Book Review

[Pckts]

On a species level the tiger may be smaller but it also may not, here's why.....
How many Sumatran and Sunderban Tigers exist today, how many have been weighed and how does that number impact the far larger Tiger numbers as a whole? Between the sunderban and sumatran tiger population, how many are full grown adult males compared to Indo-Chinese, Amur and Bengal?
According to this study that @Shardul posted http://www.wii.gov.in/images//images/doc...s_2014.pdf the sunderbans has a tiger population between "62-96" tigers compared to the rest of India which has an estimated population of "2226" tigers and this is from 2014, 2015 yielded higher numbers than the last year.
Unless the sumatran tiger population is significantly higher than all other sub species populace, I don't see how the average would drop soo much.


To my knowledge we have very few weights from Sumatran and Sunderban tiger populations, certainly not enough to even make a dent in the overall number. Not to mention, at least in sunderban, the tigers weighed usually were sick, malnourished or had become man eaters, I believe. According to few who have seen them, they are actually quite big animals when in good health. Sumatrans are obviously the smallest bar none, but still, I know of very few weights for them as well.
Between the Sunderban and Sumatran Tigers, you are probably looking at a number that contributes to less than 10% of the entire Tiger population, so I highly doubt you would see a tiger average drop from lets say.... 190kg (amur, indo-chinese and bengal) to 160kg if you included the sumatran and sunderban tiger population.
So while its nice to estimate, the numbers really hold no water outside of the verified weights we can go off of.

In terms of the 220-260kg number, that is where I think you see the biggest difference. The number of measured males for tigers is far less than lions yet the mark mentioned seems to be hit more often for the tiger. Reply