Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[peter]

(02-22-2018, 12:33 AM)Amayas Wrote: Thank you for answering!

So the Bengal tiger is deemed the biggest subspecies indeeed. I always found it strange how even some big wildlife channels make the mistake of refering to the Siberian tiger as the biggest tiger. 

Since we're on the biggest subspecies topic, the Cape lion is thought to have been the biggest lion, right? 
(Do forgive my many questions, I'm very new to wildlife.)

a - Size

A discussion about size starts with clarity. We first need to know what we want to know, that is. In big cats, size usually is a result of total length, standing height at the shoulder, weight and skull size.

In order to answer questions about 'size', reliable measurements are needed. This means we need to know in what way a big cat was measured. In most cases, this question can't be answered. When we know what method was used, we need information about the one involved. The reason is it isn't easy to measure a big cat. They don't need to be well-trained, but experience in measuring department is important. Furthermore, we need to be sure that only adult big cats were measured and weighed. 

When you read the first paragraph again, you'll quickly conclude that measurements need to be taken with care. Same for conclusions.

b - Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris)

In order to answer questions about size, we need to distinguish between India and Russia and between captive and wild tigers. India first.

A century ago, those who had experience with wild tigers in what was then British India agreed that captive tigers were a mere shadow of their wild relatives. Today, things don't seem to be different in this respect. I saw a few true Indian tigers in circuses, but there are no Indian tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in European zoos. This means we need information from India to answer questions about size.

I remember a post from a UK-based keeper in another forum some years ago. When asked about the size of captive Indian tigers, he referred to a study executed in Indian zoos by someone he knew. In the study, if I remember correctly, 19 male Indian tigers ranged between 386-436 pounds (175,09-197,77 kg.).

Some time later I found more data in another study executed in Indian zoos. In that study, captive male Indian tigers more or less compared. The heaviest in that study was 210 kg. (464 pounds). If I was to conclude that captive male Indian tigers in Indian zoos average 400-410 pounds (181,44-185,98 kg.), chances are I could be quite close. 

Here's a bad scan of the study:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

The trainer of the three male Indian circus tigers I saw said they were about 200 kg. (441-442 pounds). My estimate was 420-430 pounds, but he could have been right as he was well-informed. All three males, well past their prime, were as fit as they come. The reason was exercise. Nearly all big cats I saw in circuses, although often quite old, were healthy. I saw two male tigers in another circus that could have been Panthera tigris tigris as well. They had been weighed shortly before I visited the trainer and averaged about 375 pounds (170,1 kg.). 

As to wild Indian tigers.

A century and a half ago, adult male tigers shot in the Deccan averaged 402 pounds (182,35 kg.). Male tigers shot in Central India by Dunbar-Brander half a century later averaged about 420 pounds (190 kg.). In northern India, males shot by Sir John Hewett and his friends in the same period averaged about 435 pounds (197,32 kg.) and in northeastern India males shot in the last decades of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century averaged just over 460 pounds. Based on details provided by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar (northeastern India) and Sir John Hewett (northern India), I concluded that males in northeastern India could have been 455-460 pounds (206,39-208,66 kg.), whereas those in northern India most probably would have exceeded 475 (215,46 kg.). Males tigers in Nepal, however, most probably topped the list.

There's not much about male tigers today. My guess is that Nepal male tigers still top the list. At least two wild males bottomed a 600-pound (272,16 kg.) scale, but the average of male tigers in northern India could be very close as they're no longer hunted. I've seen plenty of male tigers in central India that bottomed a 500-pound (226,80 kg.) scale, but they seem a bit shorter than tigers in northern India. Adult males in northeastern India, about as long as those in Central India, seem to be very robust. There's some evidence that tigers in that part of India hunt rhinos at times. 

All in all, I'd say that nothing has changed in the last century. Tigers, however, do seem a bit larger (heavier) than a century ago. The reason is quite many live in small, but well-stocked reserves. They also face a lot of competition, especially in central India. Most prime males easily exceed 500 pounds (226,80 kg.), but the average of all could be 440-460 pounds (199,58-208,66 kg.), maybe a bit more. There are, of course, regional differences. Based on what I have, I'd say that northern India and Nepal have the largest wild big cats today. With 'large', I mean total length and weight. Tigers in northeastern India, however, seem to have the biggest skulls. With 'big', I'm not referring to greatest total length, but to width and weight.    

Wild male Indian tigers could be about 10-12% heavier than their captive relatives, that is. The reason is that only the fittest and most able get to adulthood in wild India. Captive tigers don't have the opportunity to develop into big game specialists. 

c - Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica)

A decade ago, a table was published about wild Amur tigers captured in the period 1992-2005 roughly. Males averaged 294 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' and 176-177 kg. (about 389 pounds). The table was polluted to a degree in that 3-4 year old males and 'problem tigers' had been included, but more striking was the lack of large individuals and the limited amount of individual variation.

In an email, however, Miquelle wrote that males averaged about 430 pounds. Not much later, a well-known Russian biologist and hunter, Kretzchmar, said he had seen prints of very large individuals.

A few years ago, an all-Russian project was started. Some of the males they captured slightly exceeded 200 kg., but they too didn't compare to the giants shot in the first half of the 20th century.

The question is if these 'giants' featuring in books written by a number of hunters really existed. A decade ago, biologists decided to go over all reports of Amur tigers they could find. Although most records were dismissed, they concluded that the 'historical average' of males could have been about 215 kg. (475 pounds).

The criteria they used were valid, but that doesn't mean that exceptional Amur tigers were a myth. It means that those who reported about exceptional indivduals didn't produce enough to meet the threshold. Some, like Baikov, did, but not in every case. One large male he shot was accepted, but others were not. Most of the exceptional males he shot were dismissed. I'm not saying that the criteria used to get to an opinion were unsound, but they did produce strange results.  

Example. This male shot by Baikov in 1911 (11.7 'over curves' in total length and 560 pounds) qualified:

*This image is copyright of its original author

     

whereas this tiger shot in 1943 (at east 300 kg.), in spite of the photograph and a desciption in a book published in 1993, didn't:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

According to one of the hunters present, W.J. Jankowski, this male was at least 300 kg. (662 pounds). In a book published in 1993, however, he wrote the tiger was at least 350 kg. (772 pounds).

So what do we have on wild male Amur tigers? Baikov, over a century ago, thought most males (young adults included) ranged between 160-200 kg. (353-443 pounds), but some individuals he shot were much heavier. At least one of them was well over 700 pounds. The Jankowskis, half a century later, confirmed that exceptional males could exceed 300 kg. After 1970, biologists noticed a decline in size. Today, according to Miquelle, wild males average 430 pounds (195 kg.). If young adult males and problem tigers are included, however, the average drops to 389 pounds (176,45 kg.).

Based on what I saw and have, captive male Amur tigers are the largest big cats by a margin. Some of our members dug in and posted a number of tables. The averages they found show that adult males average 215-220 kg. (475-487 pounds), maybe a bit less. If you have another look at the information above, you'll find that this is the 'historical weight' of wild male Amur tigers a century ago.

d - Indian and Amur tigers compared

Compared to wild male Indian tigers shot 150-100 years ago, wild male Amur tigers shot in the same period seemed to have been a bit longer and heavier. Every now and then, exceptional individuals exceeding 700 pounds were shot. If we include the total number of tigers in British India and northeastern Asia, my guess is that a hunter interested in exceptional individuals would have preferred to visit northeastern Asia.

According to U. Karanth, adult male tigers captured in India, Nepal and Russia today more or less compare in size. Adult males range between 270-310 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' in all three regions. Male tigers in India and, in particular, Nepal, however, are significantly heavier than male tigers in Russia.  

In captive tigers, it's the other way round. Male Amur tigers are longer, taller, longer-skulled and heavier than male Indian tigers. In weight, they seem to compare to the 'historic average' of wild male tigers shot a century ago in Russia and northern China. 

I measured a number of skulls of captive Indian and Amur tigers. Skulls of Amur tigers are longer (greatest total length), but skulls of Indian tigers often are wider and a bit more robust.

e - African Lion (Panthera leo)

One of the few who, accuracywise, compared to Dunbar-Brander, Sir John Hewett and the Maharajah of Cooch Behar was Stevenson-Hamilton. The male lions he shot in South Africa (just under 9 feet in total length 'between pegs') were a bit shorter than tigers shot in most parts of India. Unfortunately, he only weighed 5 males, of which one was gorged. In weight, compared to male tigers shot in central parts of India (Dunbar Brander), these 5 lacked 34 pounds. If we use the average of male tigers shot in all four regions mentioned above 100-150 years ago (402, 420, 435 and 461), the difference is 43 pounds (429-386).

Some years ago I read an article about Kruger lions. In one part of the region, males, as a result of a disease, averaged about 400 pounds. In the part that wasn't affected, they averaged about 200 kg. (442 pounds). In another study, males in the same region, corrected for stomach content, averaged 413-414 pounds (187,34-187,79 kg.). Unfortunately, we can't compare them to Indian tigers today, but if we use the conclusion on Indian tigers above (440-460 pounds, maybe a bit more), the difference between male tigers in central India and male lions in Kruger seems to compare with the difference a century ago.

I always thought that Kalahari lions were a bit taller and longer than Kruger lions. In the past few years, information about the length and weight of Namibian lions was posted by one of our posters (The Lioness). Ten male lions averaged 199 kg. (440 pounds), but 8 of them were baited before they were weighed and these 8 thrived on domestic animals. The 2 males that lived in a large enclosure averaged just under 400 pounds (181,44 kg.). In total length measured 'over curves', 6 males averaged 297,4 cm. (range 246-335). The females were even more impressive. Five of them averaged 274,6 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' (just over 9 feet). As long as wild Amur tigresses, that is.

Do the methods used to measure Amur tigers and Kalahari lions compare? I don't know. I do know the Kalahari lions are large animals. This male was 203 kg. (408 pounds):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Skull size is another way to express size. Here's a table posted before. Although only a few skulls from animals shot in northern Africa were measured, they top the list (males and females):
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

      
Does this mean that Atlas lions were large animals, larger than Kruger lions? Atlas lions disappeared in the forties and fifties of the last century. The last individuals could have been shot during the conflict in Algeria. I never found anything suggesting they outsized lions in other regions and was a bit surprised when I saw the table above. 

There is a thread about Atlas lions. The photographs I posted suggest Atlas lions could have been a bit smaller than average, but the males were large-skulled. In this respect, they could have compared to Indian lions (P. leo persica). Male lions in India average 360-370 pounds (163,30-167,83 kg.), but they have relatively large skulls:

Atlas lion (Algeria, 1902):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Subadult male London Zoo 1896:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Northern Africa. Adult male:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Captive male Indian lion:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to captive lions. There's no such thing as an 'African lion'. They range in size in different regions and individual variation is pronounced. The longest skull I measured was from Abessynia (now Ethiopia), but I also saw large skulls from Congo. V. Mazak (1983) thought an average male was about 170 kg. (375 pounds), but recent information suggests that 175-180 kg. (386-388 pounds) could be closer to the mark.

If so, I'd say that an average captive male is a bit heavier. Some of our members produced a few tables. My guess is that an average adult captive male is closer to 420 pounds (190 kg.) than to 400. The reason is less competition for food, less famines and, foodwise, more opportunity to get to the potential.

The heaviest I saw was a white male from a facility in South Africa. He was just over 600 pounds. Another male, measured by Dr. P. van Bree, was 300,7 cm. in total length 'between pegs'. This male was 280 kg. (618 pounds). His skull was just under 15 inches in greatest total length.

f - Lions and tigers compared

In total length, Nepal and northern India tigers top the list. Namibian lions could (not sure about the method used) come second, followed by Amur tigers and tigers in northeastern India. Namibian lions could be the tallest, but there's nothing about tigers in northern India and Nepal. Tigers in central and southern India are third. In weight, Nepal and northern India come first, followed by northeastern India. Central India third. Kruger lions have the longest skulls (too few skulls from northern Africa to get to an opinion), followed by Amur tigers. Tigers in northeastern India could have the widest and heaviest skulls, but there's nothing about Crater lions. 

In captive big cats, Amur tigers top all tables (height at the shoulder, total length and weight), but I'm not sure about skulls. Could be similar as in wild big cats in the end. Captive African lions could be a bit heavier (10-20 pounds) than captive Indian tigers. Exceptional lions almost compare to exceptional tigers, but tigers do it more often and they also top the list for absolutes.

g - Trips to wild Africa, wild India and Russia 

Poster PC was in Africa and central India. He didn't see a lot of difference in males (male tigers a bit more muscular, but lions about as robust), but was quite impressed by the Indian females. There's a thread in which he posts about the things he saw. Recommended.   

If anyone is planning a trip, I would advice Kruger, Namibia, northern India, Nepal and Russia.

My guess is the Russians are a bit underestimated. Things have changed in Russia. In a few years, Amur tigers will have 200 000 square km. at their disposal, which is unheard of today. Although they hunt deer and wild boars foremost, bears top the list in some regions in summer. In a recent study, biologists said they might have to adjust a few things in the bear department.  

h - Big cats compared to humans

As to size. This photograph was posted by one of our mods (Rishi). It shows a male tiger that was collared in 2007 in central India. He almost bottomed a 500-pound scale. If you read reports about big cats of that weight, remember the photograph. A big cat of that weight is a very large animal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Male tiger found dead in Shadol, India (Nov. 2017):
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

One more to finish the post. Northern India and bigger than the tigers above:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply