WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
PC
A century ago, male tigers in northeastern India were 2-5 inches shorter than males in northwestern India and western and central Nepal. It is a fact that males shot in northeastern India were a bit heavier than those shot in the northwest, but there are good reasons to assume that tigers in northwestern India and Nepal most probably were heavier than those shot in the northeast. The tigers weighed by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar were about an inch longer than those not weighed. They were also about an inch longer than those weighed by Hewett in the northwest. Those not weighed in northwestern India, however, were significantly longer than those weighed (about 3,5 inches). Based on the correlation between total length and weight, I concluded that male tigers in northwestern India and western and central Nepal most probably would have outweighed male tigers in northeastern India. If all male tigers would had been weighed in the regions mentioned, the average for northeastern India would have been 450-460 lbs., whereas male tigers in northwestern India would have been ranging between 460-490 lbs. Nepal male tigers, ranging between 480-500 lbs., most probably would have topped the table. These conclusions, of course, have a speculative character, but it's the best I could do with the information at hand. This was in a period of nearly unrestricted gene flow. My guess is things didn't really change in the last century. The reason is the ecosystems, although more fragmented and smaller, still are largely intact. Today's tigers, if anything, seem to be heavier than a century ago, but I wonder if the fundamentals changed. Tigers in northeastern India (Kaziranga included) could be a bit shorter than those in northwestern India and Nepal. The photographs of Kaziranga tigers I saw very often show quite massive and well-marked animals with large and wide skulls, whereas those in northwestern India seem to be longer, taller and a bit more athletic. Based on my experience with captive animals, they could be a bit underestimated. But I could be wrong. In nearly every book about Assam I read, tigers were described as bulky and heavy animals. Experienced observers and hunters agreed that prime males often would have been close to 600 lbs. a century ago. These observations were dismissed, but the information on today's tigers strongly suggest that they could have been closer than many assume. Shardul I hope the new thread your started ('The Terai Tiger') will develop into a good one. The topic is interesting and so is the information posted. Do you have more on the different landscapes and in what way they affect tigers? The feedback on my post on the Terai Arc Landscape was appreciated. I agree I should have spent a bit more time on reading before writing the post, but I was very eager to do the post. The reason is the information I have strongly suggests there is a connection between ecosystems and tigers. Here's a few remarks on the points you made. Ad 1 - You are right. The map shows the whole Terai Arc Landscape, not just the Indian side. Ad 2 - Map d3 in my previous post says that Kumaon was part of the former Gorkha (Ghurka) Empire until 1815. If Nepal is seen as a, limited, continuation of the Gorkha Empire, one could say Kumaon was a part of what is now Nepal until 1815. Ad 3 - I don't remember positioning Chitwan in the heart of the TAL in my previous post. Chitwan is in the heart of Nepal and, as you said, in the extreme east of the Terai Arc Landscape. I'm not sure as to what you mean, but assume you referred to two remarks that seem to contradict each other. I wrote Chitwan male tigers (in the extreme east of the TAL) are unsurpassed in total length (a). I also wrote the extreme northwest of the TAL could have had the largest tigers (b). These remarks seem to contradict each other and could have resulted in your conclusion. Am I right? If so, than be sure they don't. In books not written by British hunters, tigers inhabiting the extreme northwest of India were considered as the largest. This conclusion was based on the experience of those who had seen tigers in different parts of India, the Caspian region, Manchuria and southeast Asia. British hunters who wrote about their experiences agreed that the northwestern part of British India produced the largest tigers. These hunters also were aware of the size of Nepal tigers. Some of the tigers they shot exceeded Nepal tigers in both lengh and bulk. The problem is they only shot a few. Samplesizewise, the information can't be used for tables. This is not true for Nepal tigers. Different hunters published records of all tigers they shot and measured. The result is we are able to get an idea about the size of tigers in different parts of Nepal and northwestern India. Of all regions with decent samples, Nepal tops the list. Tigers in the extreme northwest of what is now called the TAL, however, could have been similar in size or larger. Ad 4 - True if you want to consider data in peer-reviewed documents only, but not true if you include hunter records. Ad 5 - True to an extent, but there is a difference in animals hunted by tigers in both regions. Based on what they hunt, I expected Kaziranga tigers to be larger and heavier than Nepal tigers. The tables I posted suggest they were not. My guess is things didn't change in the last century, but that's just an opinion. We just don't know. Based on what I saw, Chitwan and Kaziranga they seem to be quite different. The difference, I think, can't be attributed to food only. There's something else. Tigers in the Terai Arc Landscape could be descendants of an older wave. If they are not, they perhaps adjusted to different conditions. Tigers in northeastern India seem to be jungle animals. Those in the northwest inhabit more elevated regions. Same for Bhutan tigers and they too seem different from Assam tigers. Ad 6 - Hunter records strongly suggest that tigers in some parts of the western Ghats always were quite large. Those shot in Wynaad, however, often markedly smaller. Many male tigers shot in that region didn't exceed 9.6 in total length 'over curves'. In other parts, they not seldom exceeded 10 feet and 500 lbs. A century ago, Ghats tigers were larger than anywhere else in southern India. My guess is they still are. The western Ghats still is a hotspot and hotspots always produce large animals. The greater the distance to a hotspot, the smaller the tiger. Ad 7 - Agreed. Swampy grasslands attract large herbivores and tigers hunting large herbivores are large everywhere in Asia. Ad 8 - When gene flow is restricted, populations become isolated. It is known that tigers living in isolated pockets tend to decrease in size. This is especially true when the region decreases in size and the tiger population decreases. Hunting pressure should also be considered. Pressure results in fewer large individuals on one hand and in empty forests on the other. This can only result in smaller tigers in the long run. In regions were hunting was limited or not allowed, the size of tigers didn't change. Nepal is an example, but Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia produced similar results. When Sumatra still was largely unexplored, hunters often were quite amazed at the size of some tigers. One hunter had been in (southern) India as well. He shot and measured tigers and also saw tigers shot and measured by others. He wrote that Indian tigers usually were longer, but not in head and body length. Most Sumatran tigers roughly compared to Indian tigers in weight, but the heaviest he saw were shot in (northern) Sumatra (Atjeh). Most male tigers he shot were 170-180 cm. in head and body, but some well exceeded 200 cm. (measured 'over curves'). This was just a little over a century ago. Today's Sumatran tigers (males) seldom exceed 8.0 in total length 'over curves' and 330 lbs. The skulls I saw also suggest a change that resulted in smaller animals. Skulls collected before, say, 1900, often were larger and, especially, more massive than those collected between 1900-1950. Skulls well exceeding the average in that period often were from animals shot in isolated regions. In some parts of India and Nepal, ecosystems have disappeared. In other regions, they are largely intact. The size of tigers in these regions didn't change. Indian and Nepal tigers, if anything, now seem a bit longer and heavier than a century ago. The reason is they were going downhill nearly everywhere a century ago, whereas quite many today live in well-stocked and protected reserves. 
@peter
I know those posts require a ton of work but if you ever get any time, I'd love to see what you consider "reliable hunting records" for Amur tigers, I hate to say it but I think Amurs are probably my least known tiger sub species when it comes to size, I just want to know how they are all quoted to be so large in captivity and show that way in images. I mean, every big cat trainer I read about says the same thing, Amurs are the largest of the big cats, yet there recent wild measurements seem to be with in the normal spectrum of Bengal Tigers and I have a tough time finding old hunting info on them. I know they have been decimated by man but I'd be curious as to early hunters recollection of their characteristics before they and their prey were hunted to near extinction? 
Maybe that is because the tigers in north america and europe are hybrids of unknown ancestry? Just because a tiger has fur, doesn't mean it's a pure Siberian. I say this because tigers have been rare in their home ranges for a long time now, and those in captivity in north America/Europe would be descendants of tigers imported a long while back and from all over Asia.
A good starting point would be measurements from Russian zoos. The tigers there would be of known ancestry, since, like India, they would have never needed importing tigers but simply lift them from the wild. 
Added to this is the speculation that many if not most large Amurs in captivity are castrated animals，which just adds to the confusion.
Absolutely, all tigers I see grow thick fur throughout the winter month's or whenever its cold, in fact I see the same in lions in captivity at least. I absolutely agree with your assessment about captive tigers being from unknown heritage, I say it all the time. The only place where we even have captive pure bred bengals is india and we have little to no real measurements for them.
Try to tell the difference between these big cats, outside of size, their facial structure looks very similar These are alfred courts big cats...  *This image is copyright of its original author But believe it or not, the tigers on the outside (the larger ones) are Siberians and the inside ones are bengals. Here was his write up on them...  *This image is copyright of its original author here is the rest of the chapter http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-animal-trainers?page=4 But still, we have no idea where the bengals are from or what they have been bred with, but beatty said the same thing about amurs and many others as well. They've just always been an enigma to me, seeing them in captivity shows me what they are truly capable of but that certainly doesn't mean that I haven't seen N. American Bengals in captivity that weren't just as large. For Instance... This is Doc from Noahs ark sanctuary, the same place where the BLT live "hard to believe that at 3.5 years old, this massive boy tipped the scales at 520+lbs. He is the largest cat at Noahs ark and the famous boy who used to live with little ann (black bear)."  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author He is 540+lbs now, just as large as any captive amur out side of the freak specimens, which shows what they are capable of. @Richardrli Castration has nothing to do with animal size, we have already gone over this, if that's what you were implying? Here is the discussion below http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-zoos-cir...ity?page=6 (02-25-2016, 03:07 AM)Pckts Wrote: @peter When done with tigers in northern India and Nepal, I will do a number of posts on Amur tigers. As to hunting records. I found some articles and stories in a few US magazins, but there isn't much. English and American hunters preferred British India and Indochina over Russia for different reasons. The most important of these were (a lack of) time and knowledge before, say, 1920 and politics and no access later. I strongly doubt if there's much more in Russia. You have to remember that a large part of what now belongs to the Russian Federation was part of China only a century and a half ago. The Chinese, ehh, got an offer they couldn't refuse and Sichote-Alin was added to Russia. As to the Chinese. I don't think it's likely that tigers were extensively hunted in the their day. Russian officers and Cossacks, however, did hunt tigers. After the warning issued by Kaplanov in the forties of the last century, tigers were protected. They recovered until the old system collapsed, only to be decimated again when many struggled to make ends meet in the Russian Far East (RFE). Today, the situation seems to be stable. The last count says there are about 500 wild Amur tigers. My guess is that the number of Amur tigers always was limited. Just before the introduction of fire-arms, the number of tigers in Manchuria, Russia and Korea might have ranged between 3000-5000, maybe even less. The reason is difficult conditions and few large prey animals. This means that information on Amur tigers shot by hunters most probably is very limited. As far as I know, there never was a culture on tigers and measurements in Russia. If we add that not one biologist ever visited the natural history museums in Chabarowsk and Vladivostok to measure the hundreds of skulls of wild Amur tigers, the conclusion is we just don't have enough on the size of Amur tigers in the past to get to any kind of statement. As a result, Amur tigers have been an enigma for a long time. After the Siberian Tiger Project (STP) was launched, tigers have been captured, measured and weighed. The problem is the samples are smallish. Furthermore, they include young adults and those who struggled. Another problem is they can't be compared to those shot a century ago. There are few historical records and most of these, as you know, were considered unreliable by Slaught. And then there is the effect of the population bottleneck in the thirties and forties of the last century. Are those who survived the unslaught, as many suggest, really smaller than those hunted a century ago? We don't know. We do know that captive Amur tigers, most probably, are unsurpassed in size (averages). Although the captive population has been polluted, there's no question that captive Amur tigers measured and weighed by Mazak and a few others (Europe) were true Amur tigers imported not long after WWII. There's also no question that many of them were large animals. Were they perhaps selected for size? Unclear. I do know that those who saw (and worked with) Amur tigers just before and after WWII agreed that they were the largest. The size of some was described as prehistoric. If we add the information on size collected by the Jankowski's ('The Tiger's Claw', M. Taylor) and the info I found in a number of books written by German hunters, the conclusion is that Amur tigers produced quite many large animals a century ago. Compared to Indian tigers, they often were a bit taller and longer. G. Jankowski thought the heaviest could have ranged between 250-275 kg. (552-608 lbs.) about a century ago, but his sons shot one considerably heavier in 1943 and there are more reports on very heavy animals shot in that period (1940-1960) I consider reliable. Slaught accepted some of Baikov's records, but rejected others on dubious grounds. Today's wild Amur tigers compare to wild Nepal (Chitwan) and Indian (Nagarahole) tigers in length, but they lack quite a bit in weight. Wild Indian male tigers are large animals, but captive males in Indian zoos averaged 400-410 lbs. (recent information - sample ok). Captive male Amur tigers in European zoos and facilities seem to be over 450 lbs., but Slaught wrote captive male Amur tigers average about 375 lbs. Did Slaught refer to Amur tigers in Russian zoos? We don't know. After reading everything I have, I concluded that captive male Amur tigers in European facilities probably more or less compare to wild male Amur tigers before the population bottleneck. Today's wild Amur tigers are not as heavy and the most likely reason is difficult conditions. The (indirect) proof is in the difference between captive and wild male Indian tigers. Wild male tigers are considerably heavier than their captive relatives and the most likely explanation is good conditions. The population bottleneck in the thirties and forties of the last century no doubt had an effect on Amur tigers. The largest animals were shot first, meaning they couldn't pass on their genes. Today's wild Amur tigers also show not much individual variation. Atypical in healthy populations, but typical for tigers facing pressure. Skulls of Javan tigers collected in the period they rapidly disappeared also show little individual variation. Sumatrans, also island tigers, did when Sumatra still had thousands of tigers. Apart from that, one has to consider the effect of habitat destruction, prey depletion and long winters. Tigers facing pressure often responded by losing size in the recent past and my guess is they still do. Today's wild Indian tigers say the opposite also is true. If the population size in Russia exceeds, say, 1000 and conditions keep on improving, chances are tigers will respond. The very bulky males seen in some parts of India today, however, wouldn't prosper in Russia. Not enough large ungulates, too much deep snow, too much nordic long distance walking, too many agile deer and too many bears who outbulk them. A professional hunter in eastern Russia needs a long body to preserve heat, long legs and big paws to deal with snow, a large skull and big fore-arms to deal with powerful opponents and not too much weight. And this is what we see in wild Amur tigers. Tigers of exceptional size could have thrived in Manchuria in the recent past, but Russia is different. And then there is the former Imperial Hunting Reserve mentioned in Mary Taylor's book on the Jankowski's. For many centuries, animals in the reserve were not hunted. The result was large tigers. After the system in China collapsed, tigers moved to Korea, Manchuria and Russia. Manchuria, described as a 'sea of forest', could have had the best conditions. The largest Amur tigers I know of were shot in Manchuria. The 560 lbs. male shot just north of Korea by Baikov most certainly wasn't the heaviest I saw, but he did provide a photograph and some details. The largest he shot (well exceeding 300 kg.) were not accepted. This, however, doesn't mean they didn't exist. There's more than enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that at least some of them did. The great size of some captive Amur tigers today underlines that the genes are still there. Many no doubt reject this conclusion, but captive male Sumatran tigers, like their wild relatives, seldom, if ever, exceed 350 lbs. Rumours about the size of some males in southeast Asia were confirmed by some of the Thai temple tigers and there's no question as to their identity as well. Same for lions. Some captive males, like their wild relatives, well exceed 550 and even 600 lbs. empty. There could have been a few close to 650. But captive Amurs well exceeding that mark are a result of hearsay and pollution? I would get to double standards. The Amur tigers in European facilities I saw were pure. The US, however, is a very different story. It seems that many just don't realize that today's wild Amur tigers really struggle. Remember the WCS-table with measurements and weights of today's wild Amur tigers? How many males were considered as 'problem tigers'? Why do you think that tigers in many parts of Sichote-Alin hunt brown bears as often as they do? Sure, they prefer small bears, but researchers recently admitted that bears could be a more important food source than they thought. It's also clear that not all brown bears hunted are immatures. Hunting takes a lot of effort. For this reason, tigers hunt large animals. As large as possible. Not the big males, but according to those in the know (read J. Vaillant's 'The Tiger'), Amur tigers are prepared to engage similar-sized bears. Talking brown bears here. Ever seen a bear ranging between 150-200 kg.(332-442 lbs.)? I saw a few documentaries about brown bears in Alaska. Females often reach 150 kg. and well over. Impressive animals, definitely capable to defend themselves. Why do you think tigers are prepared to take the risk? If conditions in wild Russia improve and tigers can hunt deer and wild boar more often, chances are we will see males well exceeding 500 lbs. in the near future. We will also see more individual variation. Bears, always interested in tiger kills, will remain an important food source, especially in summer. The reason is they are easier to hunt than deer and wild boar. Experienced male tigers no doubt will try to progress to large animals. Some will succeed and some will perish. One day, a researcher will be at the right place to witness something only very few saw. Can male Amur tigers reach the dimensions of their wild relatives a century ago? Based on what I know and saw, I think they can. But I wonder if large and bulky tigers would be able to cope with long winters, deep snow and mass migrations of prey animals (crop failure is not uncommon in Russia). Manchuria was more suited for large tigers, but that was in the days it was covered by immense forests.
Great stuff, thank you soo much. I look forward to your continued Nepal tiger posts then onto the Amurs. What a shame they don't have much info on them dating back in time, such a secretive cat.
The only way to study the Amur tiger's size in the past is to scavenge on their subfossils in Manchuria.
However, I don't think anyone here has the geographical proximity to accomplish such thing. 
The Amur tiger may have gone the way of the black footed ferret. Personal story here, but I'm sure you can verify it online. The black footed ferret has been decimated and now we have a very bottlenecked gene pool. In the Smithsonian collections, you can literally see ferrets getting smaller as their numbers shrank, and I am not exaggerating. From a few centuries ago to now, the ferret specimens stored have gotten smaller and smaller, accounting for gender. A drastic change like this just took a few hundred years. The Amur tiger likely followed suit.
I've a tiger example too. The Ngandong tiger is three times the size of the Javan tiger. In about 500 kya, all this change happened. Genetic bottleneck by the islands plus drastic ecosystem change has a way of removing large individuals.
TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XIX
Northern India and Nepal compared to the Deccan a - Tigresses The table below has information on the length of 111 tigresses shot in Nepal and in 3 regions in what was then British India in the period 1869-1939. Only 31 were weighed. I propose to start with the overview right away. Table XVIII:  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Conclusions 1 - The Deccan sample is the oldest. It also is less reliable than the others for 3 reasons. One is that Burton wrote the tigresses had been measured in a slightly different way than in northern India and Nepal: " ... measurements were taken from point of nose to tail, the tape loosely following the curves of the body ... " (JBNHS, Vol. 25, pp. 492). It is about 'loosely'. Two is the limited amount of individual variation, suggesting Col. Fraser, who measured them, might have selected a bit at the gate. Three is the sample is smallish. The advantage is all tigresses were weighed. 2 - The Cooch Behar sample is much larger and also shows more individual variation, but one has to remember that the 11 tigresses weighed were not 267,72 cm. 'over curves' in total length: they averaged 270,22 cm., whereas those not weighed averaged 266,57 cm. If all would have been weighed, the average would have been just over 300 lbs. Although the difference between Deccan and Cooch Behar tigresses only was about 1 inch in total length 'over curves', we have to remember that the difference would have been more pronounced if they would have been measured 'between pegs'. The reason is Deccan tigresses were measured in a slightly different way (see above). Maybe the real difference ('between pegs') would have been closer to 2-3 inches. This means every extra inch in total length resulted in about 10 extra pounds (about 4 lbs. per cm.). 3 - Hewett's sample is the most reliable of all. The first reason is he was there himself. The second is he provided details about the way the tigresses were measured. This is why we know we have to deduct 2-3 inches in order to get to the total length 'between pegs'. In Cooch Behar, the difference between both methods in one tigress was 4,75 inches. As she was longer than average (about 3 inches), I propose to deduct 4 inches for all or a bit more. This means Cooch Behar tigresses would have averaged about 8.5 if they would have been measured 'between pegs', whereas they would have averaged about 8.7 'between pegs' in northwestern India. Although they were a bit longer than tigresses shot in Cooch behar, tigresses shot in northwestern India were not as heavy (300-302 lbs. in Cooch Behar as opposed to 275-280 lbs. in northwestern India). Cooch Behar tigresses, therefore, were a bit shorter, but (absolutely and relatively) heavier. One could, of course, say that too few were weighed in northwestern India to get to a conclusion and be right, but this wouldn't result in a significantly different conclusion regarding total length and weight. 4 - The Nepal sample is the largest. It has a lot of individual variation and Smythies more than once emphasized the measurements were reliable. Assuming that Nepal tigers were measured in the same way as in northwestern India (unclear, but likely), I propose to deduct 2-3 inches, maybe a bit more. This would result in in an average of 8.7-8.8 in total length 'between pegs'. For extra-long tigresses, I propose to deduct 4-5 inches. This means the 2 tigresses taping 9.8 in total length 'over curves' would have been 9.3-9.4 in total length 'between pegs'. This more or less corresponds with the info I have of tigresses measured in this way in that region (northwestern India and Nepal). 5 - Compared to males shot and measured in the same period, the differences between regions in tigresses are less outspoken. One reason is that differences in size tend to be more outspoken in larger animals. Another is the samples were smaller. 6 - I would remember the connection between total length and weight in Cooch Behar tigresses. The reason is it is quite different in males.
Safe to say that any tigress over 155kg is to be considered an extremely large tigress.
(02-26-2016, 06:16 AM)Pckts Wrote: Safe to say that any tigress over 155kg is to be considered an extremely large tigress. Some years ago, I saw a documentary about a tigress who had attacked a number of women collecting leaves in the forest. Not all victims were killed. One young woman who was ambushed begged for her life and got away with a few scratches. The tigress, partly for this reason, was given the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but when she didn't change her behaviour it was decided to take her out. She was shot from a tree and taken to the village where many of her victims had lived. Although some cheered, not a few seemed to have second thoughts. The tigress was weighed and measured in front of the camera. At 265 cm. in total length in a straight line (about 9.0 'over curves' or just over) and just over 150 kg. empty (about 332-334 lbs.), she proved to be well over par. The famous Faizabad man-eater could have compared, but it always is tricky to assess the size of a big cat:  *This image is copyright of its original author The tigress below was shot in the eastern part of Central India (Abutschmar). She was a man-eater credited with about 200 human kills (...). According to a local teacher, who kept track of her, this number could have been an underestimation. Werner Fend, from Austria, hunted her and wrote a book about his experiences. He also made a documentary, which was broadcasted. I saw it twice. The tigress seemed to realize he was bad news. She avoided him for a long time. The situation changed when Fend sensed she was close. For some reason, she came for him. The cook captured the moment she stalked him. When hit, she rolled over gently and without a sound. Fend wrote she was about 200 kg. when she was shot (...), but that could have been the result of a mistake when the book was translated. My guess is she didn't get to 130 kg. It's one of the best documented modern cases of a man-eating tigress:  *This image is copyright of its original author This tigress, allegedly poached in or near Pench, was a bulkier animal:  *This image is copyright of its original author This photograph was posted before. Tigress 'Safeda' was almost as large and muscular as an average male tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author As to the last table in the previous post on tigers in northern India and Nepal. The heaviest tigress shot by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his guests was 360 lbs. (163,30 kg.), whereas the next heaviest was 343 lbs. (155,59 kg.). One of the two tigresses weighed in Nepal was 347 lbs. (157,40 kg.). Only 3 of the 31 tigresses weighed a century ago exceeded 332 lbs. (150 kg.). This percentage could have increased in the last decades, but 150 kg. is large anywhere. I'm not sure about captive Indian tigresses, but some captive Amur tigresses can reach 160-180 kg. (353-396 lbs.). I saw a few and they were not obese. Heptner and Sludskij ('Die Säugetiere der Sowjet-Union', Band III, Jena, 1980, pp. 120) published records of wild Amur tigresses close to or even over 160 kg. (up to 200 kg. according to Baikov), but females of that size were and are very uncommon. Although wild lionesses average 120-130 kg. in most regions, some hotspots produce heavyweights quite often. The reason isn't length (Indian and Amur tigresses are longer), but work-related bulk. A tigress with cubs can't afford to hunt large animals, as a mistake could turn out to be costly. Lionesses, on the other hand, have to provide for a large family, including a number of adult males. This means they have to hunt large animals. Female hunting teams have scouts, stops, wingers and centres. Wingers and stops only very seldom exceed 280 lbs., but centres have to deal with large animals. Some lionesses are experienced buffalo killers. Quite many of them exceed 310 lbs. and I also have reliable records of lionesses approaching and even exceeding 350 lbs. Meinertzshagen wasn't the only one who shot lionesses of that size. The only region where tigresses averaged 300 lbs. or a bit over a century ago was northeast India (Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam). Nepal tigresses might have been as heavy, but that's speculation only. In Nepal, weight could be explained by total length, but in northeast India it probably didn't. My guess is many tigresses in that part of India hunted large animals.
On the flip side to your tigress with cub assertion, a tigress with slightly older Cubs has been seen quite frequently now a days hunting adult guar, maybe the most prime female tigress would be one with sub adult Cubs?
Who knows for sure.... Great stuff Peter  (02-28-2016, 11:24 PM)Pckts Wrote: On the flip side to your tigress with cub assertion, a tigress with slightly older Cubs has been seen quite frequently now a days hunting adult guar, maybe the most prime female tigress would be one with sub adult Cubs? Hi Pckts, the prime female tigress could be the one with sub adult cubs as it may not be as nervous when they were like cubs or less than one year of age as they have become matured enough to hide when they sense a potential danger. The only thing they were unaware must be perhaps hunting skills that they may be learning in later stages of sub adult stage. But the tigress with cubs must be the most dangerous animal in the world as I have read in one zoo i have visited. But I don't know who quoted it.
Hi everyone, does any one have old pictures of wild or captive caspian tigers? If so, please share with me. I would be very much thankful. I only have two pictures of them.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| Richardrli, 12 Guest(s) |