Login

GuateGojira · 12-20-2018, 10:47 AM

@Panther and @Rishi, I think that it will be an excelent idea to update the information in that form.

There is something important to mention about the old records, I am 100% that all the small males of 160-170 kg (and probably also those of less than 180 kg) in the records of Brander, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and Hewett are subadults of less than 3 years old.

Is interesting that in the modern records there is no adult male lower than 180 kg, in fact, there are many subadult males of 2-3 years old that already weight c.225 kg! Many years had happen since the old "Lion vs Tiger" fights in the AVA forum, when it was mandatory to take the records as they were presented, however now the document of document of Dr Y. V. Jhala & Dr A. Sadhu present the first comprensive guide to age tigers correctly and it seems that the previous idea used by Biologist like the Siberian Tiger Project is incorrect. Interestingly Dr Schaller done these already with lions, but for some reason, nobody done it with tigers.

There are many records of small males in hunting litterature, like those of the Naga Hills and a few from Southwest India. To be honest, most of those records do not state the age of the tigers correctly derived, and even Mr Brander stated that some of those weights seems incorrect compared with the reported lengths. We must take in count that in the old days there were more tigers and the chances to hunt a large but light subadult male/females were higher. Today, Biologist can identify the age of a tiger more correctly than in the old days, so I am sure, again, that those small males reported in old litterature were probably subadults or young-adults in the best case.

In the case of the records of Brander, we can't discard those specimens as he just presented the final results, HOWEVER like I said before, it seems that Brander included "gorged" specimens, so the inclusion of the subadults help to compensate the average figures, concluding that the average of 190 kg is for more or less empty belly "over 3-4 years old" males. For Cooch Behar and Hewett is easier as is posible to correct the samples as we have each one of the individuals.

According with Dr Y. V. Jhala & Dr A. Sadhu subadults males can weigh as much as 200 Kg and females as much as 120 Kg by 30 months. However, most sub-adult males are usually between 130-170 Kg and females 80-100 Kg. By three years most tigers are close to full adult size, but continue to accumulate weight up to 4-4.5 years of age. Adult males range from 200 to 260 kg, while adult females range from 110 to 180 kg showing a pronounced sexual dimorphism in size.

Dr Sunquist radiocollared two subadult specimens that were as large as adult specimens (total lenght of male was 289 cm and total length and female of 251 cm) but much lighter (weight of male 159 kg and female 114 kg). A person with little to partial experience will look these specimens like "adult" tigers based in its body dimentions and I am sure that the statemens of Shankala in his book "Tiger tiger" where he says that tigers are not territorial because he found "adult" tigers almoust togheter, are based in a incorrect identification of the age and familliar origins of the specimens. Fiona Sunquist in the book "Tiger Moon" explained this case of missidentification of the age of tigers very well and, about the weight issue, the document of Dr Dave Smith and his team (about the weights of Nepalese tigers) reported average weights of subadult males at 158 kg (n=12; range=125 - 216) and subadult females at 125 kg (n=4; 98 - 145). Even if we correct them for any posible stomach content, the largest subadult male is still of 202 kg and subadult female of 131 kg!

In modern records, the lowest weight came from the male T-102 a.k.a. Dakre male which weighed 200 kg in the two times that was captures, however as it was baited in both events, its weight was probably about 184 kg empty. After him the next male tiger is the Tadoba-Andari male Gabbar of 185 kg (I don't know his age when captured, can someone help me on this?). After them the next is a Tadoba male of 197 kg of about 4 years old, in bad condition (large injure in a paw, broken canines and a deep cut in its nose) and was captured for been a cattle eater. Finally the forth male of less than 200 kg in modern records is a male captured in Kanha of 197 kg (it says that it was a territorial male). After them, the other 17 males in my sample weigh over 200 kg.

On the 17 males in modern records, over 200 kg, the 9 males from Nepal (7 original sample, the male M126 and the man-eater of 204 kg reported by Dr Mishra) were adults of over 3 years old, taking in count that the youngest one was Dakre and the oldest one Sauraha of probably 9 years old or more. From the Nagarahole males, one was a very old specimen of 12-13 years old (T-01) and the other two males were transcient animals of 3-4 years old (T-03 and T-04 and were probably brothers). The large males of Panna captured by Dr Chundawat were between 6-8 years old and the new male of 200 kg reported was of 5 years old. The male of Pench AM:T-2 of over 200 kg is labeled as "adult", no more details as far I know. Finally the male of 240 kg Ustad was over 5 years old, as far I remember (you can correct me if I am wrong) and the male ST-1 Darra male of 220 kg with 3.5 years old. If we exclude the "adult" 3 males of less than 5 years old (184 - 197 - 220) the remaining males has an average of 222.1 kg (n=14; range 185 - 261), but this istill includes the 2 transient males of Nagarahole, but if we exclude them the average will be of 222.3 kg (n=12; range 185 - 261 kg). Now if we include all the males in modern records (in documents and corroborated by me) the average is 220.8 kg (n=21; range=184 - 261 kg). To be honest there is practically no diference if we exclude or not the males of 3-5 years old, but this maybe because young adults in the Bengal population are already large specimens.

It will be interesting to see the average if we include all the other males posted in this topic, but I guess that the average will not change to much.

Panther · 12-20-2018, 11:50 AM

(12-20-2018, 10:47 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: @Panther and @Rishi, I think that it will be an excelent idea to update the information in that form.

There is something important to mention about the old records, I am 100% that all the small males of 160-170 kg (and probably also those of less than 180 kg) in the records of Brander, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and Hewett are subadults of less than 3 years old.

Is interesting that in the modern records there is no adult male lower than 180 kg, in fact, there are many subadult males of 2-3 years old that already weight c.225 kg! Many years had happen since the old "Lion vs Tiger" fights in the AVA forum, when it was mandatory to take the records as they were presented, however now the document of document of Dr Y. V. Jhala & Dr A. Sadhu present the first comprensive guide to age tigers correctly and it seems that the previous idea used by Biologist like the Siberian Tiger Project is incorrect. Interestingly Dr Schaller done these already with lions, but for some reason, nobody done it with tigers.

There are many records of small males in hunting litterature, like those of the Naga Hills and a few from Southwest India. To be honest, most of those records do not state the age of the tigers correctly derived, and even Mr Brander stated that some of those weights seems incorrect compared with the reported lengths. We must take in count that in the old days there were more tigers and the chances to hunt a large but light subadult male/females were higher. Today, Biologist can identify the age of a tiger more correctly than in the old days, so I am sure, again, that those small males reported in old litterature were probably subadults or young-adults in the best case.

In the case of the records of Brander, we can't discard those specimens as he just presented the final results, HOWEVER like I said before, it seems that Brander included "gorged" specimens, so the inclusion of the subadults help to compensate the average figures, concluding that the average of 190 kg is for more or less empty belly "over 3-4 years old" males. For Cooch Behar and Hewett is easier as is posible to correct the samples as we have each one of the individuals.

According with Dr Y. V. Jhala & Dr A. Sadhu subadults males can weigh as much as 200 Kg and females as much as 120 Kg by 30 months. However, most sub-adult males are usually between 130-170 Kg and females 80-100 Kg. By three years most tigers are close to full adult size, but continue to accumulate weight up to 4-4.5 years of age. Adult males range from 200 to 260 kg, while adult females range from 110 to 180 kg showing a pronounced sexual dimorphism in size.

Dr Sunquist radiocollared two subadult specimens that were as large as adult specimens (total lenght of male was 289 cm and total length and female of 251 cm) but much lighter (weight of male 159 kg and female 114 kg). A person with little to partial experience will look these specimens like "adult" tigers based in its body dimentions and I am sure that the statemens of Shankala in his book "Tiger tiger" where he says that tigers are not territorial because he found "adult" tigers almoust togheter, are based in a incorrect identification of the age and familliar origins of the specimens. Fiona Sunquist in the book "Tiger Moon" explained this case of missidentification of the age of tigers very well and, about the weight issue, the document of Dr Dave Smith and his team (about the weights of Nepalese tigers) reported average weights of subadult males at 158 kg (n=12; range=125 - 216) and subadult females at 125 kg (n=4; 98 - 145). Even if we correct them for any posible stomach content, the largest subadult male is still of 202 kg and subadult female of 131 kg!

In modern records, the lowest weight came from the male T-102 a.k.a. Dakre male which weighed 200 kg in the two times that was captures, however as it was baited in both events, its weight was probably about 184 kg empty. After him the next male tiger is the Tadoba-Andari male Gabbar of 185 kg (I don't know his age when captured, can someone help me on this?). After them the next is a Tadoba male of 197 kg of about 4 years old, in bad condition (large injure in a paw, broken canines and a deep cut in its nose) and was captured for been a cattle eater. Finally the forth male of less than 200 kg in modern records is a male captured in Kanha of 197 kg (it says that it was a territorial male). After them, the other 17 males in my sample weigh over 200 kg.

On the 17 males in modern records, over 200 kg, the 9 males from Nepal (7 original sample, the male M126 and the man-eater of 204 kg reported by Dr Mishra) were adults of over 3 years old, taking in count that the youngest one was Dakre and the oldest one Sauraha of probably 9 years old or more. From the Nagarahole males, one was a very old specimen of 12-13 years old (T-01) and the other two males were transcient animals of 3-4 years old (T-03 and T-04 and were probably brothers). The large males of Panna captured by Dr Chundawat were between 6-8 years old and the new male of 200 kg reported was of 5 years old. The male of Pench AM:T-2 of over 200 kg is labeled as "adult", no more details as far I know. Finally the male of 240 kg Ustad was over 5 years old, as far I remember (you can correct me if I am wrong) and the male ST-1 Darra male of 220 kg with 3.5 years old. If we exclude the "adult" 3 males of less than 5 years old (184 - 197 - 220) the remaining males has an average of 222.1 kg (n=14; range 185 - 261), but this istill includes the 2 transient males of Nagarahole, but if we exclude them the average will be of 222.3 kg (n=12; range 185 - 261 kg). Now if we include all the males in modern records (in documents and corroborated by me) the average is 220.8 kg (n=21; range=184 - 261 kg). To be honest there is practically no diference if we exclude or not the males of 3-5 years old, but this maybe because young adults in the Bengal population are already large specimens.

It will be interesting to see the average if we include all the other males posted in this topic, but I guess that the average will not change to much.

That's a great info, Guate. These figures are based on "empty belly" specimens, right?

Correct me, if I'm wrong. I guess, if you take the tigers above 5 year old, you'll get an average of no less than 240kgs, without stomach contents. I mean by excluding all 5 and less than 5 year year old specimens

GuateGojira · 12-20-2018, 12:03 PM

Actually, the average for the 12 males over 5 years old in scientific records average 222.3 kg (range 185 - 261 kg), excluding stomach content.

Interestingly, the males over 180 kg in Cooch Behar had an average of c.211 kg and the male tigers over 180 kg recorded by Hewett average c.214 kg. The male tigers of Brander and the male tigers from Colonel Hunter had an average of 204 kg. Just to let you know.

Kingtheropod · 12-20-2018, 01:00 PM

Wait a minute, so are the animals below 5 years old going to be excluded in this new table?

I understand that animals below 5 years old are not quite full size, but they are almost full grown (We're talking 95% full grown). This could cause a lot of figures to be excluded.

Rishi · 12-20-2018, 01:33 PM

(12-20-2018, 01:00 PM)Kingtheropod Wrote: Wait a minute, so are the animals below 5 years old going to be excluded in this new table?

I understand that animals below 5 years old are not quite full size, but they are almost full grown (We're talking 95% full grown). This could cause a lot of figures to be excluded.

Although @GuateGojira said he finds little difference if we exclude 3-5 years olds, i too think it would make lots of figure useless. More so, with relocation of young tigers picking pace in India & collaring etc. getting done in Russia.

But frankly, including youngsters can indeed cause some confusion, as a male weighed when he's below 4-year-old could gain almost 50lbs over that number by the time he's 6 or 7...& opposite for a male at 13+.
That's why i suggested an age range of 4-12 years, as that's when a tiger can be expected to be able to hold a territory (3-13 for females).

What @Panther suggested, ie, a set of only prime animals should be separate.

Panther · 12-20-2018, 02:10 PM

(12-20-2018, 12:03 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Actually, the average for the 12 males over 5 years old in scientific records average 222.3 kg (range 185 - 261 kg), excluding stomach content.

Are these all males are above 5. Because, I don't believe a five year old to be fully grown, because that is the age when they reach sexual maturity.

(12-20-2018, 01:33 PM)Rishi Wrote: What @Panther suggested, ie, a set of only prime animals sold be separate.

That's what I'm asking. I need the average of prime adults from largest known sub-population like Nepal and Assam,etc.. based on data @GuateGojira had...

Shadow · 12-20-2018, 05:09 PM

(12-20-2018, 01:00 PM)Kingtheropod Wrote: Wait a minute, so are the animals below 5 years old going to be excluded in this new table?

I understand that animals below 5 years old are not quite full size, but they are almost full grown (We're talking 95% full grown). This could cause a lot of figures to be excluded.

When there is good material about animals, it is easy to calculate different kind of figures to different needs. I mean for instance like Rishi say, that tigers 4-12 years can be expected to be able to hold a territory. Then again if someone wants to know what is situation with prime animals, there is no problem to make calculation for that. Most important thing is, after all, that there is enough good information making it possible.

Kingtheropod · 12-21-2018, 01:33 AM

(12-20-2018, 02:10 PM)Panther Wrote:
(12-20-2018, 12:03 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Actually, the average for the 12 males over 5 years old in scientific records average 222.3 kg (range 185 - 261 kg), excluding stomach content.

Are these all males are above 5. Because, I don't believe a five year old to be fully grown, because that is the age when they reach sexual maturity.

Actually, according to 'The Indian Forester' - Volume 107 - Page 533

Tigers have been reported sexual maturity as early as 2 years 9 months and 9 days. Now I'm not say that this should be considered full grown, because you also need to keep in mind humans are also sexually mature by age 13 yo, but we don't count them as adults till 18 yo. That is why I proposed 3-4 years as "adult"

*This image is copyright of its original author

I think more research is needed in this subject, because even though tigers continue gaining weight until Prime age (6-7 years). We don't fully know if they are still growing in bone structure until 7 yo or if they are simply gaining muscle mass (I'm inclined to believe the latter).

Panther · 12-21-2018, 05:56 AM

(12-21-2018, 01:33 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote: Actually, according to 'The Indian Forester' - Volume 107 - Page 533

Tigers have been reported sexual maturity as early as 2 years 9 months. Now I'm not say that this should be considered full grown, because you also need to keep in mind humans are also sexually mature by age 13 yo, but we don't count them as adults till 18 yo. That is why I proposed 3-4 years as "adult"

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

I think more research is needed in this subject, because even though tigers continue gaining weight until Prime age (6-7 years). We don't fully know if they are still growing in bone structure until 7 yo or if they are simply gaining muscle mass (I'm inclined to believe the latter)

I don't know how much accurate is that, but according to Mazak Bengal tiger males reach sexual maturity at age 4-5 years.
"Bengal Tiger, sexual maturity is attained at three to four
years in females, and four to five year in males (Mazak,
1965, 1979)."
Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...sWJT9pR1Zh

If this is the case, I don't think a 5 year old male to be fully grown. Because it just reaches sexual maturity. Which is why I'm asking 6-7 year old males for average! They should reach their full size at the period, I guess...

Shadow · 12-21-2018, 01:23 PM

(12-21-2018, 05:56 AM)Panther Wrote:
(12-21-2018, 01:33 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote: Actually, according to 'The Indian Forester' - Volume 107 - Page 533

Tigers have been reported sexual maturity as early as 2 years 9 months. Now I'm not say that this should be considered full grown, because you also need to keep in mind humans are also sexually mature by age 13 yo, but we don't count them as adults till 18 yo. That is why I proposed 3-4 years as "adult"

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

I think more research is needed in this subject, because even though tigers continue gaining weight until Prime age (6-7 years). We don't fully know if they are still growing in bone structure until 7 yo or if they are simply gaining muscle mass (I'm inclined to believe the latter)

I don't know how much accurate is that, but according to Mazak Bengal tiger males reach sexual maturity at age 4-5 years.
"Bengal Tiger, sexual maturity is attained at three to four
years in females, and four to five year in males (Mazak,
1965, 1979)."
Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...sWJT9pR1Zh

If this is the case, I don't think a 5 year old male to be fully grown. Because it just reaches sexual maturity. Which is why I'm asking 6-7 year old males for average! They should reach their full size at the period, I guess...

Here is important to remember, that what is usual and what is exceptional, what comes to sexual maturity. If that mentioned 2 years 9 months was a female tiger, there is no real fundamental contradiction compared to information from Mazak.

Panther · 12-21-2018, 07:17 PM

(12-21-2018, 01:23 PM)Shadow Wrote: Here is important to remember, that what is usual and what is exceptional, what comes to sexual maturity. If that mentioned 2 years 9 months was a female tiger, there is no real fundamental contradiction compared to information from Mazak.

The information provided by kingtheropod doesn't mentioned anywhere as "female".
Also according to V Mazak, females reach sexual maturity at 3-4 years, which has a considerable gap as compared to 2 year 9 months...

Shadow · 12-21-2018, 08:06 PM

(12-21-2018, 07:17 PM)Panther Wrote:
(12-21-2018, 01:23 PM)Shadow Wrote: Here is important to remember, that what is usual and what is exceptional, what comes to sexual maturity. If that mentioned 2 years 9 months was a female tiger, there is no real fundamental contradiction compared to information from Mazak.

The information provided by kingtheropod doesn't mentioned anywhere as "female".
Also according to V Mazak, females reach sexual maturity at 3-4 years, which has a considerable gap as compared to 2 year 9 months...

Yes I noticed and that is the reason for the word "if" in my posting. And 2 years 9 months is almost 3 years old with only 3 months gap. Not impossible at all, that some individual would be a little bit earlier sexually mature. These exceptions occur in every species. That is why we have averages, usual ranges and then outside usual ranges exceptional individuals. So female tigers according to Mazak usually reach sexual maturity at 3-4 years. That can´t be read, that earlier or later is impossible. Nature doesn´t work like that.

So logical conclusion is, that if some tiger has reached sexual maturity in age 2 years 9 months, it is a female, because then there is nothing too extraordinary. If that would be told to be a male, that would raise a lot of questions.

Panther · 12-21-2018, 10:54 PM

(12-21-2018, 08:06 PM)Shadow Wrote: Yes I noticed and that is the reason for the word "if" in my posting. And 2 years 9 months is almost 3 years old with only 3 months gap. Not impossible at all, that some individual would be a little bit earlier sexually mature. These exceptions occur in every species. That is why we have averages, usual ranges and then outside usual ranges exceptional individuals. So female tigers according to Mazak usually reach sexual maturity at 3-4 years. That can´t be read, that earlier or later is impossible. Nature doesn´t work like that.

So logical conclusion is, that if some tiger has reached sexual maturity in age 2 years 9 months, it is a female, because then there is nothing too extraordinary. If that would be told to be a male, that would raise a lot of questions.

Of course it's a female, if we think logically. Because that age of reaching sexual maturity is closer to female tigers than males. But there's still almost 9 months gap between 2 year 9 months and to average 3.5 years(3 year 6 months).

What I'm telling is that's not a average of tigers reaching sexual maturity, but just a individual as you said!

Kingtheropod · 12-21-2018, 11:50 PM

Here is another example, a male tiger achieved sexual maturity at 3 years 7 months

*This image is copyright of its original author

Shadow · 12-22-2018, 01:32 AM

(12-21-2018, 10:54 PM)Panther Wrote:
(12-21-2018, 08:06 PM)Shadow Wrote: Yes I noticed and that is the reason for the word "if" in my posting. And 2 years 9 months is almost 3 years old with only 3 months gap. Not impossible at all, that some individual would be a little bit earlier sexually mature. These exceptions occur in every species. That is why we have averages, usual ranges and then outside usual ranges exceptional individuals. So female tigers according to Mazak usually reach sexual maturity at 3-4 years. That can´t be read, that earlier or later is impossible. Nature doesn´t work like that.

So logical conclusion is, that if some tiger has reached sexual maturity in age 2 years 9 months, it is a female, because then there is nothing too extraordinary. If that would be told to be a male, that would raise a lot of questions.

Of course it's a female, if we think logically. Because that age of reaching sexual maturity is closer to female tigers than males. But there's still almost 9 months gap between 2 year 9 months and to average 3.5 years(3 year 6 months).

What I'm telling is that's not a average of tigers reaching sexual maturity, but just a individual as you said!

You have interesting to way to look at that gap. Anyway I am just saying, that I don´t see here any real reason to doubt information from Mazak. There should be many cases of tigers clearly under 3 years old, not only one. That article seemed to be about one tiger being sexually mature a little bit sooner, that usual. When thinking, that article was from 1981 and current information still gives 3-4 years old, I guess, that it can be considered quite ok.

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?