WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
 (04-21-2022, 01:40 AM)strongmanw7 Wrote: hello guate do u have the pics of that 281kg gwalior tiger , as we have seen images of that 320kg nepal tiger (290-300empty). Sadly, there is no picture (as far I know) of any of the 6 exceptional males, except for the incredibly realistic paint of the tiger of 320 kg from Nepal. However, what I can share is the document where it is mentioned:  *This image is copyright of its original author The document is from 1930 and is about Indian lions, with a brief mention on the tiger weight. Here is the relevant part:  *This image is copyright of its original author In this case, following the criteria of Slaght et al. (2005) this tiger will be classified as средненадежные - medium reliable as even when the source is secondary, the author talked directly with the original hunter and there is evidence that the animal was actually weighed (for example, other body measurements) and there are details of how was weighed, so it can be included in the records, just like the tiger of 320 kg of Smythies. (04-21-2022, 07:57 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: @GuateGojira am i able to see the full sample size of your average weights? also was the 280kg male from ghunghuti range ever added to the list? i remember the statement came straight from the principal chief conservator of forest. did anyone ever look into this? Yes, of course, here is the full list. If you want an specificdetail about a weight or a group (for example the "Modern records") just ask.  *This image is copyright of its original author About that tiger of 280 kg I don't remember it. The only two large modern males that I included is the 285 kg for Dr Jhala and other male of 280 kg provided by @"Khan85" but from an unknown location (probably Ranhambore), and both of them were adjusted for stomach content (255 and 260 kg respectivelly). Do you have more details about this 280 kg tiger of Ghunghuti? Also I found another Nepalese tiger in hunting records, it is first hand source and include measurements (definitelly средненадежные, or maybe even высоконадежные as is 1st hand source, based in Slagh et al. (2005)), you will see it already included. 
@GuateGojira Hello Gaute! How are you doing! I wanted to ask you your opinion on tbe subspecific classification of Tigers. Do you think there should be more than two subspecies of Tigers?
Is the Mainland and Island classification some political propoganda because there is a guy claiming to be a biologist who says this classification is just political propoganda and every biologist disagrees with it.  (04-21-2022, 09:54 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira Hello Gaute! How are you doing! I wanted to ask you your opinion on tbe subspecific classification of Tigers. Do you think there should be more than two subspecies of Tigers? It's for conservation purposes, easier to offer protections on "Tigers" as a whole than specific subspecies. That being said, what does it really matter? A Tiger is a Tiger, the environment it lives in will dictate differences in morphology. Take Tigers from Kanha and repopulate the Sunderbans, eventually the Tigers that survive will end up looking as they do now. (04-21-2022, 10:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:(04-21-2022, 09:54 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira Hello Gaute! How are you doing! I wanted to ask you your opinion on tbe subspecific classification of Tigers. Do you think there should be more than two subspecies of Tigers? I agree and I think subspeciation is also subjective but there are some idiots who argue about every insignificant things for no reason at all. Somewhere I pointed out that IUCN recognises two subspecies of Tigers but he starts saying that IUCN are idiots and all biologists disagree. What is your personal opinion on this? (04-21-2022, 10:20 PM)LonePredator Wrote:(04-21-2022, 10:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:(04-21-2022, 09:54 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira Hello Gaute! How are you doing! I wanted to ask you your opinion on tbe subspecific classification of Tigers. Do you think there should be more than two subspecies of Tigers? They sound like an uneducated poster on the topic. Science is always evolving but the IUCN Organization is a collaborative effort with the foremost experts in each field. The results aren't perfect but they're as up to date as possible with the science available. Could there be political agendas involved in some classifications? Maybe, but nothing of actual substance exists and science itself has nothing to do with politics, it's just the politicians that try to skew things from time to time. (04-21-2022, 09:54 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira Hello Gaute! How are you doing! I wanted to ask you your opinion on tbe subspecific classification of Tigers. Do you think there should be more than two subspecies of Tigers? On the tiger subspecies: This is something that I would like to talk some time ago, but for time issue I did not manage to do it. The subspecies concept is something that is not even quite clear among the experts, and opinions in Biology are divided between "lumpers" which are the ones that want to join innecesary separations between populations, and the "spliters" which are the ones that prefer to separate as much as possible based in morphology or genetic. Currently, the Cat Specialist Group of the IUCN is following the idea of the lumpers and based in the study of Wilting et al. (2015), which analize morphological and genetic data, they resolve that the current information support the separation of only two subspecies of tigers but also accept the fact that in the mainland tigers there are two different MU (Management units). Kitchener et al. (2017) provide a summary of those conclutions but also accept the fact that there is no complete consensus about this clasification and latter Liu et al. (2018) provided evicence that support the separation of tiger populations in at least 6 subspecies. Now the question is, is genetic-only enough to separate subspecies, or this only reflect an artifitial differenciation between populations made by humans and not by nature? Originally, the known 8 "subspecies" are based in morphology (size, weight and pelage), but honestly those differences are at some point arbitrary and based in a very small sample of specimens, some of them lost. Kitchener (1999) in the book "Riding the tiger" and copy-pasted with minimal adds in the book of 2010 "Tigers of the World" (this second time together with Yamaguchi) made a full chapter explaining why this clasiffication do not have a real support. Check this table from 2010:  *This image is copyright of its original author As we can see only the Indochinsese tiger has a good sample, most of them are based in one single specien, which is completelly unreliable. This evidence, togheter with a broader analisys, Kitchener argue that there is no base for differences as even between Bengal tigers there is a difference betwen populations and those from Indochina are indistinguisable from those from India. The next conclution from the late Dr Rabinowitz is interesting in this subject:  *This image is copyright of its original author I am agree with this information, as the body size and weights reported of the Indochina and Malayan tigers are just slightly shorter than those from India and a little lighter, but they reach aproximatelly the same upper ranges. However the sample from Indochina is very poor in comparison with that of India. Also in the skulls, I noted that while we can clearly see differences in the skulls of these populations in the images from Mazák (1981), check it:  *This image is copyright of its original author Upper one from Nepal (Bengal - tigris), lower one from Vietnam (Indochina - corbetti). However in Mazák (2013; reimpression from 1983) the author shows another skull from a Bengal tiger from the Assam and it looks like a transition form between the clasic "Bengal" skull and the classic "Vietnam" skull, check it:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now compare it with those in Mazák (1981) and you can compare the transitional form. Also the river Irrawaddy (which is normally used to separate the Bengal and Indochina subspecies) is not a significant barrier for tigers, which are know to swim 6-8 kg or even up to 26 km (Mazák, 1981). Here is the river Irrawaddy:  *This image is copyright of its original author Other problem is with the separation between tigers of Indochina and those of Malaysia. Genetic shows differences which were used by Luo et al. (2004) to suggest them as a different population (followed latter by Liu et al. (2018). However Mazák (2010), Wilting et al. (2015), and Kitchener et al. (2018) do not support this separation and conclude: "The taxonomic status of tigers in Indochina and the Malay Peninsula is still unclear; “jacksoni” is diphyletic, based on mtDNA, and must have originated very recently from corbetti. Subspecies corbetti shows further genetic structure which does not appear to have geographical significance (Luo et al. 2004). However, we shouldbe wary of conclusions based only on living tiger populations. Mondolet al. (2013) showed that modern Indian tiger populations show increased population structure compared with historical samples, indicating a loss of mtDNA and microsatellite diversity, owing to local extirpation and genetic drift."  *This image is copyright of its original author And the last nail in the coffin, from Kitchener et al. (2018):  *This image is copyright of its original author The description of the subspecies was not done correctly and the name can't be accepted and is no a nomen nudum. Evidence suggest that the "differentiation" in body size and genetic was a man-made efect, not a natural separation. Kitchener & Dugmore (2000) shows that there is no clear geographic separation between Indochina and South China tigers (by a significant gap!), check it:  *This image is copyright of its original author Also Luo et al. (2004) found that some putative South China tigers has Indochina DNA. Finally Driscoll et al. (2009) found that Amur and Caspian tigers are one and the same and they populations were separated by only about 200 years ago. Contrastingly Singh et al. (2015) found that the Sundarbans tigers are separated of the mainland population by 2,000 years! So, genetically speaking, Caspian are more "Amur" than the Sundarbans been "Bengal". There is a lot of more information, this is just a very very very breef summary, but here we can see that with this few data those "separations" between populations are/were not as clear as we may think. In fact, that idea of clearle separated "subspecies" provided by Guggisberg and Mazák are not realistic at all, and taking in count that the maximum distance traveled by a tiger, reliabily recorded, is of 1,000 km, this suggest that all mainland tigers could travel between they regions with few to none natural barriers and that morphological differences recorded may be just clinal as suggested by Kitchener. However, I have an hypotesis, that this differences are the efect of a very small sampling, after all check how many Bengal tiger skulls we know and how many South China ones, there is a big difference; check also how many Indochina tiger skulls we had and until resently it was found a new Malayan skull as large as one from Bengal, so in theory maybe the sizes that we normally use and quote could be bigger than we think and similar to those of Bengal. That is the same that happen with Javanese tigers, normally quoted as smaller than Sumatran, when in fact, skull records shows that they were of the same size than South China tigers (Mazák, 2013). By the way, Xue at al. (2015) provided an interesting analysis about the singularity of the Sunda tigers and the idea that while they are a single subspecies, they stoped the gene flow between them years ago. Knowing all this, I fell that the theory that tigers are separated in only two real subspecies is the correct one, as mainland tigers could travel freele, fromt he map analysis of Ktichener & Yamaguchi (2010) the model HTP (habitat, topography, precipitation) is the best one as it predicted all the tiger populations, in contrast to the model DDP (distribution data prediction) which fail to predict the pupulation of Caspian tigers. Su using the map of 20,000 years ago (late Pleistocene) and the metod HTP, check this:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here we can see that all the tiger population was interconected with no natural barriers and the separation was probably until the end of the Pleistocene when sea levels rised at 12,000 years ago, but even after that, mainland tigers still were interconected. Mainland tigers were separated only until the humans started to act in they environment, supporting a man-made separation. Now check the modern tiger map:  *This image is copyright of its original author This map from 2016 shows that the modern tiger populations are very fragmented, we can see a huge gap between the last viable population of tiger in Myanmar/Burma and those from Thailand. There is also no habitat that can be used by tiger to move from Thailand to Malaysia, and Russian together with Sumatran tigers are beyond the reach of any other tiger population. India is like a group of "islands" of tigers and young specimens can barely move between them, and Sundarbans is so separated that Singh et al. (2015) with Barlow et al. (2009) concluded that based in genetic and morphology the Sundarbans tigers "are the most divergent group of Bengal tigers, and ecologically nonexchangeable with other tiger populations, and thus should be managed as a separate “evolutionarily significant unit” (ESU)". Check please that none of the genetic studies from Luo, Liu and Wilting, used ANY Sundarbans tigers in they study. So, in conclution, we as humans have created 5 artificial populations in mainland: 1- India/Nepal/Buthan/Myanmar; 2 - Sundarbans; 3 - Thailand/Laos; 4 - Malaysia; 5 - Russia. Sumatra is definitelly different and South China tigers exist only in captivity. What we don't know is if the genetic data from Luo at al. (2004 and 2010) and Liu et al. (2018) used old and modern data, or just modern, because that could explain the genetic differences, as these populations are isolated and now relfect speciefic adaptations to they areas, which using the old taxonomical ideas from 19th century could be interpreted as "natural subspecies". Following Wilting et al. (2015), confirmed by Kitchener et al. (2017) of the CSG of IUCN and adding the study of Singh et al. (2015), there is only two tiger subspecies, divided in conservation units that should not be mixed as they had they own adaptations: 1 - Continental tiger - Panthera tigris tigris 1.1 - Mainland tiger - India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, China (captive amoyensis). 1.2 - The Sundarbans - India, Bangladesh. 1.3 - Russian Far East - Russia, China. 2 - Sunda tiger - Panthera tigris sondaica These will be the modern populations of tigers based in the information. Now, if we follow Luo et al. (2004) and Liu et al. (2018) we should have 6 "subspecies". Interestingly, the artifitial groups created by the human presure match those from the subspecies of Luo and Liu: 1 - Bengal tiger - Panthera tigris tigris - Indian subcontinent. 2 - Indochina tiger - Panthera tigris corbetti - Thailand and Laos. 3 - Malayan tiger - Panthera tigris jacksoni - Malaysia. 4 - South China tiger - Panthera tigris amoyensis - China. 5 - Amur/Caspian tiger - Panthera tigris virgata - Russia and China (altaica is synonimus under this scenario). 6 - Sumatran tiger - Panthera tigris sumatrae - Sumatra (and possible Java and Bali too). Remember that none of these teams used a single Sundarbans tigers in they analysis. Which are the implications? Certainly the idea of this person, whoever he or she is, that the tiger subspecies had political implications may be correct, but not in the form that we may think. Subspecies names are tied with countries and some governments will not be happy if they regional or national animal change of scientific name, or if they tigers are no longer "unique". So nationalism may be a problem on the creation o deletion of subspecies. One famous case in the USA is Smilodon, as we know that the real species from North America is Smilodon fatalis, but in California is "officialy" known as Smilodon californicus and they declare it the state fossil! What means to have only two subspecies? It means that we can use Indian tigers to repopulate Indochina, Malaysia and South China. Also provides "value" to the mix captive tigers that populate USA and other countries. While the idea will be good, actually it will create a mess if is not correctly used. For example, most of the captive tigers are a mix between Amur and Bengal tigers, and if we remember, these two populations are the most diverged since the Pleistocene and even under the new clasification they belong to two different conservation units, so the large captive tigers of USA are STILL useless for conservation, but I highly doubth that those places that breed tigers for business are going to check and accept these details from the study. Other thing is that there is still a good and viable population of Indochina tigers in Thailand, so there is no point in trying to use Bengal tigers to populated Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, while the efforts should be focused in increase and care the tigers from Thailand and, with time, used them to repopulate the other Indochina countries. As we can see, the idea of two tiger subspecies could be the correct one, but sadly is the most problematic based in politicar and economic purposes. What means to have 6 subspecies? It measns to continue with the effrorts to save the tigers like they are in this moment, each country manage thy own populations and keep the "purity" of they specimens. Captive tigers in managed zoos still have they value and the mix tigers from private owners can't be used for breeding which is good! So, the "6 subspecies" scenario could not be realistic in a natural point of view, but is the most realistic in the modern days, based in the current distribution of tigers and will keep the traffic of generic tigers at minimum. Using all this information, my opinion is that 2 tiger subspecies is the real one, but form management of the modern tiger populations and to avoid traffic and bussines of "paper" tigers, I think that the best is the usage of the 6 subspecies scenario. Hope this helps, greetings.
Here is the paper from Kitchener et al. (2017), specifically the part of the tiger:
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Interetingly, when the number of lion subspecies was reduced also to only two, there was not a huge revolution like with tigers. There is no doubth that the tiger is a "political" animals and its significance is beyond the boundaries of nature and include politics and nationalisms. Quite interesting, don't you think? (04-22-2022, 03:27 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-21-2022, 09:54 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira Hello Gaute! How are you doing! I wanted to ask you your opinion on tbe subspecific classification of Tigers. Do you think there should be more than two subspecies of Tigers? Thanks a lot! Very interesting information.  (04-21-2022, 09:19 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-21-2022, 07:57 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: @GuateGojira am i able to see the full sample size of your average weights? also was the 280kg male from ghunghuti range ever added to the list? i remember the statement came straight from the principal chief conservator of forest. did anyone ever look into this? Brilliant stuff guate . I think the tiger 'Roflcopters' talking about is this one - https://www.indiatoday.in/pti-feed/story...2016-11-22. (04-22-2022, 11:58 PM)Jerricson Wrote: Brilliant stuff guate . I think the tiger 'Roflcopters' talking about is this one - https://www.indiatoday.in/pti-feed/story...2016-11-22. Thank you for your words. I did not knew about this tiger of 280 kg. It will be possible to confirm the figure with Jitendra Agrawal, before to accept it? That will be great. (04-22-2022, 04:26 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Here is the paper from Kitchener et al. (2017), specifically the part of the tiger: I made this comparative image for fun, just to see which will be the body size of these two tiger "subspecies":  *This image is copyright of its original author Continental tigers include all the mainland populations, extinct and living, all the averages (measurements, weights and skulls) are "weighted" figures. The size is close to the average size of the Indochina tiger so I decided to use one specimen of this population as a surrogate, and also because genetically speacking that is the steam tiger population. Due to the huge amount of sources, I just decided to quote myself as the sources can be seen in the original overall tiger subspecies/populations comparative images. Sunda tigers include all the available specimens of wild Sumatran and Javan tigers, female java tigers are not available and there are no measurements of Bali tigers. On the skulls, just like the mainland tigers, I made a weighted average and put the results. So, this is just the results of all the measurements together in only two groups, but that will not reflect the variations of each population, specially in modern days where this artificial populations not only reflect morphological differences but also genetical ones. Greetings to all. (03-24-2022, 01:42 AM)Pantherinae Wrote:(03-24-2022, 12:00 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-22-2022, 09:05 PM)Jerricson Wrote: Hello guate , I have quite read your posts regarding weights of lion and tigers and they r quite informative. I just wanted to enquire about madlas (m-125) weight. In one of the documents , its said he weighed around 220-230kg and in another mail from Dr. Raghu Chundawat , he was stated to weigh around 250kg. So whats the final conclusion on his weight?? 
Thanks @GuateGojira
unfortunately, I wasn't able to find anything about that ghunghuti male. the best way to find out would be to get a hold of Shree Jitendra Agarwal of PCCF and i searched everywhere. i couldn't find any contact info for him. however, i am very curious. i went back and read a few pages. i could not find anything regarding these new Panna Tiger weights that i came across. has anyone seen this before? @Pckts @Rage2277 @Ashutosh @"Khan85" a youtuber that goes by the name "Abhishek Singh" posted this on his community feed two months back and someone recently brought this to my attention. I figured we could try to get to the bottom of this. anyone able to get a hold of him and find out the source if possible? https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxrTdzX1b...r72wwp8Jjv  *This image is copyright of its original author here is P243 - one of the males listed as 6 years old, weighing 228 kilograms.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I did more digging and I peeked through something. he was apparently radio-collared in May 2021 or 20/05/2021 to be exact. if the weight is correct, that would be his summer weight. source :  *This image is copyright of its original author
(04-23-2022, 04:00 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: Thanks @GuateGojira |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 71 Guest(s) |