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.
(10-15-2019, 02:15 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Average weight of the male tiger (Panthera tigris) at species level:
I will try to clarify this issue of the weights with the tigers.
With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few. Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over 200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.
I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:
Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.
The figure of 272 kg+ was stablished by the two big males from Chitwan, Nepal, males tigers 105-Sauraha and 126. Interestingly, while only 4 males were captured in that area between 1974 to 1980, 2 of them are already heavier than any tiger or lion in the wild recorded by scientists (the male of 272 kg in Kenya was a cattle killer and consequently very bulky and at some point abnormal), which suggest that most of the males in that area reached big weights. They calculated weights "empty belly" are of at least 260 kg, and Smith et al. (1983) presented a figure of 261 kg, which is the one quoted in modern books.
Dr Jhala says that the tigers in Ranthambore NP are among the largest in India, but it seems that he have just captured 8 specimens (other source says 10) in the area between 2007 and 2009: 3 adult males, 1 adult female, 3 subadult males and 1 subadult female. From the 3 adult males, we know the weight of two males: T10-Darra with 220 kg and T-24-Ustad with 240 kg; the other male T12-Tikkoo is still not clear, but people that saw him estimated that it could not weight less than 200 kg. The area of Kumaon and Gwalior presented huge tigers in the old records, in fact 4 of the exceptional males came from that area (272, 276, 282 and 292 kg, respectivelly), and we must not forget that the modern tigers that live in Ranthambore are decendents of a population reintroduced from Gwalior (Thapar et al., 2013).
About the Amur tigers, we have less information, however, with the few old and verified old records and the modern scientific records we can present figures of 216.5 kg (n=10, range: 164 - 254 kg) for males in old records and 190 kg (n=23, range: 155- 212 kg) for the modern ones. The overall average using all the weights will be of 203 kg for the entire subspecies/population.
The Caspian tigers are calculated to be as large as the Bengal ones, but the few skulls available suggest a smaller size. The only three weights from males records a figure of 197 kg (range: 170 - 240 kg). One skull is said to have measured 385 mm in total length (Heptner & Sludskii, 1992) but a follow investigation suggested that the other measurements presented suggest a specimen much more smaller and that probably the skull was measured over the bone, saldly the skull is lost forever (Mazák, 2013).
The Indochinese tiger was about the same than the Caspian tiger, if not slightly longer based in the skulls. The biggest skull from a Caspian tiger was of 369 mm while a new skull apparently from Malaysia (based in DNA) was of 370 mm. In the weight department very few figures are available in litterature, with just three males: one of 173.3 kg (Pocock, 1939), other of 182 kg (Mazák, 2013) and a big one of 259 kg (Bazé, 1957). Modern records are available thanks to the scientists working in Thailand at this moment, and based in 4 males (with 5 captures) the average weight is of 182 kg (range: 164 - 209 kg), about the same body mass than modern Amur tigers. So using the modern records plus the old records we got an average figure of 193.5 kg (n=8, range: 164 - 259 kg).
The South China tiger is the smallest of the mainland tigers, if we take them as a single subspecies, and only lives in captivity. Slagth et al. (2005) present a a list of captive specimens and the males from this population had an average weight of 130.7 kg (n=13, no range). A list of wild specimens from hunting records shows an aveage of 152 kg (n=8, range: 108 - 190 kg). The biggest specimens seems to be from the northern are and the smallest ones from the southern, se there was a cline in the weight of this population. I don't have figures from the tigers that are in semi-wild status in South Africa, but I guess that they are heavier than those in China zoos and maybe clouse to those from the old wild records.
Finally, the only other subspecies/population from which we have body mass records is the Sumatran tiger, the smallest tiger in modern days. Using modern scientific records we have an average weight for males of 127 kg (n=4, range: 98-148 kg). That sample also includes a male of 75 kg, it says tha was adult and in good health, but certainly there is an error in that figures. The smallest captive adult male recorded by Slaght et al. (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009=) is of 91 kg and came from a sample of 21 speciments, and also Mazák (2013) which recorded weights of wild and capivte specimens reported that the smallest male was of 100 kg. So the figure of "75 kg" came probably when the animals was first captured and probably in not a good shape, or there was a typo. Using old hunting records, the average weight for Sumatran male tigers is of 119.3 kg (n=6, range: 104 - 140 kg), and using all the records for this subspecies we get to 122.8 kg (n=10, range: 104 - 148 kg). There is a record of a male of 180 kg but if that is accurate it will be exceptional. Also @peter measured a skull from a male of 350 mm in greatest length, which suggest that in the past big males existed in the island. There is also other record from a captured male of 130 kg posted here by a member but as we don't have the main source of it, I did not included the records in the modern records.
About the Malayan tigers, we don't have reliable weights from the wild in the old records. I found only one records of a male of 120 kg, but other news reports shows males of up to 170 kg, which will be not out of question. The figures showed by a report on Malayan tiger conservation as just estimations and reach a maximum of 130 kg. Slagth et al, (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009)) present a list of weights of "Indochinese - Corbetti" tigers but in fact this weights are from Malayan tigers in captivity, the average weight for males is 120.6 kg (n=6, range: 109 - 132 kg), this is closer to the Sumatran tigers than to the mainland ones. Reliable measurements from old records give average lengths as large as the South China and Indochinese tigers (Locke, 1954), and the skulls reported are big, with an average greatest length of 339 mm - n=4 (J. H. Mazák, 2008) and now we have a new skull of 370 mm. This suggest that in the past the Malayan tigers were as big as South China tigers (average greatest skull length of 334.7 mm (n=10, range: 318 - 348) and in some case even as big as the Indochinese tigers. I had not calculated yet the average weight of this population based in the skull size, but certainly if we use the average figures from modern captive specimens, we will get a very low average weight for the tigers species, a one that will not reflect the real weight of the species in time.
For Java and Bali tigers, the situation is worst. We only have two weights for Javanese tigers and none for the Bali tigers. For Javanese male tigers, we have one wild male of 141 kg and other from captivity of 110 kg. The average of these two specimens will be 125.5 kg, which is slighly more than those from Sumatra and this is accurate as the skulls fromthe male tigers in Java and bigger than those from the other two islands. However, the weight of 141 belongs to an animal with a skull length of 331 mm, whcih is just a little over the average reported of 321.3 mm in the study of Mazák and Groves (2006) that also included inmature specimens. Also, the biggest skull measured for this subspecies is of 349 mm (Mazák, 2013) and he even concluded that based in the skulls, this tiger population was probably as big as the tigers in South China! Using the condylobasal length of several specimens I calculated an average weight of 134.5 kg (n=10, range, 110 - 158 kg), which I guess will be probably closer to the real average in the wild. For Bali tigers we don't have any weight, Mazák (1981) estimated a weight between 90 - 100 kg, but I calculated an average weight of 112.8 kg (n=3, range: 107 - 123), but we must take in count that Mazák did not know the large skull of 301.5 mm in greatest length reported by Buzás and Karfas (1996). Also, my estimations based in the condilobasal length are using only captive specimens, if we use wild and captive specimens the average figures will be:
* Java male tigers: 141.8 kg - n=10 - range: 116 - 166 kg.
* Bali male tigers: 118.9 kg - n=3 - range: 113 - 130 kg.
This may be a little more reliable figures, by I dediced to use the captive ones as the result obtained with the male of 141 kg was closer to the original (I got 144 kg with that specimen with condylobasal length of 294 mm.). However is interesting to see that the largest Bali male tiger, which had a skull size of the about the same than the large jaguar males from the Pantanal, got a similar calculated weight.
We can try to estimate an overall average weight for the males of the species Panthera tigris, but we will need to use captive specimens and isometric calculations from skulls to fill the holes. Taking the risk, this is what I got:
* Bengal tiger: 200 kg - n=147 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* Amur tiger: 203 kg - n=33 - range: 155 - 254 kg.
* Caspian tiger: 197 kg - n=3 - range: 170 - 240 kg.
* Indochinese tiger: 193.5 kg - n=8 - range: 164 - 259 kg.
* South China tiger: 152 kg - n=8 - range: 108 - 190 kg.
* Malayan tiger: 120.6 kg - n=6 - range: 109 - 132 kg - captivity.
* Sumatran tiger: 122.8 kg - n=10 - range: 104 - 148 kg.
* Java tiger: 125.5 kg - n=2 - range: 110 - 141 kg - one wild, one captive.
* Bali tiger: 112.8 kg - n=3 - range: 107 - 123 kg - isometrically calcullated. ** Overall average: 158.6 kg - n=220 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
This figure is pratically the same reported by Yamaguchi et al. (2009) and Kitchener & Yamagichi (2010), which says that the average weight for the male tiger at "species level" is c.160 kg. Now, remember that this list have many assumtions, specifically in the Malayan and Bali tigers. I used only to two known males for the Java tigers in order to use only true weights, but if I use the figure of 134.5 kg that I obtained from 10 skulls the average for male tigers overall will be 159.6 kg, practically the same figure with no diference. Now, if we use strictly only weights and only wild specimens, which will exclude the Malayan tigers (as they are captive), the Java tigers (as only one is wild) and the Bali tigers (as are calculated) from the sample, the average weight for male tigers as a species will be 178.1 kg (n=209, range: 97 - 272 kg).
Now, I did not included the male tiger of 389 kg from Guinness, well because something seems incorrect in that figure, the picture shows a bit tiger probably over 272 kg or maybe 290 kg, but that is all. The explanation that because a cat can eat a fifth of its weight is not satisfactory, specially by the fact that the highest amount ate by a tiger, actually record, is of 35 kg in Nepal and 27 kg in Kanha. Also, by no means we can take as "reliable" the reports of those lions of 700 and 800 lb, those are clear exagerations promoted by "fans" and we alread know that news reports are not reliable if are not corroborated. If not, it will be like to return to the old days and again acept the old records of Amur tigers of 360, 384 and even 400 kg! I think that if we try to get a good idea of the weight of these animals we must use a criteria and those selected-random-unreliabel figures should be discarted. In fact, the biggest male lion accepted by Guinness with 313 kg is also highly doubtfull, taking in count that the picture of that animal shows a quite small-to-average size male lion and the fact that was "checked by several people" is not guarantee, specially when we don't know what "people" was that, where they "experts", where they "officials", or where they just people that liked to please the guess? The method used but Slagth et al., (2005) seems reliable to me, and by this method, none of those huge lions from unverified news reports is remotelly reliable.
These are the figures about tigers that I have, if someone want especific information feel free to ask. Greetings.
Omg dude. Thanks so much. That is truly the thing. From my reading (and truthfully, from what I've known) it seems like large tiger subspecies - and I use this term loosely - average about 200-215kg, though large tigers seem to approach much greater weights (as is the standard for large predators, most of all tigers).
Furthermore, I agree with you on the subject of these 'extraordinary' cats. Most of them do not seem reliable. I would assume that they are exaggerated - furthermore, even if they do exist, they are clearly not representative of a normal animal (even if larger than average). The 313kg lion included.
(10-11-2019, 06:54 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 05:05 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 10:40 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 01:52 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 07:29 PM)Rishi Wrote: Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.
The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.
Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.
I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).
I was referring to all subspecies, of both species... which i clearly mentioned. It's better not to pick & choose.
"Un-conventional" lion subspecies refer to the recent suggestions that onlines belong to two general subspecies Northern (Asiatic, Barbary & West-African) & Southern (East-African, South-African, Southwest-African). @BorneanTiger can point you towards the detailed posts he made on this topic, if you don't already know.
Because 95% of the very little publicly available & reliable modern tiger weights are from Central or South India, I repeat, the northern tigers' possible average weight was an estimation based on their physique compared to the ones whose weights are known. Could be higher or lower, from population to population.
On top of that only young-adults are collared in India & almost no healthy tigers get tranquilised. Weighing of stranded or problem tigers sedated for capture & release is uncommon. Even if done, that data is rarely released.
We know next to nothing about weight of prime specimens.
(10-11-2019, 11:16 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.
Thanks, I'll look through. And yes I'm aware of the research done on those lion subspecies (that's what I was referencing). Which was why I chose the larger of the two to compare to large tigers, I like to compare smaller tigers to large jaguars since the range is so great. Using a whole species for comparison fades the usefulness of an average weight. But this is interesting, I'll look into some of the stuff you guys got here - thanks.
(10-11-2019, 11:16 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.
I'm confused man, what's fact..? That 2% of tigers are weighed or that 220kg males are existant? lol well I'm not sure any of this is fact as you'd call it... speculation and theorization, even if accurate at that.
What comes to weighings of the big cats and other animals, it´s same with all. It´s not easy or without risks to sedate wild animals and then weigh them. 2% of tigers, might be same or even less with lions... I don´t think, that even 1% have been weighed. Biggest bears... there are maybe 1-2 times, when wild Kodiak bears have been weighed. So in this way tigers or lions are nothing special. Lately there have been discussions about rainforest leopards, not much good information really about those either.
It is as it is. So there might be (and without a doubt are) many big representatives of different species which have never been weighed. There have been many photos and videos about tigers and lions showing impressive individuals, but we will never know their exact size or weight, many are gone already. Like the famous lion Caesar, considered as biggest ever in Maasai Mara by many. But all what we have are "guesstimations".
Indeed, which is why I find that weight ranges are most effective. For example if I say male Bengal tigers weigh, on average, [for example] 482lbs, that may or may not be correct, but if I say that tigers between 200-210kg are 'normal' then it would be accurate. The same would be true for other large animals like lions and bears.
I do think that if a 'general' number is given then it's fine. Averages are all relative.
And a trouble with African lions is that they're much apparently more numerous, and are present in more countries than Asiatic lions and tigers put together, and certain places with African lions, like D. R. Congo and South Sudan, have serious conflicts or political issues that may make it dangerous to measure lions there, though the same could be said for the tiger-containing countries of Myanmar and North Korea (which might have a few Amur tigers that came from neighbouring China or Russia), so measuring the weights of Asiatic lions and Amur and Bengal tigers at least appears to be easier than measuring those of African lions in general, and @GuateGojira had posted weights of Asiatic lions (which are to an extent confined to a single area in the wild like Amur tigers) as well.
Indeed. Although the number of countries occupied by tigers and Asiatic lions is the same because lions in Asia only occupy India. I get your point, though. There are likely 5 wild lions for every wild tiger, and furthermore, wild tigers are far more concentrated into specific 'reservoirs'. Lions are very spread out. Additionally, because lions are so numerous, we don't have reliable weights of lions from many areas, even ones known for their populations, such as the Okavango.
Additionally, the size disparity between lion populations is understated. If we take the 212kg Ngorongoro estimate as reliable (and I'm not saying we should or should not), and we say smaller (northern) lion subspecies are 170-175kg, we here could possibly have a nearly 45kg disparity. Tigers still have more variability, but lions are not homogenous in size. Where tigers show most differentiation is within the fact that tigers may be isolated on Indonesian islands, and these cats seem to be incomparable to both the much larger tigers of mainland Asia and the much larger lions of Sub-Saharan Africa, rather more to jaguars of areas like the Pantanal.
10-17-2019, 10:46 AM( This post was last modified: 10-17-2019, 02:39 PM by Rishi )
Alleged man-eater of Bandipur that mauled to death 2 farmers & killing 14 cattle, was captured in Karnataka this Sunday after 5 days of tracking & combing. The tiger "of around 5 years", is under observation at the wildlife rescue & rehabilitation centre in Mysuru. The animal is said to be a healthy male, weighing around 170 kg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Forest Department was in for a surprise as the captured tiger was a known male tiger which was once identified in Kerala a year ago, about 100kms away.
In last one year, it had been wandering in search of territory through several forest ranges and ended up in the buffer area of GS Betta Range of Bandipur Tiger Reserve. Officials who verified their database for the authentication of the big cat revealed that it was the same tiger that was previously camera trapped in Nagarahole Tiger Reserve near Dammanakatte (Kabini) in Antarasante range in 2018 January-February.
Not a man-eater, say officials
Forest officials said the tiger was looking for a new territory and food. He was pushed out of every place by other tigers, and found solace at the border of Gopalaswamy Betta range, near Muguvinahalli and Hundipura villages. He was hunting cattle. Camera trap images confirmed that the tiger mauled its victims out of fear, and there is no ground to call it a man-eater, officials said.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
5 teams on ground participated in this search & rescue operation:
300 staffers
7 elephants
1 specially-trained German Shepard sniffer-dog named Rana
Everyone knows that this tiger was not a maneater because none of the victim bodies was eaten. It was basic man-animal conflict, but, this is a question of larger picture of conservation because the villagers on the fringe of the forest can either help the FD or absolutely hinder their work. So, to pacify their anger, they have to be seen taking action against a particular tiger. It’s a sad reality of conservation in India today when tiger numbers are increasing.
But @Rishi’s post emphasises on the absolute resources need to be mobilized for catching a tiger as this one evaded them for 5 days even though they had encircled it to just 2 sq.km.
(10-17-2019, 10:46 AM)Rishi Wrote: Alleged man-eater of Bandipur that mauled to death 2 farmers & killing 14 cattle, was captured in Karnataka this Sunday after 5 days of tracking & combing. The tiger "of around 5 years", is under observation at the wildlife rescue & rehabilitation centre in Mysuru. The animal is said to be a healthy male, weighing around 170 kg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Forest Department was in for a surprise as the captured tiger was a known male tiger which was once identified in Kerala a year ago, about 100kms away.
In last one year, it had been wandering in search of territory through several forest ranges and ended up in the buffer area of GS Betta Range of Bandipur Tiger Reserve. Officials who verified their database for the authentication of the big cat revealed that it was the same tiger that was previously camera trapped in Nagarahole Tiger Reserve near Dammanakatte (Kabini) in Antarasante range in 2018 January-February.
Not a man-eater, say officials
Forest officials said the tiger was looking for a new territory and food. He was pushed out of every place by other tigers, and found solace at the border of Gopalaswamy Betta range, near Muguvinahalli and Hundipura villages. He was hunting cattle. Camera trap images confirmed that the tiger mauled its victims out of fear, and there is no ground to call it a man-eater, officials said.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
5 teams on ground participated in this search & rescue operation:
So this tiger is a male that managed to kill 14 cattle, but still weighed only about 170 kg (374.8 lbs)? Then how do male Bengal tigers, with the exception of those in the Sundarbans, manage to have average weights of at least 182 – 218 kg (401.2 – 480.6 lbs) with empty bellies, judging by the work of Raúl A. Valvert?
(10-17-2019, 10:46 AM)Rishi Wrote: Alleged man-eater of Bandipur that mauled to death 2 farmers & killing 14 cattle, was captured in Karnataka this Sunday after 5 days of tracking & combing. The tiger "of around 5 years", is under observation at the wildlife rescue & rehabilitation centre in Mysuru. The animal is said to be a healthy male, weighing around 170 kg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Forest Department was in for a surprise as the captured tiger was a known male tiger which was once identified in Kerala a year ago, about 100kms away.
In last one year, it had been wandering in search of territory through several forest ranges and ended up in the buffer area of GS Betta Range of Bandipur Tiger Reserve. Officials who verified their database for the authentication of the big cat revealed that it was the same tiger that was previously camera trapped in Nagarahole Tiger Reserve near Dammanakatte (Kabini) in Antarasante range in 2018 January-February.
Not a man-eater, say officials
Forest officials said the tiger was looking for a new territory and food. He was pushed out of every place by other tigers, and found solace at the border of Gopalaswamy Betta range, near Muguvinahalli and Hundipura villages. He was hunting cattle. Camera trap images confirmed that the tiger mauled its victims out of fear, and there is no ground to call it a man-eater, officials said.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
5 teams on ground participated in this search & rescue operation:
So this tiger is a male that managed to kill 14 cattle, but still weighed only about 170 kg (374.8 lbs)? Then how do male Bengal tigers, with the exception of those in the Sundarbans, manage to have average weights of at least 182 – 218 kg (401.2 – 480.6 lbs) with empty bellies, judging by the work of Raúl A. Valvert?
This one is from the lowest end of the spectrum, I suppose... Probably the only healthy & fed tiger weighing 170kg that i can remember, he couldn't establish a territory in more than 5000 sq.km of one of Asia's most bountiful contagious forest cover & ended up near fringe villages where there are no tigers nearby.
@BorneanTiger, think of it this way, Bornean. Humans come in all sizes and shapes. But, if only the strongest ones survived, would there be a chance for a smaller human to survive? You could say that this human could move to a place with no human and setup it’s iwn territory.
This tiger is not big, infact, it’s quite small compared to the ones who already have established territories. He could be an excellent fighter and opportunist in his tiger ways to get one of these territories and hold it from other challengers, but what would be the odds of that? low and highly improbable. That is the reason he has been pushed to the outer extreme of the forests and preys on domestic cattle.
Now, when India’s tiger population had dwindled in 2006 to 1400, this tiger would have been fine because it would have just gone to an open part of the forest and established a territory. But, Bandipur and Nagarhole have reached their carrying capacities of tigers, which means unless he finds open territory of his own, he is unlikely to survive and so he turns to the easiest preys there are - humans. And, from my estimation, the closest place where he can find a territory would be 300 kilometre away, and he doesn’t seem adept at making the journey.
(10-17-2019, 02:47 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: So this tiger is a male that managed to kill 14 cattle, but still weighed only about 170 kg (374.8 lbs)? Then how do male Bengal tigers, with the exception of those in the Sundarbans, manage to have average weights of at least 182 – 218 kg (401.2 – 480.6 lbs) with empty bellies, judging by the work of Raúl A. Valvert?
Cattle in India is small and skinny, and we don't know if the specimens killed were adult or not. Also the article says that a normal weight of a tiger is of 140 kg! So for them, the figure of 170 kg is high; that is an error because 140 kg is for a female tiger, so now I dobth that the figure of 170 kg is correct.
Also, based in the old records, some "adult" tigers reached weigths of only 150 kg or 160 kg, but those were probably subadults males, old males past they prime or simple adults in bad shape. The article says that it was a healty male, but pictures shows a lanky animal. Also we need to see if the estimation of "5 years old" is correct or not.
So, there are many problems with the report and that is why the information need to be corroborated.
(10-16-2019, 08:07 AM)Rishi Wrote: Confirmation from you & @GuateGojira I'm not managing that section.
Let's do something. I will like to add the body mass of females and a few images. So, because I will have vacations in the next two weeks, I will prepare the same post but with improvements and then you can move the post, what do you think? It will be the ultimate post about the size of the tiger.
(10-16-2019, 06:11 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote: Indeed, which is why I find that weight ranges are most effective. For example if I say male Bengal tigers weigh, on average, [for example] 482lbs, that may or may not be correct, but if I say that tigers between 200-210kg are 'normal' then it would be accurate. The same would be true for other large animals like lions and bears.
I do think that if a 'general' number is given then it's fine. Averages are all relative.
You have a point here, average figures are relative and remember that we work with the few available data which do not cover the entire tiger populations. Also old records invariably include young/old/sick specimens, something that modern records did describe and explain.
About ranges, also are relative. Check that Mazák says that adult male tigers in India/Nepal weigh between 180 - 258 kg, Sunquist say that are between 200 - 260 kg and Karanth says that male tigers in "South Asia" (including the Indian subcontinent and also the north part of Indochina) weigh between 175 - 260 kg. Finally Jhala now says that male tigers over 3 years old weight between 200 - 260 kg, matching with Sunquist in this point.
(10-17-2019, 10:46 AM)Rishi Wrote: Alleged man-eater of Bandipur that mauled to death 2 farmers & killing 14 cattle, was captured in Karnataka this Sunday after 5 days of tracking & combing. The tiger "of around 5 years", is under observation at the wildlife rescue & rehabilitation centre in Mysuru. The animal is said to be a healthy male, weighing around 170 kg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Forest Department was in for a surprise as the captured tiger was a known male tiger which was once identified in Kerala a year ago, about 100kms away.
In last one year, it had been wandering in search of territory through several forest ranges and ended up in the buffer area of GS Betta Range of Bandipur Tiger Reserve. Officials who verified their database for the authentication of the big cat revealed that it was the same tiger that was previously camera trapped in Nagarahole Tiger Reserve near Dammanakatte (Kabini) in Antarasante range in 2018 January-February.
Not a man-eater, say officials
Forest officials said the tiger was looking for a new territory and food. He was pushed out of every place by other tigers, and found solace at the border of Gopalaswamy Betta range, near Muguvinahalli and Hundipura villages. He was hunting cattle. Camera trap images confirmed that the tiger mauled its victims out of fear, and there is no ground to call it a man-eater, officials said.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
5 teams on ground participated in this search & rescue operation:
So this tiger is a male that managed to kill 14 cattle, but still weighed only about 170 kg (374.8 lbs)? Then how do male Bengal tigers, with the exception of those in the Sundarbans, manage to have average weights of at least 182 – 218 kg (401.2 – 480.6 lbs) with empty bellies, judging by the work of Raúl A. Valvert?
This one is from the lowest end of the spectrum, I suppose... Probably the only healthy & fed tiger weighing 170kg that i can remember, he couldn't establish a territory in more than 5000 sq.km of one of Asia's most bountiful contagious forest cover & ended up near fringe villages where there are no tigers nearby.
You also have the Ranthambore Translocation male *ST-4* @ 170kg
G.P. Sanderson said he shot a Tiger in Mysore that weighed 159kg
And Col. Meinertzhagen got one Tiger in Mysore and another in the Adjacent Neilgherry Hills that weighed 206kg and 226kg
Condition of Sanderson's tiger isn't stated in my book but shows similar ranges of Tiger bodyweight.
10-18-2019, 04:32 AM( This post was last modified: 10-18-2019, 06:16 AM by GuateGojira )
(10-15-2019, 02:15 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few. Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over 200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.
I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:
Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.
Update of the information about the weight of Bengal tigers:
I manage to found the other specimens that I lost, and I hope that I found them all. If I still missed a record, feel free to post it here.
I found 22 new figures for males and 10 for females and added them to the main figures in they respectivelly areas. Just 4 weights, 2 males of 355 lb and 470 lb, and two females of 235 lb and 309 lb, were not added to the main average because they did not say the specific area were they came from. So I used the other 167 male specimens and 102 female specimens to get the following average figures:
Males:
Central India: 201 kg - n=61 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 196 kg - n=12 - range: 159 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 207 kg - n=51 - range: 150 - 256 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
** Average, mainland only: 208 kg - n=160 - range: 150 - 272 kg.
Av. including Sundarbans: 197 kg - n=166 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
Females:
Central India: 133 kg - n=52 - range: 105 - 157 kg.
Southwest India: 145 kg - n=2 - range: 113 - 177 kg
Southeast India: 122.5 kg - n=11 - range: 109 - 150 kg.
Northwest India: 149 kg - n=3 - range: 135 - 170 kg.
Northeast India: 135 kg - n=13 - range: 99 - 163 kg.
Terai-North India: 136 kg - n=6 - range: 118 - 148 kg.
Nepal: 143 kg - n=9 - range: 113 - 164 kg.
Sundarbans: 82 kg - n=6 - range: 72 - 109 kg.
** Average, mainland only: 138 kg - n=96 - range: 105 - 177 kg.
Av. including Sundarbans: 131 kg - n=102 - range: 72 - 177 kg.
As I believed, some average figures changed, specifically those from Central, Southwest and Northeast India. These figures include the specimens from the Naga hills, Assam region, and also the very small males of the Mahratta region in southwest India. So I tried to include all the weights available, but I excluded the record weights of over 272 kg as they are clasiffied as "exceptional".
I still believe that the inclusion of the Sundarbans tigers is incorrect, as they are clasified as a completelly diferent Ecological Conservation Unit, which elevate them at the same category as the Thailand, Malayan or even Amur tigers. However, to please all the public, I put all the posible situations in the figures. Also, remember that I am 100% sure that many of those small records of males of less 180 kg are probably subadults, old specimens or ill and in bad shape. Some of them were found even with porcupine kills on them! However, I did included them just to show an unbiased sample. Latter, maybe I will present a sample remouving the "problematic" specimens or those that obviouls are not fully mature.
(10-15-2019, 02:15 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few. Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over 200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.
I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:
Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.
Update of the information about the weight of Bengal tigers:
I manage to found the other specimens that I lost, and I hope that I found them all. If I still missed a record, feel free to post it here.
I found 22 new figures for males and 10 for females and added them to the main figures in they respectivelly areas. Just 4 weights, 2 males of 355 lb and 470 lb, and two females of 235 lb and 309 lb, were not added to the main average because they did not say the specific area were they came from. So I used the other 167 male specimens and 102 female specimens to get the following average figures:
Males:
Central India: 201 kg - n=61 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 196 kg - n=12 - range: 159 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 207 kg - n=51 - range: 150 - 256 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
** Average, mainland only: 208 kg - n=160 - range: 150 - 272 kg.
Av. including Sundarbans: 197 kg - n=166 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
Females:
Central India: 133 kg - n=52 - range: 105 - 157 kg.
Southwest India: 145 kg - n=2 - range: 113 - 177 kg
Southeast India: 122.5 kg - n=11 - range: 109 - 150 kg.
Northwest India: 149 kg - n=3 - range: 135 - 170 kg.
Northeast India: 135 kg - n=13 - range: 99 - 163 kg.
Terai-North India: 136 kg - n=6 - range: 118 - 148 kg.
Nepal: 143 kg - n=9 - range: 113 - 164 kg.
Sundarbans: 82 kg - n=6 - range: 72 - 109 kg.
** Average, mainland only: 138 kg - n=96 - range: 105 - 177 kg.
Av. including Sundarbans: 131 kg - n=102 - range: 72 - 177 kg.
As I believed, some average figures changed, specifically those from Central, Southwest and Northeast India. These figures include the specimens from the Naga hills, Assam region, and also the very small males of the Mahratta region in southwest India. So I tried to include all the weights available, but I excluded the record weights of over 272 kg as they are clasiffied as "exceptional".
I still believe that the inclusion of the Sundarbans tigers is incorrect, as they are clasified as a completelly diferent Ecological Conservation Unit, which elevate them at the same category as the Thailand, Malayan or even Amur tigers. However, to please all the public, I put all the posible situations in the figures. Also, remember that I am 100% sure that many of those small records of males of less 180 kg are probably subadults, old specimens or ill and in bad shape. Some of them were found even with porcupine kills on them! However, I did included them just to show an unbiased sample. Latter, maybe I will present a sample remouving the "problematic" specimens or those that obviouls are not fully mature.
Greetings.
I wouldn't treat the Sundarban tiger as a completely different ECU to all other Bengal tigers if I were you, because as I mentioned in the main thread, while talking about whether or not the Amur tiger of Northeast Asia should be treated as the same subspecies as the Caspian tigers of Central and Southwestern Asia, just as these tigers are closely related, the Sundarban tiger is closely related to tigers in Central and Southern India, though significantly genetically different from those in the Himalayan region where north India meets Nepal and Bhutan.
Singh et al.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...8846.g002/ Median-joining network created from four mtDNA genes (cytb, ND2, ND5 and ND6) (in total, 2600 bp) depicting genetic relationship between all haplotypes found in tigers.
(a) haplotypes found in Sundarbans tigers (in black) and all other six tiger subspecies (in yellow and green color, from Luo et al. 2004) [2], (b) all haplotypes found in Bengal tiger populations from this study and Mondol et al. [22]. Pink: North India, Yellow: Central India, Blue: South India, and Green: Sundarbans. The sizes of the circles are proportional to the haplotype frequencies.
(10-15-2019, 02:15 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few. Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over 200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.
I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:
Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.
Update of the information about the weight of Bengal tigers:
I manage to found the other specimens that I lost, and I hope that I found them all. If I still missed a record, feel free to post it here.
I found 22 new figures for males and 10 for females and added them to the main figures in they respectivelly areas. Just 4 weights, 2 males of 355 lb and 470 lb, and two females of 235 lb and 309 lb, were not added to the main average because they did not say the specific area were they came from. So I used the other 167 male specimens and 102 female specimens to get the following average figures:
Males:
Central India: 201 kg - n=61 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 196 kg - n=12 - range: 159 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 207 kg - n=51 - range: 150 - 256 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
** Average, mainland only: 208 kg - n=160 - range: 150 - 272 kg.
Av. including Sundarbans: 197 kg - n=166 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
Females:
Central India: 133 kg - n=52 - range: 105 - 157 kg.
Southwest India: 145 kg - n=2 - range: 113 - 177 kg
Southeast India: 122.5 kg - n=11 - range: 109 - 150 kg.
Northwest India: 149 kg - n=3 - range: 135 - 170 kg.
Northeast India: 135 kg - n=13 - range: 99 - 163 kg.
Terai-North India: 136 kg - n=6 - range: 118 - 148 kg.
Nepal: 143 kg - n=9 - range: 113 - 164 kg.
Sundarbans: 82 kg - n=6 - range: 72 - 109 kg.
** Average, mainland only: 138 kg - n=96 - range: 105 - 177 kg.
Av. including Sundarbans: 131 kg - n=102 - range: 72 - 177 kg.
As I believed, some average figures changed, specifically those from Central, Southwest and Northeast India. These figures include the specimens from the Naga hills, Assam region, and also the very small males of the Mahratta region in southwest India. So I tried to include all the weights available, but I excluded the record weights of over 272 kg as they are clasiffied as "exceptional".
I still believe that the inclusion of the Sundarbans tigers is incorrect, as they are clasified as a completelly diferent Ecological Conservation Unit, which elevate them at the same category as the Thailand, Malayan or even Amur tigers. However, to please all the public, I put all the posible situations in the figures. Also, remember that I am 100% sure that many of those small records of males of less 180 kg are probably subadults, old specimens or ill and in bad shape. Some of them were found even with porcupine kills on them! However, I did included them just to show an unbiased sample. Latter, maybe I will present a sample remouving the "problematic" specimens or those that obviouls are not fully mature.
Greetings.
I wouldn't treat the Sundarban tiger as a completely different ECU to all other Bengal tigers if I were you, because as I mentioned in the main thread, while talking about whether or not the Amur tiger of Northeast Asia should be treated as the same subspecies as the Caspian tigers of Central and Southwestern Asia, just as these tigers are closely related, the Sundarban tiger is closely related to tigers in Central and Southern India, though significantly genetically different from those in the Himalayan region where north India meets Nepal and Bhutan.
Median-joining network created from four mtDNA genes (cytb, ND2, ND5 and ND6) (in total, 2600 bp) depicting genetic relationship between all haplotypes found in tigers.
(a) haplotypes found in Sundarbans tigers (in black) and all other six tiger subspecies (in yellow and green color, from Luo et al. 2004) [2], (b) all haplotypes found in Bengal tiger populations from this study and Mondol et al. [22]. Pink: North India, Yellow: Central India, Blue: South India, and Green: Sundarbans. The sizes of the circles are proportional to the haplotype frequencies.
This also lends credence to the idea that it's not so much the gene sequence that determines a Tigers size but more so to do with their environment and prey.
It's why playing the "Average" game is misleading unless you're doing it for a specific location.
The following 1 user Likes Pckts's post:1 user Likes Pckts's post • Rishi
10-19-2019, 06:54 AM( This post was last modified: 10-19-2019, 07:52 AM by Kingtheropod )
(10-18-2019, 04:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(10-15-2019, 02:15 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few. Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over 200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.
I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:
Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.
Update of the information about the weight of Bengal tigers:
I manage to found the other specimens that I lost, and I hope that I found them all. If I still missed a record, feel free to post it here.
I found 22 new figures for males and 10 for females and added them to the main figures in they respectivelly areas. Just 4 weights, 2 males of 355 lb and 470 lb, and two females of 235 lb and 309 lb, were not added to the main average because they did not say the specific area were they came from. So I used the other 167 male specimens and 102 female specimens to get the following average figures:
Males:
Central India: 201 kg - n=61 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 196 kg - n=12 - range: 159 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 207 kg - n=51 - range: 150 - 256 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.
Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg.
** Average, mainland only: 208 kg - n=160 - range: 150 - 272 kg.
Av. including Sundarbans: 197 kg - n=166 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
Females:
Central India: 133 kg - n=52 - range: 105 - 157 kg.
Southwest India: 145 kg - n=2 - range: 113 - 177 kg
Southeast India: 122.5 kg - n=11 - range: 109 - 150 kg.
Northwest India: 149 kg - n=3 - range: 135 - 170 kg.
Northeast India: 135 kg - n=13 - range: 99 - 163 kg.
Terai-North India: 136 kg - n=6 - range: 118 - 148 kg.
Nepal: 143 kg - n=9 - range: 113 - 164 kg.
Sundarbans: 82 kg - n=6 - range: 72 - 109 kg.
** Average, mainland only: 138 kg - n=96 - range: 105 - 177 kg.
Av. including Sundarbans: 131 kg - n=102 - range: 72 - 177 kg.
As I believed, some average figures changed, specifically those from Central, Southwest and Northeast India. These figures include the specimens from the Naga hills, Assam region, and also the very small males of the Mahratta region in southwest India. So I tried to include all the weights available, but I excluded the record weights of over 272 kg as they are clasiffied as "exceptional".
I still believe that the inclusion of the Sundarbans tigers is incorrect, as they are clasified as a completelly diferent Ecological Conservation Unit, which elevate them at the same category as the Thailand, Malayan or even Amur tigers. However, to please all the public, I put all the posible situations in the figures. Also, remember that I am 100% sure that many of those small records of males of less 180 kg are probably subadults, old specimens or ill and in bad shape. Some of them were found even with porcupine kills on them! However, I did included them just to show an unbiased sample. Latter, maybe I will present a sample remouving the "problematic" specimens or those that obviouls are not fully mature.
The same can also be said for Asiatic lions and Barbary lions. Genetic studies show they are almost identical, but I think they too should also be kept in separate tables and not mingled together in the same category.
I also feel the same way for Caspian tigers and Siberian tigers. Even though they are close, I still think they should be treated separately.
Creating average figures is a "tricky business". For more that we want to make a reliable figure, there are many factors that affect the results.
For example, I am 100% convinced that the sample that I used did include subadults and/or unhealty specimens. This is because modern scientists that use reliable methods to age tigers shows that many subadults are already of the same size as a adult one but there are still not even at 3 years old. One good example are the tigers from Nepal, one is the subadult male of 216 kg (M-123 I guess, as it was the oldest of the subadult males) and the female F103 plus other 2 subadult females that weighed between 129 to 145 kg. Those are "adult weights" figures, but came from subadult specimens that did not surpassed the 2.8 years old.
We can correct the figures of the male tigers with the records of Cooch Behar and John Hewett because they present the entire list of figures, but we can't do it with Brander as he just presented the average of all. Other thing is the we can't correct the figures from the females, as the overlap between "adult" and "subadult" is complete and all the females are heavier than 100 kg (except for those from the Naga hills, which he "guess" are adults). In the Nepal study, the lightest female was the specimen F108 with a weight of 116 kg, but the female was in really bad shape and died in the process. Other female, F115 - Chuchchi, weighed only 98 kg at her dead but she was emaciated!
Other thing is that Brander himself stated his doubts about the reliability of many "old" weights, check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
He is right, for example, with the tigers from the Mahratta region, check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The weights do not match with the body measurements (chest girth of 130 cm and a weight of only 172.4 kg???), they look like from a differente animal species, like Brander stated. So, how reliable are those old figures? Even the most serious of the naturalist doubted of them.
Apart from the "subadult-adult" issue and the "measurements vs weight" issue stated by Brander, we must take in count the sample size. For example we have only many specimens from one region but very few from others. This create a bias in the sample and if we take the biggest samples are surrogated from the entire population (Central India and Northeast India) is clear that tigers average no less than 200 kg, including subadults.
So, with this list of problems to create an average figure, how reliable is the information that we can get? Certainly the method used by BoldChamp in other forums (which is getting all the weights availble independently of its reliability, region or source, and puting them in "soup") is the less reliable one. Even I, which tried to divide them in "genetic areas" and create average figures for the regions, using only the figures from verified sources, still have problems with the results. It seems that the ending result will depend of what we use for the average, after all there is a point when the "sample size" is no longer a factor but the reliability and accuracy of the figures used.
Other thing is the methodology, as I am using the average of the averages to get the figures. In this form the average of the 8 population's average figures is 197 kg, but what happen is we use only the single weights? In this case we have 124 single weights that we can use, the only ones that will be excluded are the males from Brander, as I said before he just presented the average of his sample, not his individuals. Using this sample of 124 males, subadults included, the average figure is of 200 kg (range: 97 - 272 kg) and this is also including the Sundarbans tigers!
It seems that at the end, there are many variables that will affect the averages that we will get. Now if we exclude all the males of less than 180 kg (which is the lower figure of males over 3 years old, recorded by scientists, adjusted for stomach content), the average will be 212 kg (n=97, range: 180 - 272 kg) or 214 kg (n=139) including the average of Brander. Including Sundarbans, the average will be 207 kg (single specimens), or 203 kg including Brander (average of averages). I still think that Brander's avearge figure is reliable, because even when he included "gorged" specimens, that inclution of subadults in his sample leveled the average overall. Yes, I know that Brander says that he used "mature" animals, he also says that "the classification of what is a mature animal has presented some difficulty, and would vary according to the views of the individual". So, based in the methods used in the old days, we can conclude that those clasifications are not entirely reliable.
At then end, it depends of what method we use:
* Overall with Sundarbans: 197 kg - n=166 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* Overall Mainland only: 208 kg - n=160 - range: 150 - 272 kg.
* Single weights with Sundarbans: 200 kg - n=124 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* Single weights Mainland only: 204 kg - n=118 - range: 150 - 272 kg
* "Adults" only with Sundarbarns - single weights: 207 kg - n=103 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* "Adults" only with Mainland - single weights: 212 kg kg - n=97 - range: 180 - 272 kg.
* "Adults" only with Sundarbarns - average of averages: 203 kg - n=145 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* "Adults" only with Mainland - average of averages: 214 kg kg - n=139 - range: 180 - 272 kg.
An average figure of all these results will be of 206 kg, which will cover all the posibilities, but if you ask me, personally I think that a figure of about 200 kg is correct for the Bengal tiger IF we include Sundarbans and the subadult and/or postprime specimens, or about 210 kg for mainland males, also including subadults. The same treatment should be make for females.
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
