There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
@peter , @GrizzlyClaws , are there any more detailed measurements on this skull? Also which book/article is this from? The citation seems to be "Loukashkin, A. S. (1938). The manchurian tiger. China J., Shanghai, 28, 127-133." but the trails runs dry beyond that.
The photograph is from V. Mazak's 'Der Tiger' (1983). Here's the story.
According to V. Mazak, the photograph (65 x 90 mm.), most probably, was made by a European living in the northern part of China in the thirties of the last century. Mazak got it from J. Bartusek from the former Czechoslovakian Orient Institute. When he visited China in the sixties of the last century, he received it from an official source.
The measurements of the skull from Chanwangshai (northeastern China) were written on the back of the photograph.
In order to prevent misinterpretations and confusion, I decided to scan the pages 193-195 from Mazak's book (in German). The story on the photograph starts halfway page 193:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Mazak thought that the measurements were genuine, " ... da man Schadel dieser Abmessungen bei außergewohnlich großen Tieren erwarten kann ... " (pp. 194).
Wild Amur tigers of exceptional size have been discussed before. One of these was the tiger shot in 1943 by Sin-En-Tschzin. The debate about this tiger was about its weight, not the skull. The skull, however, was exceptional:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Although wild Amur tigers of exceptional size have not been seen by biologists in the period 1992-2018, some large captive male Amur tigers have been measured. One of these, the famous Duisburg zoo tiger, was 320 cm. in total length in a straight line. Almost as long as the large male of the Prague Zoo measured by V. Mazak, but more robust. In this department, he compared to the giant shot in 1943. The length of his head was 50 cm.:
*This image is copyright of its original author
This tiger no doubt had a very large skull, but my guess is the skull was never measured. This means that those interested had to continue swimming in circles.
Than this photograph was published in a paper:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It is about the 125 mm. scale just below the skull, as it enables a quite accurate estimate. My attempts resulted in at greatest total length of at least 420 mm. and a rostrum width of about 122 mm. Unheard of, but possible when the owner is exceptional in size. And there's no question he was:
*This image is copyright of its original author
If we add the skull of an old Amur tiger from a Japanese zoo described in a paper discussed in the thread 'On the Edge of Extinction - A - The tiger (Panthera tigris)', the conclusion is that the table of V. Mazak often used in books has to be updated. I'm not too sure about the average length of captive and wild male Amur tigers, but it's clear that the greatest total skull length of large individuals ranges between 360-406 mm., apparently even up to 420-430 mm.
The head and body length of the Koln Zoo tiger (see the last photograph), by the way, was 240 cm. (...). The tigress, still alive as far as I know, also is a large animal.
As requested, here is a copy of @peter's excellent post regarding the largest of Amur tiger skulls. Just click on the quote to expand it.
Copying @peter's post about the weights of young tigers of today and yesterday. Just click the quote to expand it.
(06-22-2018, 07:46 AM)peter Wrote: YOUNG TIGERS IN INDIA AND RUSSIA
The Russian Far East
In southeastern Russia, young tigers disperse at 18-24 months of age. I've yet to see a reliable report about a 3-4 year old male reaching 400 pounds (181,44 kg.). In the RFE, tigers need more time to get to their potential, so it seems. Not a few young males never get to adulthood. Even when they reach maturity, trouble always is close. Only few males exceed 450 pounds (204,12 kg.), whereas adult male brown bears with a similar head and body length average 550-600 pounds.
Sizewise, Amur tigers compare to Indian tigers in most departments, but they lack in weight. And individual variation. The reasons are not known. It's not related to the number of tigers, as large individuals have been shot in the period in which the number of tigers was well below that of today. Long winters of course have an effect, but the Russian Far East always had long and severe winters. That leaves human pressure and destruction.
In Manchuria, the natural world was all but destroyed in the last century. The mighty forests were decimated and the inhabitants were hunted to extinction. In Russia, the situation was a bit better, but Arseniev and his guide Dersu had zero confidence a century ago. Destruction was everywhere.
Amur tigers, largely as a result of the efforts of Kaplanov, survived, but they faced empty forests, long distances, deep snow and a lot of competition for a long time, They still do. Primorye has 60 000 - 100 000 hunters with a license and thousands of bears, but the destruction has slowed. The Russians are working on it, that is. Same for the Chinese. If all goes well, Amur tigers will have 200 000 square km. at their disposal in a few years from now. If we add the declining human population in Primorye, more pressure on poachers, more adequate legislation, well-equipped and well-trained rangers and genuine interest from Moscow, chances are the situation could change in the next decades.
If the ecosystem is healthy, apex predators will respond sooner or later. In tigers, size seems to be related to the size of the reserves, the size of the competitors they face and the size of the animals they hunt. Large mammals need time to reproduce and to repopulate suited regions. When the situation in the RFE improves, tigers will profit more than their competitors (bears). The reason is that they depend on protein. Protein is the quickest way to size.
Competition of large bears and wild boars was, and always will be, part of life in the RFE. Amur tigers didn't, like in India, gain in robustness, but combined length, strength, athleticism and aggression. Robustness has an advantage when large herbivores are on the menu, but not when a big cat hunts similar-sized and agile animals like wild boars and bears. In India, tigers face other tigers. In the RFE, they face other tigers and bears. If a big cat develops features typical for robust omnivores like bears in order to get on equal terms, it has to sacrfice it essence ('tigerishness'). Life likes experiments, chance and individual variation, but crossing limits defining species is not included.
There's, however, nothing wrong with a few adaptions like extra-large canines, an extra-wide rostrum, big fore-arms, a long and flexible spine and an attitude and that's what we see in wild male Amur tigers that made the cut. Individual variation could result in a few extra-large tigers in some time from now, but my guess is that the basic model is not very different from what is seen today.
Apparently, the road to that model is long and rocky. It starts at an early age, never stops and has an effect, even in captive tigers. Captive Amur tigers are different from captive tigers of other subspecies. Not as clever, not as willing to communicate, tougher and more 'serious' in all departments, a few trainers told me. And they don't like bears.
What I saw is difficult to describe. I'm not surprised that some captive Amur tigers seem out of this world. The energy I sense needs a way out. Some of these giants seem like old battleships. Very powerful, but a bit outdated. Wild Amur tigers also seem to have this energy, but use it in another way. It imploded and surfaces when the need is there. Wild Amur tigers, although, apart from a few freaks, smaller than their captive relatives, they seem more battleworthy.
Amur tigers compare to captive lions in that they too seem to live in a different dimension. The difference is that lions direct their energy at each other, whereas Amur tigers do not. Lions are 'ingoing', whereas Amur tigers are 'outgoing'. In spite of that, they too do not interact. Most male lions are not interested in humans. If they show interest, better beware. Amur tigers don't care about humans (different from 'not interested'), but also show no antipathy. If they, however, get a chance to get close, you're gone. Male lions maul, but Amur tigers will kill you immediately.
Although more Indian tigers perish in conflicts with other tigers, Amur tigers could face more problems. They live with other tigers, bears, wild boars and humans and know that every mistake can be the last. They have more room to avoid problems, but they have to learn about conflict, interaction and when to strike. More than their captive relatives, wild male Amur tigers interact with those who share their territory. All wild male big cats walk the edge most of the time, but Amur tigers could top the list in this department. Psychological warfare is their thing. Those who knew about tigers avoided them when possible. Even in the century of destruction, Amur tigers were seldom hunted. Too dangerous.
Indian tigers need to grow fast and get big to survive encounters with other tigers in densely populated reserves, but Amur tigers need to learn about war and peace and everything in-between. Apart from that, they need to learn about long winters and survival. Wild male Amur tigers that made it to adulthood are loaded with knowledge. True survivors, Vaillant wrote.
India
In most parts of India, young tigers disperse when they reach 24-30 months. Males ranging between 2-3 years of age often exceed 350 pounds (158,76 kg.), with some well over that mark and even up to 497 pounds (225 kg.). The difference between India and Russia is a result of conditions and competition. Young tigers in Russia have more room at their disposal, but they have to learn to cope with long winters, a lack of large prey animals and competition from older tigers and bears.
MB2
Tiger MB2 was 297 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' and 195 kg. (430 pounds) at about 30 months of age. In spite of his impressive size, he was no match for his father. If he would have entered the territory of an adult male in another part of town, it could have been curtains. Umarpani told him to move on, but seems to be prepared to tolerate him for now.
In northeastern India, a century ago, the difference between a measurement taken 'over curves' and a measurement taken 'between pegs' for males was about 13,5 cm. This means that the total length of MB2 measured in a straight line is about 283-284 cm. (just over 9.3). Umarpani, in his prime, is a bit longer and significantly denser and heavier.
The average size of male tigers in Central India
In Dunbar Brander's day, adult males in central India averaged 9.3 and 420 pounds. The longest he shot was 10.3 in total length in a straight line, whereas the heaviest was 9.11. That male had a head and body length of 221 cm. (7.3) in a straight line, which still is the record for India.
It's likely that male tigers with a territory in central parts of India are a bit longer and heavier than a century ago, but not by much. The reason is that quite a few males will never be able to establish a territory. Some of them perish while trying, whereas others avoid problems. A population has males with a territory, males unable to compete, young adults, fugitives, disabled tigers and old tigers.
Tigers with a ranch might average 9.8 in total length in a straight line and 550 pounds in their prime, but others never reach 9 feet and 400 pounds. If the average would be higher than a century ago, the most likely reason is a lack of room, more confrontations, more casualties and less smallish tigers. The reserves are well-stocked, but the number of buffer zones and corridors is too limited to provide room for tigers unable to compete. Buffer zones also often are used by farmers, which often results in conflicts.
MB2
MB2, when he survives, will add a few more inches and quite a few pounds in the next years, but his main concern is finding a place to call home and avoiding confrontations with older and larger tigers. When he succeeds, chances are he could compare to his father in most respects. Umarpani is a large tiger, but he wasn't taller, longer or heavier than the two males he beat. Coincidence might have been a factor, but chances are he was more competative than the others.
Copying @peter's post regarding the size of Indian tigers.
(06-22-2018, 06:19 AM)peter Wrote: SIZE OF INDIAN TIGERS
A century ago
A century ago, the region just south of the Himalayas produced the longest tigers (total length measured 'over curves'). Chitwan tigers topped the list. Assam tigers shot in the same period, although shorter, were heavier than those shot in northern India, but the Maharajah of Cooch Behar weighed nearly all of his tigers, whereas Sir John Hewett didn't.
The tigers he wasn't able to weigh were significantly longer than those he weighed. Back then, there was a strong relation between total length and weight in Indian tigers in that long tigers were relatively heavier than shorter tigers. The difference was about 6-7 pounds per inch.
If he had been able to weigh all tigers he shot, Hewett's average for northern India would have well exceeded that of Assam. Although the average for Assam males was 461 pounds, 450-455 would have been closer to the mark. The reason was a number of 'gorged' tigers. Based on what I had, I got to 475-490 for northern India and a bit more for Nepal.
Today
Many years later, 7 males captured in Chitwan averaged 520 pounds. Although the average was adjusted later, I decided for 520 in order to be able to compare tigers shot a century ago with those captured in the seventies and eighties of the last century.
The comparison I did says there's not much to choose between back then and today for (total) length, but tigers weighed in the last decades were heavier than a century ago. Based on what I have, I'd say that the difference is 20-40 pounds at the level of averages, maybe even a bit more in regions with large tigers.
To be more concrete. The averages today (males of 6 years and older), depending on region (not including the Naga Hills and the Sunderbans) and the local conditions, could range between 420-520 pounds. As exceptional individuals can exceed the 'normal' maximum by 25-35%, males well exceeding 600 pounds can be expected in northern India and Nepal every now and then. The heaviest shot in unmolested Nepal (705 pounds) was 10.9 'over curves' in total length. My guess is that tigers of that size are still around. The problem is the scales used by biologists. That and a lack of experience in darting exceptional individuals.
Exceptional individuals
Tigers in northeastern India might top the table for skulls. A century ago, skulls of large males ranged between 360-400 mm. (greatest total length). Not one of these even approached 10 feet in total length measured 'between pegs', meaning they were not of exceptional size. The photographs and videos I saw suggest they (males and females) still have more rounded and larger skulls than elsewhere. Different breed, so it seems.
Exceptional individuals are most often seen in large ecosystems. The larger the system, the better the chance to see an exceptional tiger. Seen in this light, the region just south of the Himalayas (from Rajaji to Kazirangha) and southwestern India (Western Ghats) still top the list. Central India has a chance when reserves are connected. Tigers need a lot of space.
Based on what I know, I'd say that northern India is the region to visit if you're interested in large tigers. The Rajaji tiger is the largest I saw, but the reserves just east of Rajaji (up to and including Dudhwa) also have large tigers. Same for Chitwan, of course. Tigers in northeastern India often appear to be more massive, but they could be shorter and not as tall. The big skull can result in a somewhat distorted view as well.
Arunachal Pradesh
I'm very interested in the situation close to the China border (Arunachal Pradesh). Authorities said that two captive, but wild-caught, tigers (male and female) were quite different from your typical Indian tiger: different coat (less stripes), more aggressive and larger all the way.
I read quite a few books written by people in the know who spent their days in northeastern India. Not a few of them said that male tigers in that part of India were following elephants. They often found remains of youngsters killed and eaten by tigers. Could that culture have resulted in specialisation?
There are reliable reports about lions hunting elephants in some regions of southern Africa and tigers hunting rhinos (including adult females) in northeastern India. Time to read a bit more about the fauna in that part of India, I think. Which large mammals are seen in elevated regions in northeastern India?
IN THE first such case of inter-state relocation, MB2, a 195-kg tiger, was shifted from the Kanha Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh to the Satkosia Tiger Reserve in Odisha on Thursday. This is part of an ambitious project conceived by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun, that involves shifting six tigers (three pairs) from different reserves in the central state to the eastern state. Camera traps had already identified MB2, a sub-adult tiger aged a little over three years, as the first potential target, after it emerged that it had a kill and was not likely to move from the area. On Wednesday afternoon, MP to Odisha: first inter-state tiger relocation it was tranquilised by wildlife veterinarians from Pench and Kanha. It took two darts to immobile the big cat. Elephant-mounted staff then poked the tiger to check for any signs of activity. When it did not move, it was blindfolded and taken on a special stretcher. The team then measured all parameters, from its temperature to its canines, neck girth and length. The tiger was collared and later shifted to a cage.
*This image is copyright of its original author
While the cage was loaded on to a truck, three other vehicles with doctors and experts accompanied MB2 during the 680-km journey, which took about 22 hours. The tiger was finally released in Satkosia around 1.30 pm on Thursday.
“The operation was first planned for Thursday but was preponed by a day as the conditions were favourable,’’ said Dr Sanjay Shukla, Chief Conservator of Forests and Kanha park director.
While the intra-state tiger relocation experiment has been hugely successful in Madhya Pradesh — the Panna Tiger Reserve (PTR), where tiger sightings stopped in 2009, now has over 30 tigers — this is the first such case of inter-state relocation. Confirming this, Madhya Pradesh Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Shazbaz Ahmed said this was the first time that a tiger had been relocated from one state to another for being released into the wild.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Wildlife conservationist Belinda Wright also said this was the first such inter-state relocation, adding that the experiment “is a viable idea as long as they don’t shift breeding animals’’. “Satkosia is a lovely tiger habitat. I hope they will take every measure to keep the tigers safe,’’ she said.
While a lot will depend on how MB2 adapts to its new home, which has a good prey base, the next relocation, of a tigress, is likely to be undertaken only after monsoon. Kanha has about 105-107 tigers. The other pairs are likely to be be sent from Bandhavgarh and Pench. Meanwhile Madhya Pradesh is still waiting for lions from Gujarat. A project to find an alternate home for the Asiatic lion outside the western state was conceived nearly three decades ago. A new site has been created in Palpur Kuno in Sheopur district of Madhya Pradesh, but Gujarat has not parted with the lions. In 2013, the Supreme Court had asked Gujarat to share the lions.
(06-23-2018, 07:46 PM)Pckts Wrote: The age is wrong in the article. I’ll post a video of them as tiny little cubs in mid 2016 on Monday.
Add the info on the giant in northern India (referring to the question of Richardrli) as well if you can. Not all readers visit the thread in which it was posted.
Contact your man and ask him if he is ok with discussing the info he provided. Also ask him in what way the tiger was weighed. Field biologists, as far as I know, carry scales with a capacity of 500 or 600 pounds. This is why there's no accurate info on tigers bottoming these scales. While you at it, ask him if how and when the female in the photograph was weighed. If she was weighed, it's also likely she was measured. Anything known on her length?
A lot of questions, but there's too much rumours on exceptional individuals and not enough accurate and reliable information. Quite often, the result is confusion. We want to avoid debates about zilch.
- Thanks again for the info. The article is interesting. I found another some years ago. In that one, the death of the director of a private facility in France was discussed. He too was killed with a neck bite. The tigress was a large (over 200 kg. or 441 pounds) animal he knew well.
- As to the skull and the scale in the photograph. As we agree on the scale, the conclusion I got to was confirmed: the skull of the 4-year old captive male Amur tiger from the Koln zoo shot in August 2012 has a greatest total length of about 430 mm., a rostrum width of at least 122 mm. and a zygomatic width of about 284,00 mm. It's unique in that it is the largest known skull of a male Amur tiger. By a margin, I should add. The photograph with the scale can be considered as proof. Many thanks on behalf of all interested in big cat skulls!
- Could you enlarge the scans in the previous post? On my screen, they are a bit small.
- I will contact one of the writers in order to to measure the skull. If it's still there and they offer me the opportunity to measure and photograph the skull, we (WildFact) most definitely will publish a paper.
Are you sure you got the measurements accurate, @peter ? Because when I look at the pictures of Skull 133 which belonged to an old Amur tiger that was shot in a Belgium zoo somewhere in this thread which shows pictures with different angles, I got confusing measurements. That skull is supposed to be 368 mm in its greatest length but when I see the pictures from upper angle and from the side angle, we got different measurements which are erroneous. See below.
*This image is copyright of its original author
First pic, we got 36 and above centimeters measurement but in the second pic we got different results. In the second pic, it looks like that skull could be a record holder for the largest skull ever for a tiger but actually it isn't because it is the angle that is erroneous. Altai skull is from the above angle, how can we be sure that Altai's skull is indeed above 400 mm?
(06-23-2018, 10:21 PM)peter Wrote: Contact your man and ask him if he is ok with discussing the info he provided. Also ask him in what way the tiger was weighed. Field biologists, as far as I know, carry scales with a capacity of 500 or 600 pounds. This is why there's no accurate info on tigers bottoming these scales. While you at it, ask him if how and when the female in the photograph was weighed. If she was weighed, it's also likely she was measured. Anything known on her length?
@Pckts hold it a few days though. His mother is presently hospitalised... It's not good time.
The following 1 user Likes Rishi's post:1 user Likes Rishi's post • peter
(06-23-2018, 10:21 PM)peter Wrote: Contact your man and ask him if he is ok with discussing the info he provided. Also ask him in what way the tiger was weighed. Field biologists, as far as I know, carry scales with a capacity of 500 or 600 pounds. This is why there's no accurate info on tigers bottoming these scales. While you at it, ask him if how and when the female in the photograph was weighed. If she was weighed, it's also likely she was measured. Anything known on her length?
@Pckts hold it a few days though. His mother is presently hospitalised... It's not good time.
Ya, I just saw that.
I'll hold off for sure.
Here's the Video with the young cubs in 2016 and the rest of MB 2's translocation story.
@Roflcopters posted an excellent geographic analysis regarding the reported 388.7 kg tiger. It was deemed that a copy of the post would be fitting in this thread as well, so here it is:
I was very curious about that 388.7kg tiger shot in the Kumaon Region (1967), apparently this huge male fed on a buffalo calf prior to getting shot, his measurements were 323 cm (121 inch) in total length between pegs and 338 cm (133 inch) over curves. let’s say we subtract atleast 40kg stomach content, that is still a very massive tiger and to be honest. I never took this record seriously until i saw that 340kg + male that @Pckts posted about from Dudhwa Tiger Reseve, which is basically located a bit south of the Kumaon Region. (Rajaji and Corbett) are in the area known as the Kumaon region to be exact. I’m also well aware that this particular tiger is on exhibition in the Mammals Hall of the Smithsonian Institution. the Taxidermist that worked on this tiger didn’t really do justice to this beast. now after seeing that verified weight from a well known tiger expert, It makes me wonder. I think i am left with no choice but to believe this tiger actually existed. what are your thoughts?
here’s the map of Kumaon region
*This image is copyright of its original author
an older map from 1992
*This image is copyright of its original author
recent map
*This image is copyright of its original author
all the tiger reserves by region, 2017 map.
*This image is copyright of its original author
around 160kg summer weight of the female, 180kg weighed and verified by Wasif Jamshed of Wildlife Institute of India. the male is over 340 kilograms (full stomach? empty?), also weighed and verified by Wasif Jamshed.
06-26-2018, 04:35 AM( This post was last modified: 06-26-2018, 05:25 AM by peter )
(06-25-2018, 02:22 PM)johnny rex Wrote:
(04-20-2018, 07:10 AM)peter Wrote: BETTY
- Thanks again for the info. The article is interesting. I found another some years ago. In that one, the death of the director of a private facility in France was discussed. He too was killed with a neck bite. The tigress was a large (over 200 kg. or 441 pounds) animal he knew well.
- As to the skull and the scale in the photograph. As we agree on the scale, the conclusion I got to was confirmed: the skull of the 4-year old captive male Amur tiger from the Koln zoo shot in August 2012 has a greatest total length of about 430 mm., a rostrum width of at least 122 mm. and a zygomatic width of about 284,00 mm. It's unique in that it is the largest known skull of a male Amur tiger. By a margin, I should add. The photograph with the scale can be considered as proof. Many thanks on behalf of all interested in big cat skulls!
- Could you enlarge the scans in the previous post? On my screen, they are a bit small.
- I will contact one of the writers in order to to measure the skull. If it's still there and they offer me the opportunity to measure and photograph the skull, we (WildFact) most definitely will publish a paper.
Are you sure you got the measurements accurate, @peter ? Because when I look at the pictures of Skull 133 which belonged to an old Amur tiger that was shot in a Belgium zoo somewhere in this thread which shows pictures with different angles, I got confusing measurements. That skull is supposed to be 368 mm in its greatest length but when I see the pictures from upper angle and from the side angle, we got different measurements which are erroneous. See below.
*This image is copyright of its original author
First pic, we got 36 and above centimeters measurement but in the second pic we got different results. In the second pic, it looks like that skull could be a record holder for the largest skull ever for a tiger but actually it isn't because it is the angle that is erroneous. Altai skull is from the above angle, how can we be sure that Altai's skull is indeed above 400 mm?
The measurements of the Belgium zoo tiger are accurate, Johnny. The one who photographed the skull wasn't quite able to overcome the angle problem.
The skull of the very large male Amur tiger from the Koln zoo was photographed by someone familiar with angles. All photographs in the article are excellent. The photographer was a real pro. The photograph showing the size of the skull also has a scale of 125 mm.:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The skull is enormous in nearly all respects. If the tiger would have been mature (he was only four years of age when he was shot), the zygomatic width no doubt would have been very close to 300 mm.
The tiger was measured by 2 pathologists. In head and body, the tiger was 240 cm. The tail was 96,5 cm. The total length was 336,5 cm. I don't know if the tiger was measured 'over curves' or 'between pegs', but the German zoologists I know told me that big cats have to be measured in a straight line. For this reason, I assume the tiger was measured in that way.
The sheer size of the skull is an additional reason to assume the tiger was a very large animal. Although the relation between body size (total length and weight) and skull size (length and width) isn't very outspoken in tigers, it's there. Not all large tigers have large skulls, but the owner of a large skull almost always is a large male tiger.
There's no question that the male Amur tiger from the Koln zoo was a large individual with a very large head. Apart from the photograph below, I read comments of those who saw the tiger. I also saw a few videos. The tigress, far from small and older than the male tiger, was from France:
(06-23-2018, 10:21 PM)peter Wrote: Contact your man and ask him if he is ok with discussing the info he provided. Also ask him in what way the tiger was weighed. Field biologists, as far as I know, carry scales with a capacity of 500 or 600 pounds. This is why there's no accurate info on tigers bottoming these scales. While you at it, ask him if how and when the female in the photograph was weighed. If she was weighed, it's also likely she was measured. Anything known on her length?
@Pckts hold it a few days though. His mother is presently hospitalised... It's not good time.
Sorry to hear about your mother, PC. Hope she will recover soon. Take your time and thanks for the video.
The following 1 user Likes peter's post:1 user Likes peter's post • epaiva
(06-23-2018, 10:21 PM)peter Wrote: Contact your man and ask him if he is ok with discussing the info he provided. Also ask him in what way the tiger was weighed. Field biologists, as far as I know, carry scales with a capacity of 500 or 600 pounds. This is why there's no accurate info on tigers bottoming these scales. While you at it, ask him if how and when the female in the photograph was weighed. If she was weighed, it's also likely she was measured. Anything known on her length?
@Pckts hold it a few days though. His mother is presently hospitalised... It's not good time.
Sorry to hear about your mother, PC. Hope she will recover soon. Take your time and thanks for the video.
Not my mother thank goodness, the man who’s provided us with all this info, Wasif.
(06-23-2018, 10:21 PM)peter Wrote: Contact your man and ask him if he is ok with discussing the info he provided. Also ask him in what way the tiger was weighed. Field biologists, as far as I know, carry scales with a capacity of 500 or 600 pounds. This is why there's no accurate info on tigers bottoming these scales. While you at it, ask him if how and when the female in the photograph was weighed. If she was weighed, it's also likely she was measured. Anything known on her length?
@Pckts hold it a few days though. His mother is presently hospitalised... It's not good time.
Sorry to hear about your mother, PC. Hope she will recover soon. Take your time and thanks for the video.
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
