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.
01-26-2022, 04:09 AM( This post was last modified: 01-26-2022, 08:45 AM by peter )
(01-26-2022, 12:30 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(01-26-2022, 12:05 AM)LonePredator Wrote: These two cats have reached enormous sizes. Really impressive. By the way, I was looking at your size comparisons of Tigers and Lions and I noticed that the largest Lions were both longer and taller than Bengal Tigers. How could that be?
In theory if Tigers are heavier then they should also be taller and longer, right? Did the length and height averages also include Sundarban Tigers or only mainland ones?? If so, then do you have the number for average length and height for mainland Tigers only?
If it does include only mainland ones then it's surprising that Tigers are much heavier despite being less in length and height.
In the images you need to see the measurement method. All those lions that you see as "bigger" than Bengal tigers were measured "along the curves", which means that in a "straight line" they are smaller for at least 10 cm, maybe more.
That is why you need to see all the details in the tables, not only see the numbers. Check also details where it mention that some shoulder heights are not real "heights", so again, please check the details and tell other people to do the same.
About the Bengal, it does includes Sundarbans tigers, all the figures include them to be fair, and I mention it in the details too! So now I am worried that people out there are not paying atention to the details are confused.
I posted many tables about tigers shot in Nepal, northern India and Cooch Behar roughly a century ago in the tiger extinction thread. In male tigers shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam, the difference between both methods ('over curves' and 'between pegs') was 5,5 inches (13,97 cm). In northern India, the difference was more limited (3-4 inches). In other regions, however, the difference was pronounced.
It isn't easy to measure an adult male lion or tiger 'over curves'. It depends on the way the method is applied. You need quite a bit of experience to do it right. This is the reason 3 different people measuring the same cat 'over curves' will produce 3 different results. Make that very different. When doing an experiment, I was quite amazed at the results. We're not talking about amateurs, but people involved in (captive) big cats.
I measured two captive male Amur tigers 'between pegs' and 'over curves'. In the shorter male, the difference between both methods was less than 3 inches (7,0 cm). In the longer male, it was just under 5 inches (12,5 cm). The longer male (HB 194 cm, weight 185,5 kg) was quite lanky, whereas the shorter male (HB 180 cm) was bigger all the way.
The protocol in use today says wild big cats have to be measured 'over curves'. The problem is this method is applied in different ways in different regions. The most common result is confusion.
Anyhow. Everything I have on wild Indian tigers today strongly suggests they compare to the tigers shot a century ago. They could be a bit heavier though. The most likely reason is conservation. Most ecosystems seem to be intact and large individuals are able to pass on their genes.
Is conservation that important? Yes. Example. In Corbett's day, however, Nepal male tigers had 4-5 inches on male tigers in northern India. Strange, as they were, and still are, more or less similar in size. The most likely reason was conservation. In Nepal, tigers were protected. In northern India, they were hunted.
All in all, I agree with Guate on the Panna tiger table. While it has a few slops, it's the first that has information about the growth and size of wild tigers in a reserve in central India. Many thanks, Rage and Khan!
As to the size Barbary lions. In the lion extinction thread, I posted info about the actual standing height of a few captive specimens in the Paris Zoo well over a century. They were a bit taller than the tigers (referring to tigers from what used to be French indochina) displayed in that zoo. Sizewise, they seemed to compare to lions in western Africa (referring to the pictures I have). In spite of that, they had large skulls. The question is why a lion of average size would need a contest winning skull? The answer is we don't know.
The size of the Barbary lion
