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)
|
I have not seen this one before. This record is quite old, taken in 1827 from Nagpore. He states that the length (Likely over curves) which was 10 ft. 2 inches was common at that time.
The American Farmer By John S. Skinner Total length: 309.9 cm Shoulder height: 127 cm Forearm circumference: 62.2 cm  *This image is copyright of its original author https://books.google.ca/books?id=YIMeQRY...90&f=false 
This book can be better read.
 https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=f-xJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=A+letter+from+Nagpore+adverts+to+a+Tiger+Hunt,&source=bl&ots=zkSx2B0WOB&sig=siRfZGB0H2udgf6anyQfSuJky7o&hl=zh-CN&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false  *This image is copyright of its original author
Extremely tall tiger, the tallest on record I have seen.
I skeptically approve. haha
Thank you Betty for the post, but I believe there is a typo from the Oriental Herald about how common the tigers length was. From the American Farmer he states the length was common, but from the Oriental Herald as uncommon. But notice how he says "However", the height was extraordinary, indicating the height was amazing, in relation to the length, which was ordinary. I believe he meant to say common like in the American Farmer
I also found this from the Asiatic Journal, and it states his length as common also.  *This image is copyright of its original author https://books.google.ca/books?id=tbRAAQA...2C&f=false
Body Mass of Bengal tiger In Modern Scientific Records (Revised)
Enjoy! Here is the complete list of Bengal tigers now available from the reports and records we now have in modern time. This is the list for males. I think the list for females is unchanged if I'm not mistaken? Now the table is very large. I consider a sample size that is 20 or greater to be a good one. Note: Sundarbans tigers not included. Chitwan NP, Nepal: Average 221 kg adjusted. n=7. Range 184-261 kg. Reference: Smith et al., 1983; Sunquist, 1981. These tigers originally averaged 235 kg but they consumed on average 14 kg of meat Chitwan NP, Nepal: 270+ kg. n=1. Reference: Dinerstein, E. (2003). This animal (M026) exceeded the scale of 270 kg along with Sauraha male (M105). This animals weight of 270 kg's is included. Nagarahole NP: Average 217 kg adjusted. n=3. Range 209-227 kg. Reference: Karanth, 1993. Panna TR Average 245 kg. n=2. Range 240-250 kg. Reference. Chundawat & Malik, 2010; Pers Comm. 2009. Note: Both these tigers exceeded a scale of 250 kg, but was estimated to weigh about these measurements, M-91's weight was adjusted down due to 10 kg of weighing equipment. The other tiger was Madla who's weight is given as 250 kg. Panna TR 240 kg. n=1. Reference: Noronha, 2015. Tiger known as "T-3", stated to be 10 years old. Tiger was reintroduced to Panna TR. This was a statement from former field director, Panna tiger reserve, R Sriniwas Murthy. Sariska TR, India 220 kg. n=1. Reference: Sinha , 2008. This tiger was a young male, said to be three and a half years old. This tiger was also recaptured and estimated to weigh 250 kg when it was older Kanha NP, India 197 kg. n=1. Reference: 21st Century Tiger, 2014 Uttar Pradesh's South Kheri forest 235 kg. n=1. Reference: Singh, 2016. This is the Kheri man-eater transferred to Lucknow Zoo. Animal said to be 4 years old. Treated by Dr. Mayukh Chatterjee Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve 185 kg. n=1. Reference: Habib; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger named Gabbar, 8 year old male Ranthambore NP, India 240 kg. n=1. Reference: Khandal; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger known as "T-24", This tiger was actually weighed in 2009. Umred Karhandla Wildlife Sanctuary in Nagpur, India 230 kg. n=1. Reference: Karoo; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger named Jai. This tiger was stated to weigh between 220 and 238 kg, the weighing scale used had a 18 kg margin of error. Pench NP, India 200+ kg. n=1. Reference: Majumder, 2012. This tiger exceeded a scale of 200 kg, weight was estimated to be upto 220 kg. Not included in final average. The average comes to 225.25 kg (496.6 lb), n=20 
The Kanha male at 197kg was an old "Kankatta" way out of his prime age, in his prime I'd assume he was a good 30 kilograms heavier and the 185kg Gabbar was confirmed out of shape during the time he was weighed. id say in his prime he was at max about 20 kilograms heavier.
(10-27-2016, 11:08 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: The Kanha male at 197kg was an old "Kankatta" way out of his prime age, in his prime I'd assume he was a good 30 kilograms heavier and the 185kg Gabbar was confirmed out of shape during the time he was weighed. id say in his prime he was at max about 20 kilograms heavier. Do you know how old kankatta was when weighed? 
TWO MALE PANNA TIGERS RADIO-COLLARD
Over the years, the size of tigers has been debated many times in many forums. Although most good information is from India, the debates on the size of Indian tigers still continue. One reason is India has many different regions. Another is most samples are very small. A third reason is there is quite a bit of doubt about the reliability of the information. Although not pretending to be accurate, I think it's more or less clear that captive male Indian tigers in Indian zoos average about 400-410 lbs. (181,44-185,976 kg.). The weight of wild male tigers, however, still is an enigma. What is known, suggest they seem to be heavier than, say, a century ago or so. Some years ago, the BBC broadcasted 'Tigers of the Emerald Forest'. One of the male Panna tigers who featured in the documentary might have exceeded 550 lbs. (249,48 kg.). Might, because we are not quite sure. The reason was he too apparently bottomed a scale. His rival, who controlled another part of Panna ('Hairyfoot'), was estimated to be even larger. Here's Hairyfoot:  *This image is copyright of its original author A few years after the documentary was broadcasted, nearly all tigers had gone. I'm not sure as to what happened later, but today Panna again has tigers. Some of them were radio-collared a few years ago. Although it is admittedly difficult to get to a guesstimate, there's no question that both were large and massive animals. A few decades ago, I measured 3 captive adult male Amur tigers 'between pegs'. At 280,0 cm., 287,0 cm. and 294,5 cm. in total length, they were of average size, perhaps a bit shorter. The longest male was 184,5 kg. (407 lbs.), whereas the biggest well exceeded 200 kg. We couldn't get to more accuracy, because he suddenly woke up when we were trying to weigh him. Out in the open, we had no option but the transport him back as soon as possible. He was a good-natured tiger, who even 'prusted' at us while half-sedated. Some years later, he was flown to another home and weighed at Schiphol Airport. At the airport, they got to 211 kg. ((466-467 lbs.). The third male, his brother, was as bulky, but a tad shorter. Let's say they averaged 287,0 cm. in total length straight and about 200 kg. (441-442 lbs.). In my opinion, the male tigers in the videos could have been a bit longer. Weightwise, however, the difference was clear: both Panna males had large and heavy skulls, much more massive necks and shoulders and bigger fore-arms. Male Amur tigers, wild or captive, have big skulls and fore-arms for their size, but I noticed time and again that many wild male Indian tigers are more massive. Guate got to 240-250 kg. for the two males who featured in the documentary mentioned above. Based on what I know and saw in different videos, my guess is he could have been very close. If he was, the question is what to make of male tigers in northeastern India. Some Kazirangha males seem out of this world. If they were of average length (about 280 cm. in total length in a straight line), they could well have exceeded the weights of Panna tigers. The male tigers who featured in the videos below were very tigerlike; long, athletic and massive in the fore-quarters. Kazirangha male tigers, however, seem massive from tail to nose. And then there are the Himalayan tigers. The question is why wild male Indian tigers are heavier than their captive male relatives. One answer is many captive tigers get to adulthood, which is not true for wild male tigers. Only the most capable survive and even they are far from unchallenged. Male tiger 'Raja', considered to be quite special, killed at least three rivals, but many other males with a good territory, by no means small animals, not seldom perish in a fight. This Kanha tiger is just one example:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I also noticed that captive Indian tigers, although quite long and tall, often seem a bit below par. Perhaps, to a degree, they could be underfed. Anyhow. I was quite impressed by what I saw. The tiger in the second video in particular is a massive animal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bkUXmpM3Ho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVY9mvOCyAc  (10-31-2016, 08:59 AM)peter Wrote: TWO MALE PANNA TIGERS RADIO-COLLARD I think this is the male T-3 of Panna, that weights 240 kg at c.10 years old.
This second video is even more interesting, the tiger is measured and weighed!
Check that they use a cloth tape like Dr Sunquist mentioned:  *This image is copyright of its original author He measured the head first, check that he hold the tape as straight as possible but the cloth on the head curved it, although not at purpose. Probably measured c.50 curved, or c.40 cm straight, but is just a guess:  *This image is copyright of its original author Later he take the body length from the base of the head to the rout of tail, again holding a straight line, not curving the tape nor pressing in any point, just like Dr Sunquist's method. The only difference is that Dr Sunquist holds the tiger's head, but in this case is not necessary. Using my own cloth tape, I guess (and is a mere guess) that the male had a base of head to tail rout of c.150 cm:  *This image is copyright of its original author If its head measured at least c.40 cm straight, we can guess a head-body of c.190 cm, a good size for a Bengal male. Latter, they weighed the male, sadly they do not show the figure, but IF this is T-3, we know that he weighed 240 kg.  *This image is copyright of its original author Wow, thanks @peter, as you show us these two videos.
Hi Guate, the other tiger in that video is a different male. But I just confirmed that is T-3 in the first video. Have a look...
 *This image is copyright of its original author
A FEW KAZIRANGHA MALE TIGERS
When T-3 really was 240 kg., the next question is not if some Kazirangha male tigers could be heavier, but by how much. The males below are big, but by no means exceptional. At least, not for that region. Over the years, many photographs of impressive Kazirangha tigers have been posted. Quite a few of them were built like battleships. Although massive from tail to nose, the skulls in particular are remarkable. Here's a just a few to show you what I mean:  *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  *This image is copyright of its original author
No measurements and weights, but still a good view of a good sized male tiger:
Hi @peter ,
*This image is copyright of its original author The tiger picture you posted was not Hairyfoot. Its a Kaziranga male captured in cameratrap and was named KZT111. The only available picture of Hairyfoot is this one  *This image is copyright of its original author
peter the second male tiger you posted seems to be from nagarhole not kaziranga imo. Rest of the tigers are very impressive.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 96 Guest(s) |