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.
The first scan you showed as Smuts document is a second hand source that does explain very little about the topic (and it has a typing mistake as well). I suggest you to read the original document. However the final and much more detailed paper from Smuts is the one from which the second scan belongs to. If you read both papers you should be able to clear understand that the one presenting the whole bunch of work from Smuts is the second one (published by him and others in 1980 – Comparative Growth of Wild Male and Female Lions Panthera leo). If you will not understand that and still refer to the previous one, well … Data from both papers have been known in AVA Forum for over a decade and please allow me to highlight that I believe it was just me who first detailed in (AVA) forum back in 2004 Smuts et al. data from their 1980 paper as well as details from other either sufficiently reliable or scientific sources like Meinertzhagen (1938), Bertram & King (1976), Orford et al. (1988), Burton (1918), Cooch Behar (1908), Brander (1931), Hewett (1938), Sunquist (1981), Smith et al. (1983), Karanth (1993), Siberian Tiger Project and other recent scientific Russian sources, etc. That rather detailed info I released was part of what at that time became the first reference megapost on lion and tiger body size for all relevant members of that forum I am sure soe of this board heard of (Apollyon, Bigbonns, erikde, Perrault, P Pardus, Vick and many other good guys) regardless of their bias if present. Over the years after I had to soon disappear my old friends and other knowledgeable people kept going releasing more and more info and data from quality or sufficiently reliable sources as well as interesting considerations on the matter. I believe that was in all respect the foundation of the further great efforts over the last few years made by other high quality posters like Peter, just to name one, to also cover different kind of topics.
I remind that back in the old days of just 10-12 years ago, the majority of people still believed at 240-250 kg as an average Amur or Indian male tiger as well as that an average African male lion was not too far off from those figures. Furthermore many believed both species, particularly the Amur but also the Indian tiger, would regularly peak at 280-300 kg and freak individuals even significantly more. Dreams of kids … I also had them when I was a kid imaging 4 meters tiger before begin to wander how on earth that could have been true. Unbelievable that some crap info like that has still been published in respected compendiums up to a dozen years or so.
I am totally confident this board knows all the data about Smuts et al. (1980) paper as well as the info it contains. That paper is still one of the very best single publication on big cats morphology ever published to date, although very few raw data on single individuals are detailed in it which is a pity (it took me quite some effort to get part of those raw data, unfortunately only a very much minority of the whole bunch). However the statistics summaries say a lot.
I suggest you to carefully read that paper and do not stop to the pure numbers to fully understand it.
BTW
1)
I did mine consideration, you can make yours. Arguable to say what is a better average and what it is not. Actual data are actual data and that’s fine. Manipulating data could be risky and that’s fine. However it is up to the brained individual to interpret data. I remind you that if you do not understand things properly it is likely you will never go anywhere in life. Fine … two male tigers (M105 and M026) bottomed the scale. So the correct actual average for those 7 or 8 well fed adult males could have been 240-250 kg. If this makes you happier I am happy to make you happier.
I would guess that for you the above range is likely a more correct average then the averages of 187,5 kg and 124,2 kg obtained by Smuts et al. (1980) from the very large sample of 41 male lion and 95 female lion individuals 4 years old and older out of a sample of 158 males and 184 females of all ages and all randomly collected during 1974-1978 in the 20000 Km2 Kruger park where anything can happen (and thus including small size individuals, large ones, those in poor conditions, sick, injured, healthy, very healthy, some found dead, some shot, territorial, nomadic, past-prime, very old, breeding, fasting, gorging, etc.) weighed by him and including the subtraction from the scale weight of the estimated or the actual stomach contents (weighed in case of dead animals) for each individual. The major focus of the paper was the growth in wild lions. If he would have not subtracted the estimated or actual stomach contents from the scale weights his growth curves would have been screwed up to some extent (I am aware of many more details on that). So many of his scale weights had to be manipulated.
Mine manipulation on Chitawan tiger weights was a speculation or an educated estimate if you want and not at all comparable to the properly done data manipulation that Smuts did of course (properly done because he could estimate or measure the stomach contents for each individual case by case). In any case I prefer to stick to my consideration as far as Chitawan tiger weights from Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983) is concerned rather then doing nothing at all. That was a clear case of baited animals and 12/18 hours of uninterrupted feeding.
Any morphometrics dataset of tiger sample in scientific studies in India and published either in peer-reviewed publications or released in the web or privately is from very far to extremely far to have the sounded statistics foundation of Smuts lion sample of Kruger NP. The only one with some statistical meaning but the stomach contents issue (an evident issue given the capturing technique) it is the one from Chitawan. However it is still very far from being comparable to the size and criteria followed by Smuts during all those years he worked in the Kruger NP. The truth is that in India it is impossible to collect a sample of Smuts quality because the tiger populations are not contiguous and a 20000 km2 park including nearly 3000 animals do not exist.
In the Russian Far East the situation in some respect is significantly better then in India as far as sounded statistical properties of the sample are concerned (and the stomach contents issue is not a major limitation if not accounted for like it was the case).
2)
It does not seem to me I wrote that the heaviest female tiger weighed in Chitawan was the heaviest female tiger ever weighed by scientists. I just wrote she was the heaviest among those tracked from Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983).
tigerluver
I have studied and investigated allometric scaling in animals quite in depth over the course of many years. The issue you are raising is much more complex then reducing it to a simple lack of logarithmic scaling for non linear bi-variate relationships.
It is interesting to have a look at the morphological data of the Sauraha male 105 in relationships to his extreme body mass able to bottom a 600 lb scale although after a whole night of feeding (please forget this for the moment, it is just a reminder).
The very much known body data of Sauraha male are
Head-and-body length measured following the curves along the back (and not in straight line as somebody believe) 1970 mm
Tail length 1030 mm
Total length 3100 mm
Chest girth 1400 mm
Neck girth 800 mm
Upper canine crown height from the gum line 65 mm
Lower canine crown height from the gum line 55 mm
On the basis of the length measured along the curves of the back (undisputable official info) I estimate head-and-body length in straight line of Sauraha male 105 most likely around 1830 mm.
Statistics from sufficiently reliable historical data concedes realistic and tangible, although rather low, probabilities that an Indian tiger male with 1400 mm of chest girth and 800 mm of neck girth would weigh in the region of 270 kg (such a chest girth would however much more likely match an animal weighing in the range 225-240 kg). At the same time statistics from sufficiently reliable historical data suggests that it is a significant harder proposition that an individual measuring 1970 mm in head-and-body length along the curves (estimable at 1830 mm in straight line even if you like) would weigh around 270 kg. I mean, it is possible, but the probabilities are really very low. I recall a few relatively short and much stocky male tigers from sufficiently reliable historical records. Among those individuals I remind for instance a male as long as 1854 mm in straight line with a chest girth of 1308 mm bottoming a scale of 232,7 kg (estimated weighing ca. 238-240 kg by applying a lifting pressure on the scale of 6-8 kg) and another male as long as 1930 mm in straight line with a chest girth of 1422 mm bottoming a scale of 255,4 kg (estimated weighing ca. 265 kg by applying a lifting pressure on the scale of 9-13+ kg). According to my statistics applied to sufficiently reliable historical data an Indian adult male tiger as long as 1970 mm along the curves without the tail (or 1830 mm in straight line) of average build would likely weigh in the range 180 -205 kg.
Should Sauraha male 105 morphometrics data and those from Dumbar Brander relative to his massive, fat and biggest tiger shot be both all correct and the former having little or no stomach contents, the latter with his 2210 mm straight length without tail and 1499 mm chest girth should have been for sure a heavy weight fat champion significantly heavier then the 270 kg weight Brander suggested for him (he was a tiger 280 mm longer then the Sauraha male 105 and with ca. 100 mm longer chest girth).
The above consideration might increase speculation that the Sauraha male was weighed with relevant amount of food in the stomach and guts.
However, I would conclude stating that there are also quite relevant probabilities that the Sauraha male was likely not accurately measured for a number of reasons. He may have not been stretched enough while being measured and/or the measurement was faulty somewhere reading pessimistically like due for instance to not pressing the tape sufficiently hard on the body to follow the contour and/or the animal was badly positioned to appreciate its full size for measurement (although it is easier the other way around while measuring along the curves) and/or the tail measured separately and subtracted from the total length was considered longer then it actually was.
If all my speculative hypotheses were correct the animal was actually significantly larger then how it appears from the official data perhaps by even 100-150 mm or more. At the end it would seem the length measurements was a straight line measurements. Unfortunately it was not.
02-06-2015, 11:00 PM( This post was last modified: 02-06-2015, 11:37 PM by tigerluver )
One, the 270 kg was not via baiting, he was tracked. Two, where does your over curves assumption come from? With all due respect, one cannot say their data and their sources are infallible, and then not mention where the info was collected from. In other words, transparency is needed. Next, we have conflicting data, as males around Sauraha's length have hovered in the 270-320 kg range. What are your sources that you consider reliable? From your last estimate of 205 kg, you're implying the specimen ate 32%-50% of its body weight before weighing in a short period of time at his last weighing. That's essentially impossible. Of course, if you're using Amur data for your estimations your numbers make more sense. Finally, Dinerstein published of another 270+ kg male, and there were two more males at the turn of the century attaining that size as well. Would you say professionals were wrong 4 times in a row instead of Nepal actually harboring males of that size? These are professionals who perfected their craft, critique has its place everywhere but one cannot critique methods to adjust them to their assumptions.
02-06-2015, 11:13 PM( This post was last modified: 02-06-2015, 11:14 PM by Pckts )
For the World Record lion and tiger weights, both were not weighed on scales calibrated for big cats. One was on a train scale and the other a rice scale (im not positive on the exact type of scales used) I just know neither were weighed on big cat scales.
"I did mine consideration, you can make yours. Arguable to say what is a better average and what it is not. Actual data are actual data and that’s fine. Manipulating data could be risky and that’s fine. However it is up to the brained individual to interpret data. I remind you that if you do not understand things properly it is likely you will never go anywhere in life. Fine … two male tigers (M105 and M026) bottomed the scale. So the correct actual average for those 7 or 8 well fed adult males could have been 240-250 kg. If this makes you happier I am happy to make you happier."
While I am sure you have been a member of the AVA boards for longer than I, I have been involved there for some time. I like to think I have seen as many weights of either animal that are available to the public.
That being said, I still have many questions in regards to trying and adjust based on estimated stomach content, the science is not air tight, and much of the "results'' are based off of visual estimations. No real tests have been done. i.e. weighing numerous animals before baiting then after while estimating the time of consumption between weighing. So I feel that using a bulk # is not a fair case since who knows how much each animal will eat in a 12hr "uninterrupted" setting. It would completely depend on the individuals "dinning manners" to put frankly. Some cats will gorge quickly others will take their time others may be saving it for their cubs and/or female etc.
So that being said, the correct average for Madla or others that bottomed out the scale are impossible to determine. But to remove "gorged" numbers from their bare minimum weight is not correct IMO. Even the weighing process is questionable as when you view these animals being loaded into the scales on the Pulley system you usually see a leg or forelimb hanging out. While some of the weight will be drawn towards the center, not all of it. Which is another reason why I think subtracting a bottomed out scale weight is probably incorrect.
Side note, I found this table interesting for comparing Zoo to Wild Lions from Smuts
*This image is copyright of its original author
Do you consider this table reliable?
*This image is copyright of its original author
and I also found this excerpt interesting
*This image is copyright of its original author
How do they categorize "fat" compared to being "gorged"
You cannot be sure that the scale weight in excess of 270 kg of the individual you are referring (the Sauraha male M105 or M026) bottomed the scale even in a second capture and therefore when perhaps (perhaps) he was not baited as radio-tracked. The majority of recaptures occurred again with the use of baits. The Sauraha male was captured and measured at least three times. In the first two times he bottomed a scale of 500 lb (Sunquist) and apparently grew in length as did M102. Then, according to Dinerstein (2003) he bottomed a 600 lb scale while being weighed by Smith (Sunquist private info). I have also seen circulating figure of 258,2 kg as a weight of M105 provided privately by Sunquist as well as statement he initially estimated the weight based on morphological measurements.
You are right in pointing out that a claim with such strong implications like mine that the Sauraha male M105 was measured at 1970 mm in head-and-body length along the body curves should be supported by the related reference / communication (by the way, this figure refers to the undetailed 3100 mm longest measurement of Sunquist, 1981). Unfortunately I am not a good poster and I rely on people trusting me, better say assume / hope people trusting me. I tend to release info with little source details because my info has the main purpose to at least put doubts in the brained minds if they do not know that info (an info either official or private that could even be wrong or not totally correct in some cases because the autho was faulty). When I cannot be 100% sure of something I hope it is evident from how and what I write about the info, consideration, analysis study, etc. Sometimes not releasing details like the source adds a bit of spicy in the discussion which can be funny if the discussion does not degenerate. Be patient and the source will come out.
In the meantime please allow me to give you a friendly advice. It is really a friendly advice. Always read carefully things in general. When you assert “From your last estimate of 205 kg, you're implying the specimen ate 32%-50% of its body weight before weighing in a short period of time at his last weighing. That's essentially impossible.”
You misunderstood or perhaps I was not too clear. I wrote “According to my statistics applied to sufficiently reliable historical data an Indian adult male tiger as long as 1970 mm along the curves without the tail (or 1830 mm in straight line) of average build would likely weigh in the range 180-205 kg.”
I did not write that 180-205 kg was a likely weight estimate of the Sauaraha male. I meant that based on statistics applied to sufficiently reliable and accurate historical data if you could take a large enough number of adult male Indian tigers all as long in head-and-body length as the Sauraha male (1970 mm along the curves pretty much equivalent to 1830 mm in straight line), weigh all of them and take the average of those figures, choose a probabilistic range of 25 kg across the most likely single figure average, this average would most likely fall in the range 180-205 kg then in any other sensible 25 kg interval above or below that range (i.e. intervals 130-155, 155-180, 205-230, 230-255, 255-280, 280-305). If I would have to bet a 5 kg range I would choose 190-195 kg.
Finally again you misunderstood. I never put in doubts those two males bottomed a scale of 600 lb (272 kg). As no sort of mistakes have been admitted to have been done by the authors, this is undisputable official info. Therefore if the measurements were correctly taken (scale zeroed if necessary, scales checked for accuracy, weight operation properly executed, etc.) the body mass of those animals in the conditions they have been captured (more then likely baited) and weighed was at least 272 kg minus the tools necessary to lift the animal (if the scale could not be zeroed after having rigged the equipment) or at least 272 kg if the scales were zeroed and still able to read 600 lb. Period. Then we can speculate on the stomach contents, be surprised by the short size of the Sauraha male and the not so huge chest and neck girths I would have instead expected in relationship to his very high weight and relatively short size so on.
Also note that my discussion started with speculating on differentiating the possible statistically estimable stomach contents based on Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983) info for the adult males and females of Smith et al. (1983) sample instead of using the fixed figure of 14,0 kg for both adult males and females as GuateGojira did in his table. I focused on the average adult male and female weight given at 235 kg and 140 kg, and the maximum male weight given at 261 kg (evidently not the Sauraha male) and the maximum female weight given at 164 kg (more then likely the one measured for F101 when she was close to give birth).
I never talked of Chitawan tigers all gorged (meaning full belly and possibly eating 15-20 % of their empty stomach weight) when weighed. Nor I wrote Chitawan adult male tiger cannot reach 270 kg in body mass. I mentioned M105 and M026. these are the two 270+ kg males mentioned by Dinerstein (2003). Then there is the 261 kg male by Smith et al. (1983). There have been speculations this latter figure is also an estimate of either M105 or M026 weight or that it was a scale weight of M026 weighed at another recapture. I believe it is an actual weight of another male (not M105 or M026).
I am not aware of any more males weighed in Chitawan in the region of 270 kg either in the 70s-80s, either later.
In my first two posts on this thread I did not mention the Sauraha male and I never alleged he was at full stomach when weighed (although it can be suggested he likely had at least “some” food in the stomach from a picture of him narcotized – how much? Nobody really knows). I talked about the Sauaraha male in relationship to his scale weight exceeding 270 kg in the condition he was weighed (baited), his head and body length and chest girth.
Finally
“Next, we have conflicting data, as males around Sauraha's length have hovered in the 270-320 kg range.”
I am sorry but I am not aware of any wild tiger in the 270-320 kg range with head-and-body length around (let’ s say no more then 100 mm longer) the Sauraha male (1970 mm along the curves pretty much equivalent to 1830 mm in straight line), I have already recalled two shorter then or just above average size but very stocky individuals among sufficiently reliable historical records. Among others I have an about average size male measured at 2007 mm along the curves without tail (I best estimate him 1860-1865 mm in straight line) scaling 249,5 kg and therefore very stocky unless really fully gorged with 30-40+ kg of meat (much unlikely in general, I do not consider this occurrence unless clearly suggested/specified).
Then there are the males weighed and measured by Karanth in Nagarahole NP. They were quite stocky animals but none any close to the range 270-320 kg you are talking (sic!).
I am rather curious to know the measurements of those animals.
I agree that a scale to weigh animals must be a scale suited for that aim for those particular animals. An it has to be accurate and the measurement has to be repeatable. And the operator must adopt the correct procedure.
I agree that if a scale has bottomed out anything else can only be an approximation, may be a close approximation like in the two examples I gave in a previous post.
If one would like to precisely account for the stomach contents he should kill the animal if alive (!), open the animal, take out the stomach contents and weigh the animal again all done with loosing no material and no fluids from him. If the scale does not bottom again, that is the actual weight at empty stomach of the dead animal.
Smuts weighed the stomach contents of dead lions and estimated the stomach contents weight of the live lions he also weighed and measured. His estimations came from belly size. This was subject to his interpretation and experience. I can guarantee you that Smuts had a vast field experience in zoology.
He may of course have underestimated stomach contents of some live lions and overestimated that of others.
His heaviest lion was a 5 years old animal scaling 225 kg. The animal was weighed dead. He open his stomach and found nothing inside. He was surprised by the amount of subcutaneous and intestinal fat as reported because significantly higher then normal. I can also tell you that Smuts heaviest female lion was a 5 years old animal with no stomach contents.
Smuts was also conservative in the weight statistics he provided from samples pulled or taken accounting individuals weighed by zoologists / game wardens in other region of Africa for comparison. For instance in East Africa he pulled lions from different sources apparently including those from Meinertzhagen (1938). Meinertzhagen (1938) was not a zoologist in the true sense of term, but his paper is a peer reviewed scientific publication.
In that sample a massive 185,5 kg female lion is reported. Smuts did not include that individual. Why? I believe because he included no freak individuals from any sample or individual weights of lions weighed in other parts of Africa by very respected sources he completely trusted perhaps as he was unable to weigh any freak lion over the many years working in Kruger NP and therefore a much unlikely occurrence in general if he realized he was unable to even just spot by sight at least one of them. Or much more likely because freak individuals can screw up statistics a lot particularly in small samples.
I am aware of over half a dozen wild female lions weighing in excess of 175 kg, one weight coming from a pregnant female. These figures appears reliable, two of them even appear in peer-reviewed scientific papers, others in quite respected scientific sources although one data reported is clearly very much unrealistic (a wild female lion well in excess of 200 kg) , others in hunting / game books. However I do not feel particularly comfortable with those weights and that one of 185,5 kg from Meinertzhagen (1938) is one of them.
I have always suspected that the individual was tagged in the sample as a female for a mistake: in the paper her data are shown as first female in the row just below the last male. Maybe there has been a typing mistake and she actually was a male. Bear in mind that the heaviest male in Meinertzhagen (1938) sample weighing only 191 kg is definitely very far from being as impressive as the heaviest female. The two things are not related, but it is definitely interesting to note that computing the standard range over an hypothetical sample of 1000 individuals and its min and max 1% probability, this range would result in ca. 79 kg for males and ca, 177 kg for females with upper 1% probability equal to ca. 146 kg for males and ca. 588 kg for females, While these values for the male sample makes sense for the female sample are totally unrealistic and the standard range should instead lie for the females below the 1% probability lower limit (ca. 89 kg for females and ca. 50 kg for males).
02-07-2015, 07:13 AM( This post was last modified: 02-07-2015, 07:14 AM by tigerluver )
There is no male of 1830 mm between pegs (the length you believe Sauraha truly is) weighing 270-320 kg, so there's one confusion. Albeit, hunting records here on this board have males of lengths around 305-310 cm weighing within that range. The other two males are discussed in the "edge" thread, with one of them being a man-eater disposed of in the 90's. Our debate on Sauraha can't find certain resolution, as Sunquist has told me measurements were between pegs and you seem to have reason to believe otherwise. Points acknowledged and our thoughts are what they are.
Karanth has been a student of Sunquist during the 1980s. He learnt a lot of things from him. He seems to have measured his tigers along the curves to be consistent to the methodology used in Chitawan by his teacher a decade before his PhD.
If that was actually the case as it seems, the fact of course raises the question about the length of his tigers appearing appreciably shorter in head-and-body length then the average Indian tiger from historical reliable records but with unusually long tails as the Chitawan tigers, particularly considering the heavy weights he recorded and the fact that several tigers from Nilgiris in south India appear from historical records rather stocky animals on average. The very heavy female from Karanth in particular would appear really short for her high recorded weight.
Again the point I highlighted in a previous post for the Sauraha make M105 could also apply to Karanth’s Nagarahole tigers.
“However, I would conclude stating that there are also quite relevant probabilities that the Sauraha male was likely not accurately measured for a number of reasons. He may have not been stretched enough while being measured and/or the measurement was faulty somewhere reading pessimistically like due for instance to not pressing the tape sufficiently hard on the body to follow the contour and/or the animal was badly positioned to appreciate its full size for measurement (although it is easier the other way around while measuring along the curves) and/or the tail measured separately and subtracted from the total length was considered longer then it actually was.”
In my opinion the amount of body stretching applied and the exact definition of the tail compared to the historical records can really play big roles in the issue.
02-07-2015, 07:46 AM( This post was last modified: 02-07-2015, 07:46 AM by tigerluver )
(02-07-2015, 07:14 AM)WaveRiders Wrote:
Karanth has been a student of Sunquist during the 1980s. He learnt a lot of things from him. He seems to have measured his tigers along the curves to be consistent to the methodology used in Chitawan by his teacher a decade before his PhD.
Sunquist's involvement in the tiger project was in the 80s is when all the Nepal measurements were taken, whereby as I've already stated, he asserts measurements were between pegs, so one would assume Karanth would have used that method if he was following his mentor.
As you've stated on the Nagarhole tigers, over curves would make them much too stocky, even moreso than Hasinger's tiger if that mass was true, not feasible, Smilodon is long gone now. I don't necessarily agree with scientists making such stretching errors, as images on Sauraha and two of Nagarhole males show the bodies stretched out properly.
The first scan you showed as Smuts document is a second hand source that does explain very little about the topic (and it has a typing mistake as well). I suggest you to read the original document. However the final and much more detailed paper from Smuts is the one from which the second scan belongs to. If you read both papers you should be able to clear understand that the one presenting the whole bunch of work from Smuts is the second one (published by him and others in 1980 – Comparative Growth of Wild Male and Female Lions Panthera leo). If you will not understand that and still refer to the previous one, well … Data from both papers have been known in AVA Forum for over a decade and please allow me to highlight that I believe it was just me who first detailed in (AVA) forum back in 2004 Smuts et al. data from their 1980 paper as well as details from other either sufficiently reliable or scientific sources like Meinertzhagen (1938), Bertram & King (1976), Orford et al. (1988), Burton (1918), Cooch Behar (1908), Brander (1931), Hewett (1938), Sunquist (1981), Smith et al. (1983), Karanth (1993), Siberian Tiger Project and other recent scientific Russian sources, etc. That rather detailed info I released was part of what at that time became the first reference megapost on lion and tiger body size for all relevant members of that forum I am sure soe of this board heard of (Apollyon, Bigbonns, erikde, Perrault, P Pardus, Vick and many other good guys) regardless of their bias if present. Over the years after I had to soon disappear my old friends and other knowledgeable people kept going releasing more and more info and data from quality or sufficiently reliable sources as well as interesting considerations on the matter. I believe that was in all respect the foundation of the further great efforts over the last few years made by other high quality posters like Peter, just to name one, to also cover different kind of topics.
I remind that back in the old days of just 10-12 years ago, the majority of people still believed at 240-250 kg as an average Amur or Indian male tiger as well as that an average African male lion was not too far off from those figures. Furthermore many believed both species, particularly the Amur but also the Indian tiger, would regularly peak at 280-300 kg and freak individuals even significantly more. Dreams of kids … I also had them when I was a kid imaging 4 meters tiger before begin to wander how on earth that could have been true. Unbelievable that some crap info like that has still been published in respected compendiums up to a dozen years or so.
I am totally confident this board knows all the data about Smuts et al. (1980) paper as well as the info it contains. That paper is still one of the very best single publication on big cats morphology ever published to date, although very few raw data on single individuals are detailed in it which is a pity (it took me quite some effort to get part of those raw data, unfortunately only a very much minority of the whole bunch). However the statistics summaries say a lot.
I suggest you to carefully read that paper and do not stop to the pure numbers to fully understand it.
BTW
1)
I did mine consideration, you can make yours. Arguable to say what is a better average and what it is not. Actual data are actual data and that’s fine. Manipulating data could be risky and that’s fine. However it is up to the brained individual to interpret data. I remind you that if you do not understand things properly it is likely you will never go anywhere in life. Fine … two male tigers (M105 and M026) bottomed the scale. So the correct actual average for those 7 or 8 well fed adult males could have been 240-250 kg. If this makes you happier I am happy to make you happier.
I would guess that for you the above range is likely a more correct average then the averages of 187,5 kg and 124,2 kg obtained by Smuts et al. (1980) from the very large sample of 41 male lion and 95 female lion individuals 4 years old and older out of a sample of 158 males and 184 females of all ages and all randomly collected during 1974-1978 in the 20000 Km2 Kruger park where anything can happen (and thus including small size individuals, large ones, those in poor conditions, sick, injured, healthy, very healthy, some found dead, some shot, territorial, nomadic, past-prime, very old, breeding, fasting, gorging, etc.) weighed by him and including the subtraction from the scale weight of the estimated or the actual stomach contents (weighed in case of dead animals) for each individual. The major focus of the paper was the growth in wild lions. If he would have not subtracted the estimated or actual stomach contents from the scale weights his growth curves would have been screwed up to some extent (I am aware of many more details on that). So many of his scale weights had to be manipulated.
Mine manipulation on Chitawan tiger weights was a speculation or an educated estimate if you want and not at all comparable to the properly done data manipulation that Smuts did of course (properly done because he could estimate or measure the stomach contents for each individual case by case). In any case I prefer to stick to my consideration as far as Chitawan tiger weights from Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983) is concerned rather then doing nothing at all. That was a clear case of baited animals and 12/18 hours of uninterrupted feeding.
Any morphometrics dataset of tiger sample in scientific studies in India and published either in peer-reviewed publications or released in the web or privately is from very far to extremely far to have the sounded statistics foundation of Smuts lion sample of Kruger NP. The only one with some statistical meaning but the stomach contents issue (an evident issue given the capturing technique) it is the one from Chitawan. However it is still very far from being comparable to the size and criteria followed by Smuts during all those years he worked in the Kruger NP. The truth is that in India it is impossible to collect a sample of Smuts quality because the tiger populations are not contiguous and a 20000 km2 park including nearly 3000 animals do not exist.
In the Russian Far East the situation in some respect is significantly better then in India as far as sounded statistical properties of the sample are concerned (and the stomach contents issue is not a major limitation if not accounted for like it was the case).
2)
It does not seem to me I wrote that the heaviest female tiger weighed in Chitawan was the heaviest female tiger ever weighed by scientists. I just wrote she was the heaviest among those tracked from Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983).
tigerluver
I have studied and investigated allometric scaling in animals quite in depth over the course of many years. The issue you are raising is much more complex then reducing it to a simple lack of logarithmic scaling for non linear bi-variate relationships.
It is interesting to have a look at the morphological data of the Sauraha male 105 in relationships to his extreme body mass able to bottom a 600 lb scale although after a whole night of feeding (please forget this for the moment, it is just a reminder).
The very much known body data of Sauraha male are
Head-and-body length measured following the curves along the back (and not in straight line as somebody believe) 1970 mm
Tail length 1030 mm
Total length 3100 mm
Chest girth 1400 mm
Neck girth 800 mm
Upper canine crown height from the gum line 65 mm
Lower canine crown height from the gum line 55 mm
On the basis of the length measured along the curves of the back (undisputable official info) I estimate head-and-body length in straight line of Sauraha male 105 most likely around 1830 mm.
Statistics from sufficiently reliable historical data concedes realistic and tangible, although rather low, probabilities that an Indian tiger male with 1400 mm of chest girth and 800 mm of neck girth would weigh in the region of 270 kg (such a chest girth would however much more likely match an animal weighing in the range 225-240 kg). At the same time statistics from sufficiently reliable historical data suggests that it is a significant harder proposition that an individual measuring 1970 mm in head-and-body length along the curves (estimable at 1830 mm in straight line even if you like) would weigh around 270 kg. I mean, it is possible, but the probabilities are really very low. I recall a few relatively short and much stocky male tigers from sufficiently reliable historical records. Among those individuals I remind for instance a male as long as 1854 mm in straight line with a chest girth of 1308 mm bottoming a scale of 232,7 kg (estimated weighing ca. 238-240 kg by applying a lifting pressure on the scale of 6-8 kg) and another male as long as 1930 mm in straight line with a chest girth of 1422 mm bottoming a scale of 255,4 kg (estimated weighing ca. 265 kg by applying a lifting pressure on the scale of 9-13+ kg). According to my statistics applied to sufficiently reliable historical data an Indian adult male tiger as long as 1970 mm along the curves without the tail (or 1830 mm in straight line) of average build would likely weigh in the range 180 -205 kg.
Should Sauraha male 105 morphometrics data and those from Dumbar Brander relative to his massive, fat and biggest tiger shot be both all correct and the former having little or no stomach contents, the latter with his 2210 mm straight length without tail and 1499 mm chest girth should have been for sure a heavy weight fat champion significantly heavier then the 270 kg weight Brander suggested for him (he was a tiger 280 mm longer then the Sauraha male 105 and with ca. 100 mm longer chest girth).
The above consideration might increase speculation that the Sauraha male was weighed with relevant amount of food in the stomach and guts.
However, I would conclude stating that there are also quite relevant probabilities that the Sauraha male was likely not accurately measured for a number of reasons. He may have not been stretched enough while being measured and/or the measurement was faulty somewhere reading pessimistically like due for instance to not pressing the tape sufficiently hard on the body to follow the contour and/or the animal was badly positioned to appreciate its full size for measurement (although it is easier the other way around while measuring along the curves) and/or the tail measured separately and subtracted from the total length was considered longer then it actually was.
If all my speculative hypotheses were correct the animal was actually significantly larger then how it appears from the official data perhaps by even 100-150 mm or more. At the end it would seem the length measurements was a straight line measurements. Unfortunately it was not.
WaveRiders
I have read Jim corbett books. He has descriebed about a tiger he killed " Bachelor of Powalgarh" in 1930-40. He measured Tiger's length ; 10 feet 9" = 3270 cms
02-08-2015, 08:58 AM( This post was last modified: 02-08-2015, 09:00 AM by GuateGojira )
Waveriders,
You are deeply incorrect. Dr Sunquist measured its tigers in straight line, not along the curves like the old hunters done. Check this out:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Confirmed, TWICE, to different posters, by Dr Sunquist himself.
Dr Karanth description of tigers "along curves" is incorrect, he misinterpreted the words, just because he want to avoid any comparison with the old "between pegs" method, that according with him was unreliable, but also it was unreliable the method "Over curves".
At the end, the tigers of Nepal and Nagarahole were measured in straight line, to avoid the curves of the body.
On the weight issue, you are speculating too much now. The basic premise that some stomach content most be included in any animal is correct, but to say that the Sauraha male weighed only 210 kg or less is rubbish. That male weighed over 272 kg and don't ate more than 19 kg in any meal. Other thing, the kills were surely not killed just immediately after they were left in the field, which was in the afternoon and evening, which means that the period between the kill of the bait and the capture was less than 10 hours (they were revisited before the 6:00 am), which means that the tigers, all of them, had not enough time to eat as much as 15 kg, if they were lucky. The assumption that the tigers in Nepal were "gorged" is fully incorrect, if you read the document of Sunquist (1981) he clearly explained that all the tigers were disturbed at kills and after they were captured, they returned to eat more, which also means that they have not full they bellies. Finally, Dr Sunquist, also in an email, explained that NO tiger was gorged, check this out:
*This image is copyright of its original author
So, this destroy any incorrect idea of Nepaleses tigers with 30 kg in they bellies, which is simply against all the evidence. Nepalese tigers eat between 14-19 kg in 24 hours when they are undisturbed, and less in disturbed baits (the record of 35 kg for a male seems dubious, as in the original source, it looks more like a random event, not a measured data). A deep read of documents most be a rule before to make such wild guesses.
I was not aware that, "the period between the kill of the bait and the capture was less than 10 hours (they were revisited before the 6:00 am)." Therefore, say a tiger got to the bait immediately and ate during those 10 hrs, from the average intake reported of 14 kg/24 hr (disregarding portions of bait no actually eaten by the tiger), would have eaten 5.8 kg. Likely, most tigers did not reach the bait that early, and even if they did, 5.8 kg of food mass would not be the mass in stomach at weighing due to metabolism. All in all, from the average figure and the reported timings, the average tiger would only have 3 kg of stomach content from the bait as weighing.
The complex situation on food correction as presented in all this information is another reason why it may be superfluous in most cases. There was already metabolism and competition intricating the equation, and Guate has pointed out time as another factor. All these factors and yet there is a poor grasp of what these parameters were for each specimen, thus food content estimations would be just as poor.
02-08-2015, 09:52 AM( This post was last modified: 02-08-2015, 09:52 AM by GuateGojira )
In fact, in the book "Tiger Moon", in page 19, Fiona Sunquist said that before any capture (specially in Summer days), the elephants and the team were practically ready at the 3:00 am. This was because they must be close to the tiger and capture it in the very morning, long before the middle day, as the temperatures will be to high for a sedated tigers. Even in winter days, all captures were in the morning, which means that the tigers had relative little time to eat undisturbed.
Other thing that I would like to point again, the bait time according with Dr Dave Smith and colleges (1983): the baits were fixed in the late afternoon, which means it was between 5:00 to 6:00 pm, or even latter. Also, the baits, at the other day, were inspected 30 minutes BEFORE sunrise (surely before 5:00 or 6:00 am), which support the report of Fiona.
In this case, we can guess that the period that a tiger had to eat was about 12 hours, and as we can be very sure that the tigers didn't killed the baits just after the people left them, the period is even shorter. Like I said before, and based in Sunquist (1981) and personal communications, the baited tigers eat between 14 to 19 kg in 24 hours, when undisturbed, so in a disturbed bait-kill, with almost half that time, plus the testimony of Dr Sunquist that ANY baited tiger was gorged or even with its belly full, well, we can know that the stomach content of the "baited tigers", at the end of the day, was probably even less than the 14 kg suggest by Dr Sunquist.
To this, we most add that some of the stomach content will be absorbed by the body, increasing its body weight with protein and fat. This is logic, as a tiger that eat 14 kg don't defecate also 14 kg! [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
02-08-2015, 03:58 PM( This post was last modified: 02-08-2015, 04:17 PM by Apollo )
(02-08-2015, 09:26 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I was not aware that, "the period between the kill of the bait and the capture was less than 10 hours (they were revisited before the 6:00 am)." Therefore, say a tiger got to the bait immediately and ate during those 10 hrs, from the average intake reported of 14 kg/24 hr (disregarding portions of bait no actually eaten by the tiger), would have eaten 5.8 kg. Likely, most tigers did not reach the bait that early, and even if they did, 5.8 kg of food mass would not be the mass in stomach at weighing due to metabolism. All in all, from the average figure and the reported timings, the average tiger would only have 3 kg of stomach content from the bait as weighing.
The complex situation on food correction as presented in all this information is another reason why it may be superfluous in most cases. There was already metabolism and competition intricating the equation, and Guate has pointed out time as another factor. All these factors and yet there is a poor grasp of what these parameters were for each specimen, thus food content estimations would be just as poor.
Very good point.
As the tigers were said to eat 14 to 19 Kg in 24hrs undisturbed, then for 10hrs it comes down to 5.8 to 7.9 Kg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
As mentioned before the consumed mass wont be the same as the mass available in the stomach due to digestion and metabolism.
We know tigers have a higher metabolic rate compared to other bigcats, which results in more energy (calories) burnt.
Remember that very large percentage of meat is nothing but water (around 70% and above) which will be used and excreted out of the body much faster than say protiens and fat.
I may agree on the fact that the time a tiger would have had a kill at his disposition was likely more around 12 hours then the 12/18 hours I initially suggested.
However remember that the period of 24 hours of feeding refers basically entirely to the night only as tigers during the day leave the kill to come back in the following evening if they know there is more to eat from it.
Guategojira
“On the weight issue, you are speculating too much now. The basic premise that some stomach content most be included in any animal is correct, but to say that the Sauraha male weighed only 210 kg or less is rubbish.”
It seems that in this forum it is a popular sport to twist other poster’s statements when sthese tatements are not shared. I kindly suggest you to always read carefully things before take action. Till it is in a forum it has no implications if you do not understand paragraphs correctly. In real life it is a different story.
Show me the sentences where I suggest Sauraha male weighed only 210 kg or less. What I wrote was NOT weight estimates of the particular individual called Sauaraha male. They were estimates based on chest girth or on head-and-body length referring to the highest probability of weight (range) that a (generic) Indian male tiger of average build with the same chest girth or the same head-and-body length then the Sauraha male would have. All of that was not related to the particular individual called Sauaraha male. Mu estimates suggested if anything that the Sauraha male was indeed a very massive tiger for his length and for his chest girth as well although in my opinion it had some food in the stomach when he hit the scale.
BTW, based on chest girth I suggested highest probabilities in the range 225-240 kg for the generic average Indian male tiger with chest girth of 1400 mm (again NOT the Sauraha male)
I hope you understood what I meant now
I also had written
“Finally again you misunderstood. I never put in doubts those two males bottomed a scale of 600 lb (272 kg). As no sort of mistakes have been admitted to have been done by the authors, this is undisputable official info. Therefore if the measurements were correctly taken (scale zeroed if necessary, scales checked for accuracy, weight operation properly executed, etc.) the body mass of those animals in the conditions they have been captured (more then likely baited) and weighed was at least 272 kg minus the tools necessary to lift the animal (if the scale could not be zeroed after having rigged the equipment) or at least 272 kg if the scales were zeroed and still able to read 600 lb. Period. Then we can speculate on the stomach contents, be surprised by the short size of the Sauraha male and the not so huge chest and neck girths I would have instead expected in relationship to his very high weight and relatively short size so on.
Also note that my discussion started with speculating on differentiating the possible statistically estimable stomach contents based on Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983) info for the adult males and females of Smith et al. (1983) sample instead of using the fixed figure of 14,0 kg for both adult males and females as GuateGojira did in his table. I focused on the average adult male and female weight given at 235 kg and 140 kg, and the maximum male weight given at 261 kg (evidently not the Sauraha male) and the maximum female weight given at 164 kg (more then likely the one measured for F101 when she was close to give birth).
I never talked of Chitawan tigers all gorged (meaning full belly and possibly eating 15-20 % of their empty stomach weight) when weighed. Nor I wrote Chitawan adult male tiger cannot reach 270 kg in body mass. I mentioned M105 and M026. these are the two 270+ kg males mentioned by Dinerstein (2003). Then there is the 261 kg male by Smith et al. (1983). There have been speculations this latter figure is also an estimate of either M105 or M026 weight or that it was a scale weight of M026 weighed at another recapture. I believe it is an actual weight of another male (not M105 or M026).”
and
“In my first two posts on this thread I did not mention the Sauraha male and I never alleged he was at full stomach when weighed (although it can be suggested he likely had at least “some” food in the stomach from a picture of him narcotized – how much? Nobody really knows). I talked about the Sauaraha male in relationship to his scale weight exceeding 270 kg in the condition he was weighed (baited), his head and body length and chest girth.”
I never suggested Nepal tigers were gorged with 30 kg or more of meat. I suggested they had more then likely some food in the stomach. I am sorry, but you did not understand.
I suggested that instead of accounting for the same 14 kg of meat to both males and females that you suggested, it would have been more appropriated to differentiate that for males and females and I came up based on some consideration with ca. 18 kg for the average 235 kg figure and 19,5 kg for the male weighing 261 kg (not the Sauraha male). Hopefully it is clear now for you.
Considering factors like solid and fluid mass flow, Oxygen consumption and so on I already did some speculation in 2004 in AVA. A tiger breaths, urinates and defecates of course. But also drinks. It is a complicate matter and I agree on that. But account for the same figure for males and females as GuateGojira did on a statistical basis is less correct then what I suggested. May be both figures are slight overestimates on average.
Feel free to suggest the stomach contents was no more then 5-6 kg on average and for the Sauraha male as well. I would say 0 kg if this make you happier. I have enough.
FINALLY
I take the E-mails you showed into considerations.
My question is. Do you know the source where the measurement details of Sauraha Male and M102 come from? I mean head-and-body length, chest girth, neck girth, canine length and so on? I know it of course. It is NOT Sunquist. So you accept measurements taken somewhere from the web and you do not know the original source. The measurements come from an official document of which a scan copy of the related page has been circulating in the web for many years. You should know that. That official document states the length was measured “following the curves along the back”.
I say again that I take the E-mails you showed into relevant consideration. So we have an official document and two private e-mails not received by you (I am understanding). I am wise enough to accept the possibility that the zoologist who wrote that official document (and darted the Sauraha Male, M102 and other tigers) made the big mistake to confuse the “along the curves” and the “straight line” meaning “between pegs” concepts of measurement in describing on the official document how the measurements have been taken. How high is the possibility of such a mistake? Personally I would be tempted to say and hope for that zoologist rather low. But then we have the e-mails from Sunquist. Make a call with this confusing information if all genuine is not easy. I am more inclined to trust the official document. Somebody (not me) should ask Sunquist an explanation.
For now I will not show the page of that official document. The page exists. The reason I do not show it is because many people should already know that page and I invite them to show it.
02-08-2015, 11:36 PM( This post was last modified: 02-08-2015, 11:45 PM by WaveRiders )
Apollo
To measure the amount of food taken from a carcass implicates the operation causes “to disturb a kill” (either natural kill or bait kill). So the figures of 14,0 kg and the others of table 27 (the figures related to the average amount of food ingested by “unsexed” tigers from day 0 to day 1, from day 1 to day 2, etc,) in the document by Sunquist (1981), and in general, refer to “disturbed kills”. Or you think you can weigh the carcass without disturbing the tiger?
Then there are other figures (56 kg, 57 kg, 41kg, etc,) referring to 3 days of undisturbed kills.
From Sunquist (1981) pag. 76
"RESULTS.—Estimates of the amount of food that can be eaten by a single tiger are shown in Table 27. The average quantity consumed in one day may be TOO LOW since most of this information was from animals that were disturbed at bait sites."
Also bear in mind that Sunquist elsewhere suggests that those figures (14,0, etc,) in Sunquist (1981) have been computed on the basis of examination of very mostly female tigers feeding habits only. So the incidence of the 2 adult males and the 1 subadult male that I accounted within the sample of 7 tigers is conservative as I weighed each contribution by each individual and his/her weight in getting the figures of 12.1 kg for females and 18,0 kg for males as averages.
In any case I suggest the very most of the daily food intake is generally eaten during the night.
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
