|
Captive Lion and Tiger weights
|
  (04-25-2021, 08:47 AM)CatLover Wrote:I'd say it's accurate,he measured 112 cm at shoulders and 5' must be the height measured from the ground upto his head.He was definitely a massive (very tall and bulky) cat.(04-19-2021, 06:31 PM)Hello Wrote: 
CATLOVER
A - RANKING You no doubt know Tigerluver graduated in Biology. You also know he's a Supermod at Wildfact. He's the Mod of all Mods, that is. Apart from that, he knows about big cats, research and publications. He published about them. We're talking about a peer-reviewed document. If there's one poster who prefers a debate over a ban, it's Tigerluver. In spite of that and the invitation to start a debate about factors affecting the size of wild big cats, you managed to get a verbal warning after a few posts only. Impressive. If we add you, using a different alias, received a permanent ban in the recent past, the conclusion is you apparently prefer new dimensions in preference over knowledge. I don't know why you prefer Dances with Lions over an interesting debate, but your wish to top the list of future bans will be seriously considered. B - ABOUT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ATTEMPT TO GET TO A DEBATE b1 - Differences in size between tigers in different regions of India at the level of averages. Too limited to get to a solid conclusion, you said. This although you, in your posts, repeatedly referred to tables I posted about this topic in the tiger extinction thread. An intriguing conclusion, as these tables strongly suggest the opposite is true. b2 - Genetics You said there are no genetic differences between tigers living in different regions in India. This although you visited the tiger extinction thread in order to find the tables on the size of tigers in different regions in India discussed above. Did you miss the publication about genetic differences discussed in that thread, or did you decide it doesn't fit your agenda? Anyhow. Those involved in the publication concluded there are distinct genetic differences between different populations. If we add the tables you referred to, the conclusion is there is a relation between regions, genetics and (average) size. At the level of averages, tigers in western and northern India, as well as those in Nepal, are larger than their relatives in other regions. One additional remark about the genetic differences between Central India and Sunderban tigers wouldn't be out of place. It is, as you said, true they're very similar, if not one and the same. In spite of that, there are significant differences in morphology and, in particular, size. These differences are so outspoken, that some authorities (on Sunderban tigers) think the time for a new approach (in taxonomy) has arrived. The main question is if local races can develop in a few centuries only. Not likely, most of those in the know think. But others have a different opinion. The answer partly depends on the definitions used, but there could be more to it. What I read suggests geographical isolation, a (very) limited influx of new genes, weather conditions, a limited amount of food and something I would describe as stress can have a serious effect on a population in a specific region. The delta has produced an impressive number of 'problem tigers' over the years. Not a few of them learned to hunt humans, if not to say they easily topped the table in this department. The question is why they, ehh, have a special relation with twolegs. I never found a satisfying answer, but did notice the number of attacks dropped considerably when the region got the attention it deserves. This suggests most problems in the delta could be man-made. Not a few of us think (tiger) subspecies are a result of human intervention, but that's a bit too easy. It's more than likely (the combination of) other factors also have an effect. Interesting topic for a debate. The condition, however, is that all of those interested are prepared to give it a try. One can, as you did, opt for a hit and run strategy and hope for the best, but it's not the most productive choice. It may seem different these days, but every debate starts and ends with respect. b3 - Subspecies You said all tigers in India belong to Panthera tigris tigris, meaning there is no reason to assume there are differences between populations in different regions. Recent information (see b2), however, says this isn't correct: there are distinct differences between regions. This means a discussion about taxonomy and, in particular, definitions can't be avoided. You politely declined, but decided to post your opinion anyhow. There's something else to consider. The moment you decide to join a public forum, rules come into play. If you ignore them, problems can be expected. Over here, we don't do misinformation. You knew before you decided to rejoin Wildfact using a back alley, because you was banned for the same reason the first time you joined. b4 - Size At the level of species, lions used to top the table. That, of course, was before Panthera tigris balica, Panthera tigris sondaica, Panthera tigris amoyensis and Panthera tigris virgata were hunted to extinction. At the moment, we have Panthera tigris tigris, Panthera tigris corbetti, Panthera tigris jacksoni, Panthera tigris sumatrae and Panthera tigris altaica. I'm not sure, but my guess is we're, sizewise, close to a draw today. This at the level of species. At the level of subspecies, things are somewhat different. Although there is quite a bit of overlap, reliable information says there are significant differences in size between most tiger subspecies. In lions, these differences are more limited. Most unfortunately, there's not a lot of reliable information about the size of tigers and lions today. Another problem is the accepted method to measure a wild big cat is applied in different ways. In some regions, big cats are measured in a way I still do not understand. For this reason, we have no option but to use information collected by hunters a century ago. The info they shared strongly suggests tigers in northern India and Nepal, including those living in elevated regions (up to 12,000 feet), were the largest wild big cats a century ago. Based on what I have, I'd say nothing changed in the last decades. Individual variation in large carnivores like lions and tigers is pronounced. Reliable information suggests adult wild male lions and tigers both are able to reach, say, 500 pounds and 9.6 in total length measured in a straight line every now and then. Exceptional individuals of both species can exceed 550 pounds and 10.0 in total length measured in a straight line. The difference between both species is tigers do it more often. b5 - Factors affecting size - Kruger lions Kruger lions are among the largest in Africa. According to Lt.-Col. J. Stevenson-Hamilton ('Wild Life in South Africa', first published in 1947), a former Warden of the Kruger National Park, " ... an average full-grown lion tapes, ..., a little under 9 feet, a really fine one 9 feet 4 inches, and an exceptionally large one 9 feet 6 inches ... " ('Wild Life in South Africa', pp. 149 in the Panther Edition published in 1957). At that length, adult males average 185-190 kg. Big by any standard, that is. You said adult male lions in the northern part of Kruger averaged 200 kg, whereas they averaged 186 kg in the southern part. That's correct. There was a reason and it was discussed in the publication you used. Inform our readers. C - TO CONCLUDE Tigerluver, as he announced, will clear up the mess. The reason, apart from misinformation, is the thread derailed. It was intended to post reliable information about the size of captive big cats. Rumours and opinions are out, that is. Our advice, regarding your obsession, is to get a bit of control. For starters, widen your scope. Visit our lion section. We have many good posters and good mods. The result, we think, is unmatched. Read a few threads. You can participate if you want. If you want to join a debate about taxonomy, subspecies, definitions, morphology and size, start reading. Make notes. Make sure you're able to contribute in a debate. And don't run when you face opposition. If you can't control the urge to continue on lions, tigers, size, fights and all the rest of it, join another forum. Up to you. 
There was an interesting study a couple of years ago comparing the growth of male lions in captivity to their wild counterparts. Captive male lions tend to reach puberty an entire year earlier, and grow quite a bit faster (gaining an average of 7.3kg per month until they are two years old, compared to 3.9kg per month in Kruger National Park in South Africa). This is probably due to zoos feeding them decent portions of food at consistent intervals, whereas in the wild, cubs often starve for long periods. In the wild, a male lion is not considered fully grown until he is six years old. In captivity, a lion has already reached adult size at the age of three.
*This image is copyright of its original author https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217986#pone.0217986.ref050 Excerpt: Quote:The growth kinetics presented in the present study indicate that captive-born lion cubs develop at a faster rate than wild-born cubs, which could account for the early puberty. Wild cubs are heavier for the first few months after birth, but between 3–5 months of age the growth patterns were the same to our captive cubs. Both captive and wild cubs begin to taste/consume meat a few months after birth and are usually weaned by 0.5 years [22,27,50]. However, after weaning, the plane of nutrition appears to diverge between wild- and captive-born cubs and the ADG rate is no longer synchronous, perhaps a result of feeding captive cubs meat daily. There is substantial variability in growth rate in wild African lions [22], and the rate at which lion cubs grow is correlated with food availability once they are weaned [50,51]. Cubs are dependent on adults for food [7,22], but when prey is scarce, young lions go without food for extended periods [50–52] and starvation is a common cause of death at that age [7,22,53]. Captive cubs likely experience an early onset of puberty and reach adult body weight earlier as a result of the consistent feedings they are provided [22,50,54]. For most mammals, the onset of puberty is associated with attaining a threshold body weight [55–59] and acquiring adequate fat reserves [60]. Under-nutrition can delay onset of puberty while over-conditioned animals often attain puberty at an earlier age.
Aslan (200 kg),Korumba (180 kg),Jasmine(130 kg)
Pic of 180 kg lioness  *This image is copyright of its original author
Abuto,520 pounds
 *This image is copyright of its original author
4-year-old Tiger Aston, weighing 260kg（The weight used to be close to 300kg）, shoulder height 109 cm (measured when standing).
The site of weight measurement. Shoulder Height measurement. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1c54y167oz
3-year-old Tiger Rolls Royce, weighing 280kg, shoulder height 103 cm (measured when standing).
Shoulder Height measurement. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1c54y167oz
Born in China on October 6, 2008, came to Hirakawa Zoo in Japan on May 19, 2011, and died on April 19, 2016.
7-year-old white tiger weight 260.8 kg. https://hirakawazoo.jp/news/10377
The 442.4 kg Siberian tiger (fasting weight).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/vms3.395  *This image is copyright of its original author
(06-08-2021, 01:04 PM)Betty Wrote: The 442.4 kg Siberian tiger (fasting weight). That sounds like a morbidly unhealthy animal to me. This observation from later in the paper does not surprise me: Quote:AMY is one of the markers most commonly used for diagnosing pancreatic diseases, especially acute pancreatitis (Vissers et al., 1999). In this study, AMY level ranged from 1910 to 3,000 U L−1 with an average value of 2,563.45 U L−1. The AMY level for most tigers was approximately 3,000 U L−1, which could be interpreted as a sign of disease but was most likely related to a high-fat, high-protein or high-carbohydrate dietary (Grossman et al., 1943; Kondo et al., 1988). Poor tigers.
The male tiger weighs a maximum of 251kg and the female tiger weighs a maximum of 247kg.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7640590/
Eighteen captive tigers (seven males and 11 females), aged 2–18 years old and weighing 81–154 kg (mean±sd weight of 127.4±20.1 kg), scheduled for periodic physical examination or diagnostic procedures at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital of the University of Milan (Lodi, Italy) were enrolled in the study after obtaining owners’ written consent. Tigers were fasted for 24 hours before immobilization but had free access to water up to two hours before the procedure. During this period, tigers were kept in mobile dedicated cages to facilitate weighing operations and remote drug administration. In the link it has a few pictures of some of the tigers, as well as a chart of the age, sex, and weights of the tigers. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |