ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[Kingtheropod]

(11-23-2016, 06:55 PM)peter Wrote: WILDFACT PUBLICATIONS ON THE SIZE OF INDIAN AND NEPAL TIGERS


Nice info, PC and Pod. So what do we have on the weight of wild Indian and Nepal tigers today?

a - A large male tiger in Royal Chitwan (Nepal) bottomed a 500-pound scale when Sunquist was there (in the seventies of the last century). Some years later, after Sunquist had left, this tiger bottomed a 600-pound scale. 

b - Seven Nepal males, including a young adult, averaged 520 pounds unadjusted and 488 adjusted (Sunquist, late seventies of the last century).

c - Another male Nepal tiger bottomed a 600-pound scale in the early eighties of the last century (Dinerstein).

c - A male tiger (Madla) in Panna bottomed a 500-pound scale. Another male in Panna, Hairyfoot, was said to be slightly larger.

d - Three Nagarahole males averaged 480 pounds (U. Karanth) after they had been severely adjusted. Without adjustment, they well exceeded 500 pounds.    

e - A Ranthambore male tiger later transferred to a facility allegedly was just over 600 pounds the second time he was weighed.

e - Quite a number of young (2-4 years of age) males bottomed 500-pound scales.

The list could be longer, as we only seldom get good information (Indian biologists seem reluctant to inform the public on the size of Indian tigers). The question is why so many tigers bottom 500-pound scales. It could be that the scales used are unreliable, but it seems more likely that biologists underestimate the size of tigers.

I don't know why that is, but I do know quite many biologists are sceptical about the averages found in India and Nepal. The reason is they think tigers were baited. As a result, not a few posters used the opportunity to question just about anything published on the size of Indian and Nepal tigers in the last 150 years. The result was (and is) many debates and a lot of confusion. Maybe this was the aim.

As a result of the contradictory information about the size of tigers (as well as other big cats) I read, I decided to get more active some decades ago. For this reason, I bought every book I could find. I also decided to measure and weigh captive big cats myself. About 20 years ago, skulls were added. All in all, I measured about 400 big cat skulls.

The time to post a number of tables now has arrived. Last winter, I started with tigers in northeast India (the Maharajah of Cooch Behar), northern India (Hewett) and Nepal (Smythies). More tables will follow in the next years.

The first part of the series on the size of Indian and Nepal tigers immediately resulted in attempts to question, if not sideline, the results. I do not doubt more attempts will follow in the near future.

In order to straighten things out once and for all, I decided to step it up. Tigerluver informed me about a possibility to publish papers and tables. It didn't take us long to decide to cooperate. This means we need good information on the size of tigers today. Anything you can find will help us. You can either post it in this thread or in a new thread Apollo will start soon. Thanks in advance.

Hello Peter

"A Ranthambore male tiger later transferred to a facility allegedly was just over 600 pounds the second time he was weighed."

I just wanted to ask where you got this 600 lb figure from? As far as I know, I am unaware of any record of a tiger in Ranthambore reaching over 600 pounds. Can you please show the source to this if you have? Reply