Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Scout]

(09-17-2020, 03:14 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(09-16-2020, 11:16 PM)Scout Wrote:

(09-16-2020, 10:33 AM)Shadow Wrote:

(09-11-2020, 04:45 PM)Scout Wrote:

(09-11-2020, 08:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?

Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.

We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.

Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens

Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc. 

While discussing about that tiger shot in 1967 and which was said to be 857 lbs it´s good to know, that Guinness has changed their attitute towards that tiger, which is called "Smithsonian tiger" too. They too admit now, that weight is controversial and not certain. Of course for Guinness it´s a slow process, when they have accepted something in past, but they have corrected many other things with time too, because in past they accepted things with very little information to their Guinness Book of Records. This tiger is one of those "records", which wouldn´t be there at all, if someone would try to get it accepted today with so vague information as they managed to do 1967. That´s why also many tiger experts say, that it would need to be verified properly. Which is of course impossible at this point.

As far as I know, in photos that tiger doesn´t look anything too special and measurements aren´t extraordinary, which could be expected to back up claims of so big weight. Also it was weighed in some local sugar mill etc. and it seems that no-one knows today how that weighing was really done and was that scale reliable at all. Since it´s only such (claimed to be) "monster" and never seen before or after in India, I personally don´t take it seriously either. Some people do, but same people are very critical if same kind of vague case with so poor information is showed for some other species.

Anyway, also Guinness say it today, that it´s not clear how heavy that tiger was in reality. This problem seems to be with all "monster" big cats from past, all cases are quite vague and not documented properly at all. This is something, what I think is good to know for people reading these threads. As one biologist said to me, when discussing about tigers and lions and sizes: "Don´t believe all what you read".

Yep, that seems right. The tiger in the pics with Hassinger doesnt look freakishly big like an eight hundred pounder would look. Anyway, I was wondering the size of the tiger I linked above, he appears much bigger than the supposed 857lbs smithsonian tiger. 

This one- 

I did the reverse search, this tiger was shot by royals in Rajasthan's Comilla region

This should show it quite clearly why everyone should be careful when looking at photos. These tricks have been well known in past too, but this photo should make it easy to see how easy it is to fool people on purpose or by accident. I mean maybe not all hunters try to exaggerate prey size on purpose, maybe they just want to get all people in same photo. But the more distance there is in between the carcass and people, the bigger that carcass looks like. And of course it can be seen how the distance and angle of the camera in relation to the subject (carcass) has effect. So when seeing old photos it´s good to keep in mind how easy it´s to make something to look a lot bigger than it is in reality. Either on purpose or by accident.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Yeah, it does look like that it's another photography trick. Apparently, hunters are definitely less reliable than scientists. Well, whats the biggest photographed tiger from the wild? I think the ones from Kaziranga and central India Reply