factor is of course that many were measured between the pegs because they were usually dead by the time measurements were taken which obviously makes it easier to measure the cat properly when time and health are of no concern.
The following 1 user Likes Pckts's post:1 user Likes Pckts's post • peter
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
