|
Experience with Wild Cats
|
Nice to meet you, Pantherinae. Good to read you work with big cats and have seen a number of wild cats as well. Please continue writing about your experiences, as we are very interested.
Don't hesitate to write about your father as well, as there are not that many who have an interest in big cats. I agree with his remarks on weights. Many overestimate big cats. This, however, doesn't mean 550 pounds or thereabout is the limit for a wild male in India. The two Nepal male tigers who bottomed a 600-pound scale were weighed by researchers and the one of which I saw a photograph, although long and muscular, didn't seem close to some of the Kazirangha tigers. Here he is:  *This image is copyright of its original author Some time later, when he was darted again, the Sauraha male (as he was known) got into a pool and drowned. This is his skull:  *This image is copyright of its original author Although individuals of that weight are few and far between, we can't rule out the possibility that some exceptional male Indian tigers, adjusted for food, would top 650 pounds or even a bit over. 
Peter presents a great point. To add to that, the second male that was also 272+ kg was allegedly larger than Sauaraha. Say Sauraha was around 272 kg, then this other male could've been 280-290 kg easily, and honestly, based on my data I posted in the extinct species forum, a few inch of a different can easily put the male 30 kg heavier than Sauraha.
Furthermore, Bamera could be smaller in frame than Aslan but weigh just as much or more, especially considering this is a lion and tiger comparison. Lions are significantly lighter built. To put it into persepective, a wild male lion 301.1 cm in length weighed 234 kg, while a male Bengal tiger length 279.6 cm weighed 238 kg. Furthermore, he's a captive specimen, lacking the dense muscle of wild specimens. A captive tiger logged in the Copenhagen museum the same length and greater height compared Sauraha weighed only 230 kg, while we all know Sauraha bottomed a 272 kg scale. Dense muscle doesn't show superficially, but surely on the scale it does. I understand where your estimate comes from as you've worked with captive specimens, which probably have similar frames, but the weight is proportionately very different. Also Peter, did you ever have a chance to compare captive and wild Bengal skulls? I know you stated they were denser than other species, was there any different between captive and wild?  'tigerluver dateline='' Wrote: Peter presents a great point. To add to that, the second male that was also 272+ kg was allegedly larger than Sauaraha. Say Sauraha was around 272 kg, then this other male could've been 280-290 kg easily, and honestly, based on my data I posted in the extinct species forum, a few inch of a different can easily put the male 30 kg heavier than Sauraha. Hi @tigerluver I know, tigers are more hevaly buildt, and the difference in captive and wild ones. Bamera was a great looking tiger, and he was a big cat, but no way he weighed as much as the lion I work with, I would have bet my house, on that he weighed less. I saw a lion who was notably bigger than the lion I work with, and he was very big, but he is probably under 250 kg.
@peter
Hi again. I don't think that 550 lbs is the limit, but very close. Well if we take the biggest Kaziranga tiger/ biggest tiger ever weighed it was 268 kg. 300 kg seems IMO as a little overestimation, so I will give them 280 at Max! But again only opinion! [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] 
There are actually quite a few tiger weights that are more than 268kg but these are old weights and its tough to get a real idea of how to compare them to now. That beind said, why wouldn't weights be more further back in time?
Less human interference, more prey, land, etc... Of course they would probably be larger. In modern times, verified records, It seems that out of the few that have been weighed, 270-280kg is a high number for tigers. It sounds like this Big Lion that Pantherinae says to be the same size as Ayslan in the wild, is a Lions version of "Waghdoh" And most prime lions are more along the size of the Notch Boys which are a lions version of "Bamera" So from what you have seen Pantherinae, is the Okvango Lions the equivelent to lions that the "Kaziranga Tigers" are to tigers? Are their large Okvango Wild Lion weights that exist already?
261 kg is the official value of Sauraha, but it is theoretical. 258 kg is the weight value you'd be thinking of on his first weighing. Later weighing, he was longer in length and bottomed out a 272 kg scale. Then another male in Chitwan was larger than him in frame and also bottomed out the 272 kg scale. Madla is also another cat that probably easily is above 250 kg, I went over his allometry in the freak specimen thread. Small sample size, already 3 250+ kg tigers. 250 kg surely isn't the limit from this data, especially when scales of 272 kg are being bottomed out.
Also, Pantherinae, do you have an estimate of the frame difference between Aslan and Bamera. I'm sure you've been Aslan up close, how close were you to Bamera?  *This image is copyright of its original author These are the heaviest tiger weights available, correct? This is record sizes and maximums for tigers. Lets assume most are gorged, but still would be huge tigers.
@tigerluver
i was close to bamera, maybe less than 5 meter. And he was lower, shorter and his head was smaller. Wagdoh my dad says are a little bigger than Aslan. He has seen him in the wild. But bamera is the best looking bengal tiger I have seen with my own eyes. My late cat was called bamera, named after him! 'tigerluver dateline='' Wrote: Do you have Aslan dimensions out of curiosity? Also, how much lower, etc.? No I actually don't, but I'm back at work on Monday, so the vet does probably know that. How much lower I don't know, but definatly lower. Bamera was very muscular, but the size ehh not so big as you should think.
I'll be looking forward to it, getting Bamera's length and Wagdoh's can help us get their weight from regression. I can also apply Aslan's measurements to the lion regression I have and find whether is over or underweight compared to a theoretical wild specimen of his size.
Also, I believe that most of 20th century records are reliable. By that time, there were no higher up to please. Ironically and unfortunately, my great grandfather was involved in this business (fur trade, etc.) so I've had some of his experiences shared to me. Again, 320 kg isn't out of question from the giant sample size hunting records have. Same with 272 kg for lions. Also, where are you getting the 268 kg weight? No official number like that from any of the scientific projects has been released I thought.
Rowland Ward, Smythies,Novikov, David Hasinger was from Philidelphia.
These are actual weighed animals, the world record tiger was weighed and accepted by guiness, as well as these. I accept the 313kg lion the same way I accept the multiple Tigers over 300kg and the world record Tiger. Also Remember, The world record lion was weighed on a railway scale and the tiger on a rice scale, neither scale specifically made to weigh cats, All are claimed to be weighed and accepted by Guiness which does its do-diligence better than I could ever do. If you want to disregard all, than I believe the 2 bottomed out 272kg scales are the heaviest modern day Tiger and for the Lion I believe 230 kg is the heaviest verified weight. But these cats have body dimmensions and where weighed, so to deny them simply based of skepticism is not how my brain works. If I get actual evidence that could disprove it, then I would accept it. But Madla is not a maximum for a Tiger and I see no reason why there couldn't be a few freak specimens out there that could still top the 300kg weight. Just like Waghdoh, Katzeri, jai etc.. or the Kaziranga cats.
320 kg is probably where the road ends for modern tigers. 340 kg could appear in Kaziranga for the freakish of freaks seeing as the 389 kg (albeit with a buffalo calf in its stomach) was confirmed.
Amurs are the most interesting case. The wild specimens are as lanky as lions. Hunting records have shows 320 kg cats. We even have a fit 386 kg specimen alive right now. My theory is that modern Amur are quite inbred seeing that the current population are the successors of only 20-30 individuals. Probability that this remnant population housed the genes of the giant Amurs is slim to none, on top of the fact that inbreeding causes a reduction in size anyhow.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(07-03-2014, 01:59 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: 320 kg is probably where the road ends for modern tigers. 340 kg could appear in Kaziranga for the freakish of freaks seeing as the 389 kg (albeit with a buffalo calf in its stomach) was confirmed. The problem is, that even old hunting records of giant amurs still are slightly smaller than bengals. I still hang on to the idea of Amurs carrying more fat than bengals due to the cold. They also have a thicker coat which also could of given old hunters the impression of a larger cat. That being said, some Amurs in captivity are just plain massive, they are so big and thick that I don't know what to think. The problem is that photos can be so decisiving, I wonder how many people here have seen huge amurs and bengals and can tell us the differences in body configuaration. Eagleraptor was probably the only one I could think of, and I know he saw some massive Amurs. Also, old circus performers usually make mention to the massive size difference between bengals and Amurs, but the "bengals" could of and probably were mixed between many different sub species, as well as "bengals" all being lumped together back in those days. They really looked at 3 sub species of Tiger, Bengal, Sumatran and Siberian. All were lumped in those 3 catagories. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 8 Guest(s) |