Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[BigPanther]

(04-28-2022, 10:39 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 06:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the Smythsonian Tiger of 389kg also similarly had a tail like this, about an 86cm tail, then the rest of the head body length would be 235cm and a Tiger of that body length (if has the same proportions of an average Bengal Tiger) can mathematically reach upto 396kg.

Now, in the case of the 389kg specimen, the stomach content would have been around 15kg in my opinion. That means a weight of about 370-375kg and if the Tiger was even 225-230cm in head body but was proportionally taller or had a proportionally wider chest then the 389kg is possible. (perhaps not practical but possible)

All we know is the total length between pegs for that Tiger which was 322cm, the rest of the details are unknown so if more measurements were available, then it would have been possible to make better judgements but with a small tail or by being tall and bulky or by having both, the Tiger could have reached that weight for real.

People say that 389kg is impossible but it’s physically possible. If he had that sort of length with a very short tail then the Tiger can definitely support this weight.

We have a couple of other examples of big tigers and short tails:

The Bachelor of Powalgarh, for example, measured about 323 cm "over curves" and probably 310 cm "between pegs". We estimate a good size but the picture shows a true giant! Check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger certainly measured over 210 cm in head-body "between pegs", sadly we can't see its tail.


Other is the tiger of the Maharaha of Nepal that weighed 320 kg and total length of 328 cm  over curves" (at least 311 cm "between pegs"), the incredibly realistic paint shows a short tail in relation with its overall size, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger is another candidate for over 210 cm in head body length "straight".

Now, these two giants are very bulky as we can see and reflect huge body masses, but what about the Smithsonian tiger, well.........

*This image is copyright of its original author

Certainly this tiger is not near the size of the Bachelor or the Nepalese giant, it looks more like an average sized one, and the reported size for its skull confirm it. Honestly it do not look gorged or anything like that so that statement can't be use to justify its huge mass, check this other picture too:

*This image is copyright of its original author

But with this photographic evidence we can see that there is something wrong with the weight of this tiger, even the reported length of 323 cm "between pegs" seems too much for this specimen, unless than its tail was very long (up to 114 cm in the maximum records (Brander, 1927)), in that case the length seems reliable as this tiger can be a little over 200 cm in head-body straight. So, while this tiger did existed, was certainly measured and obviously weighed, the weight was certainly incorrect, maybe the scale used was bad, or something happen but from my point of view this tiger can't weight over 300 kg, leave alone the 389 kg claimed.

Evidence suggest that the biggest tigers can reach 320-330 cm in total length (up to 221 cm in head-body confirmed) and weights between 260-290 kg "empty". The Smithsonian tiger while cover all the levels of reliability of Slaght et al. (2005) and can be clasiffied as "highly reliable" is an example when we also need to use the logic and not only the raw data, as this tiger, alghouth of a good size, it can't be of that enormous weight, from my point of view at least.

The tiger of 389 kg and the lion 313 kg reported by Guinness are not reliable and should not be used for comparison. That is my final word on this.

Hi everyone, the Monster of Chunakhan tiger shot by Iman (year unknown) certainly is massive, as big or bigger than the massive Bachelor of Powalgarh tiger shot by Jim Corbett in 1930. These are my 2 candidates for the biggest tigers known with supportive images, they must have weighed close to 300 kg?! The tigers weighed in 1980 M105 and 1984 M026 are probably as big, they maxed out the 600 Ib scale so 273 kg plus are the figures published, it's a pity they didn't have heavier scales!

The David Hasinger tiger From 1967 which is popularly mentioned as the longest and heaviest is not supported by the image, it looks like just a slightly bigger tiger than normal, at a guess less than 250 kg. It was weighted at a sugar mill and the scales were obviously faulty. 

I have several more scientific books on carnivores and none mention this animal, all quote a John Hewitt tiger from around 1910 at 259 kg (often rounded to 260 kg) as the biggest tiger weighed, mentioned in his 1938 book Jungle Trails in Northern India. The Maharajah Cooch Bahar had scales too and his heaviest were 248 kg and 242 kg in 1908 and 1905. He mentions is biggest by far shot in 1890 before he had scales at an estimated 273 kg with a 137 cm chest. He doesn't have images of any of these tigers in his 1908 book Shooting in Cooch Bahar. 

A A Dunbar Brander also had scales, the heaviest he weighed was 234 kg but he estimated the biggest he ever shot was 273 kg but he didn't have scales, he mentions they kept breaking in the Indian humidity so he stopped using them! Again no images. It's interesting in his 1923 book Wild Animals of Central India he quotes many enormous sizes of claimed tigers which he cannot credibly reconcile with, especially the huge lengths reported by respected British gentleman, dozens over 350 cm, yet his longest from 200 kills was 'only' 312 cm. I think it shows how honest the British gentleman sports hunter was in the era!

So I've got around 6 over 250 kg which seem credible but only 4 with images, all the biggest but none actually weighed frustratingly! I think the 313 kg lion shot in 1936 in South Africa could be credible too as the biggest lion, the scales were apparently checked afterwards due to the unusual weight of this cat. There are several other reports of lions over 250 kg with accompanying images, some recent. I have no reason to doubt these as the lions do look big in the images. Reply

Attached Files

Image(s)