Login

Hello · 04-28-2022, 10:47 PM

(04-28-2022, 06:14 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 06:01 PM)Hello Wrote: 220 kg tiger is still a huge cat whether it be an amur or a bengal. Its not extremely common. 220kg is a bulky animal with some amount of fat, unless its a lean, tall animal.

No! It’s not. Before Guate gave the new data, his previous data with a sample of 23 Bengal Tigers gave an average weight of 221kg. Do you understand that? If a sample of 23 Tigers gives an average of 221kg then 220kg is obviously a lot more common than you think.

There are tons of Bengal Tigers which have surpassed 220kg so many times. Then on what basis can you claim that it is ‘huge’? 220kg is extremely common among Bengal Tigers.

But among wild Siberians, such high weights have not been seen in more than a decade.

Based on my observation on captive Amur specimens. Even by zoo standards, cats reaching that mark is huge whether it be an amur, bengal, african lion, generic lion, generic tiger, I'd say amurs are definitely heavier on average than any other cat. Bengals, its hard to say and I'm not sure, they seemed small to me in captivity , except for a bengal at nepal zoo or a bengal over 260-280 kg at an Indian zoo, read from the web. I read a one bengal on web named Kailas was about 290 kg, owned by Roman Proske. It depends on, from which regions the tigers were caught. Indian circuses in the past used to have large bengals, large African lions. Compared to gypsies, most tiger seemed 190-200 kg, at least for me.

Southern African lion, Rajah, 209 kg

Rocky, amur, 217 kg. They still are bulky animals.

GuateGojira · 04-28-2022, 10:47 PM

(04-28-2022, 02:20 PM)Hello Wrote: It's plausible to say he is 250 kg at most plus he is tall and quite bulky. I'm still skeptical of 220 kg despite the verification. 220 kg is a large tiger for sure, not average.

Using my old sample of 186 males (as far I remember) I made this frequency table, while the aveage was 200 kg "overall" (check the small group in the left, they are the Sundarbans one), the mode was located between 220-230 kg, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

That means that most of the adult specimens are in that range, which also means that males of that size are relativelly common, based in the sample used.

Conclution, a male of 220 kg is big, is estatistically common, but is also above the "overall" average.

LonePredator · 04-28-2022, 10:59 PM

(04-28-2022, 10:47 PM)Hello Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 06:14 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 06:01 PM)Hello Wrote: 220 kg tiger is still a huge cat whether it be an amur or a bengal. Its not extremely common. 220kg is a bulky animal with some amount of fat, unless its a lean, tall animal.

No! It’s not. Before Guate gave the new data, his previous data with a sample of 23 Bengal Tigers gave an average weight of 221kg. Do you understand that? If a sample of 23 Tigers gives an average of 221kg then 220kg is obviously a lot more common than you think.

There are tons of Bengal Tigers which have surpassed 220kg so many times. Then on what basis can you claim that it is ‘huge’? 220kg is extremely common among Bengal Tigers.

But among wild Siberians, such high weights have not been seen in more than a decade.

Based on my observation on captive Amur specimens. Even by zoo standards, cats reaching that mark is huge whether it be an amur, bengal, african lion, generic lion, generic tiger, I'd say amurs are definitely heavier on average than any other cat. Bengals, its hard to say and I'm not sure, they seemed small to me in captivity , except for a bengal at nepal zoo or a bengal over 260-280 kg at an Indian zoo, read from the web. I read a one bengal on web named Kailas was about 290 kg, owned by Roman Proske. It depends on, from which regions the tigers were caught. Indian circuses in the past used to have large bengals, large African lions. Compared to gypsies, most tiger seemed 190-200 kg, at least for me.

Southern African lion, Rajah, 209 kg

Rocky, amur, 217 kg. They still are bulky animals.

The thing is that those ‘Bengals’ are only for namesake. Almost all the ‘Bengal’ Tigers in these videos are a mix of different types of Tigers mostly Amur-Bengal hybrid so the problem is that those Tigers aren’t pure bred Bengals at all.

Hello · 04-28-2022, 11:05 PM

(04-28-2022, 10:47 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 02:20 PM)Hello Wrote: It's plausible to say he is 250 kg at most plus he is tall and quite bulky. I'm still skeptical of 220 kg despite the verification. 220 kg is a large tiger for sure, not average.

Using my old sample of 186 males (as far I remember) I made this frequency table, while the aveage was 200 kg "overall" (check the small group in the left, they are the Sundarbans one), the mode was located between 220-230 kg, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

That means that most of the adult specimens are in that range, which also means that males of that size are relativelly common, based in the sample used.

Conclution, a male of 220 kg is big, is estatistically common, but is also above the "overall" average.

Well, its hard to believe a tiger of 230 kg as an average, empty belly. Yes they do exist, I believe taking India as a whole, 200 kg is average, for most parts of India. 220-230 kg, full belly, average depends on the region, which is rare such as Nepal, Central India.

LonePredator · 04-28-2022, 11:06 PM

(04-28-2022, 11:05 PM)Hello Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 10:47 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 02:20 PM)Hello Wrote: It's plausible to say he is 250 kg at most plus he is tall and quite bulky. I'm still skeptical of 220 kg despite the verification. 220 kg is a large tiger for sure, not average.

Using my old sample of 186 males (as far I remember) I made this frequency table, while the aveage was 200 kg "overall" (check the small group in the left, they are the Sundarbans one), the mode was located between 220-230 kg, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

That means that most of the adult specimens are in that range, which also means that males of that size are relativelly common, based in the sample used.

Conclution, a male of 220 kg is big, is estatistically common, but is also above the "overall" average.
Well, its hard to believe a tiger of 230 kg as an average, empty belly. Yes they do exist, I believe taking India as a whole, 200 kg is average, for most parts of India. 220-230 kg, full belly, average depends on the region, which is rare such as Nepal, Central India.

Actually North and Central Indian Tigers are the biggest and if you are especially talking about Tigers from these places, then they are extremely common.

GuateGojira · 04-28-2022, 11:28 PM

(04-28-2022, 11:05 PM)Hello Wrote: Well, its hard to believe a tiger of 230 kg as an average, empty belly. Yes they do exist, I believe taking India as a whole, 200 kg is average, for most parts of India. 220-230 kg, full belly, average depends on the region, which is rare such as Nepal, Central India.

Please read again, I did not said that 230 kg is "average", I said that is a "mode" which is another statistical measurement, and that is what the graphic shows. This sample do not used any "gorged" or "full of beef" weight, and those from tigers reported as baited were adjusted by 17 - 30 kg, depending of the author and method.

200 kg is an average overall, as include some hunting specimens that certainly were young or ill, but when we use only "adults" over 3 years old and "adjusted" from the modern records we got an average of 212 kg.

Hello · 04-29-2022, 05:56 PM

(04-28-2022, 11:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 11:05 PM)Hello Wrote: Well, its hard to believe a tiger of 230 kg as an average, empty belly. Yes they do exist, I believe taking India as a whole, 200 kg is average, for most parts of India. 220-230 kg, full belly, average depends on the region, which is rare such as Nepal, Central India.

Please read again, I did not said that 230 kg is "average", I said that is a "mode" which is another statistical measurement, and that is what the graphic shows. This sample do not used any "gorged" or "full of beef" weight, and those from tigers reported as baited were adjusted by 17 - 30 kg, depending of the author and method.

200 kg is an average overall, as include some hunting specimens that certainly were young or ill, but when we use only "adults" over 3 years old and "adjusted" from the modern records we got an average of 212 kg.

Ok, I read and understood.

Hello · 04-30-2022, 03:14 PM

(04-28-2022, 10:59 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 10:47 PM)Hello Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 06:14 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 06:01 PM)Hello Wrote: 220 kg tiger is still a huge cat whether it be an amur or a bengal. Its not extremely common. 220kg is a bulky animal with some amount of fat, unless its a lean, tall animal.

No! It’s not. Before Guate gave the new data, his previous data with a sample of 23 Bengal Tigers gave an average weight of 221kg. Do you understand that? If a sample of 23 Tigers gives an average of 221kg then 220kg is obviously a lot more common than you think.

There are tons of Bengal Tigers which have surpassed 220kg so many times. Then on what basis can you claim that it is ‘huge’? 220kg is extremely common among Bengal Tigers.

But among wild Siberians, such high weights have not been seen in more than a decade.

Based on my observation on captive Amur specimens. Even by zoo standards, cats reaching that mark is huge whether it be an amur, bengal, african lion, generic lion, generic tiger, I'd say amurs are definitely heavier on average than any other cat. Bengals, its hard to say and I'm not sure, they seemed small to me in captivity , except for a bengal at nepal zoo or a bengal over 260-280 kg at an Indian zoo, read from the web. I read a one bengal on web named Kailas was about 290 kg, owned by Roman Proske. It depends on, from which regions the tigers were caught. Indian circuses in the past used to have large bengals, large African lions. Compared to gypsies, most tiger seemed 190-200 kg, at least for me.

Southern African lion, Rajah, 209 kg

Rocky, amur, 217 kg. They still are bulky animals.

The thing is that those ‘Bengals’ are only for namesake. Almost all the ‘Bengal’ Tigers in these videos are a mix of different types of Tigers mostly Amur-Bengal hybrid so the problem is that those Tigers aren’t pure bred Bengals at all.

Yes, you're right, he isn't an amur and had a doubt that he wasn't pure, due to slight darkness of his coat, which is usually seen in bengals, sumatran, malayan and generic tigers. He's a bengal according to the zoo, mostly a generic tiger, he was rescued from a circus.

Hello · 04-30-2022, 03:15 PM

225 kgs, he's also neutered, so fat gain, usually seen in cats.

Hello · 05-03-2022, 08:17 PM

Asiatic

*This image is copyright of its original author

Abhilash Vaja

~~Luipaard~~ · 05-04-2022, 12:25 AM

Hyena and crocodile

*This image is copyright of its original author

Kwando Carnivore Project

~~Styx38~~ · 05-08-2022, 03:14 AM

Here is a comparison with a Jaguar and a Yacare Caiman.

Not sure if it is completely accurate, but it was posted on reddit.

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/c...omparison/

~~AndresVida~~ · 05-08-2022, 03:17 AM

The size of the beak of the colossal squid, imagine getting bit by this

*This image is copyright of its original author

LonePredator · 05-08-2022, 07:50 AM

(05-08-2022, 03:14 AM)Styx38 Wrote: Here is a comparison with a Jaguar and a Yacare Caiman.

Not sure if it is completely accurate, but it was posted on reddit.

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/c...omparison/

The Pantanal Jaguar weight and size has been taken from Sunquist & Sunquist so that is definitely accurate. So is the Yacare Caiman more or less but it isn't backed by any sources strong enough. But that subreddit (natureismetal) is terrible. All sorts of wrong information is floating around there. No one has a clue what they are talking about.

GuateGojira · 05-08-2022, 10:05 AM

(05-08-2022, 07:50 AM)LonePredator Wrote: The Pantanal Jaguar weight and size has been taken from Sunquist & Sunquist so that is definitely accurate. So is the Yacare Caiman more or less but it isn't backed by sources strong enough. But that subreddit (natureismetal) is terrible. All sorts of wrong information is floating around there. No one has a clue what they are talking about.

You are right, those figures of the jaguars are from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but are badly copied, check the original (from Pantanal):

*This image is copyright of its original author

About the Yacare, I will like to see which are the references, the study or studies used, in order to see if the details were correctly copied from the original source.

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?