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.
11-10-2014, 10:07 AM( This post was last modified: 11-10-2014, 10:15 AM by GuateGojira )
Tigerluver and Vinod, I partially agree with both of you, and also have disagreements, with both of you.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/LERLwvP.jpg" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title="">
*This image is copyright of its original author
2. However I also agree that prey base is not always the principal driving factor. For example, tigers in Chitwan (Nepal) have a large prey base but the main prey is the Chital deer of between 50 to 90 kg, even then, they are the largest tigers recorded by scientists in the field (Assam tigers had been not captured.... yet). However, the prey base of Nepal is smaller than that of Nagarahole (India) in which there are not also more Sambar deer but there are Gaur at a large density and tigers regularly predate on them. However, the tigers in the area don't present exceptional sizes, as in more than 100 years, the heaviest specimen (empty belly) is a male of 227 kg. I don't know if this is the exception to the rule, but Nagarahole tigers should be giants, following the rule, but they are not.
As we can see, I think that there are more factors than just prey base, maybe food intake (in the only two studies available, there are significant differences among tiger populations), or maybe genetic or even only prey density too.
I don't try to draw a conclusion, only to show a few examples that can be used for your arguments.
By the way, I have reach the page of the book "The Face of the tiger" where is mentioned the supposed record of 77 lb (35 kg) for the maximum food intake for a tiger (pg. 41). However, from my point of view, the account is really vague and I suspect this is an "estimation". Here is the scan of the page:
*This image is copyright of its original author
What do you think guys? This look like an actual measurement or just an estimation, probably from a second hand source?
Now, following the spirit of the topic, and like a gift to all of you, here are the images of the famous "Dakre" male (T-102) from Chitwan Nepal, the smallest adult male tiger in the range of Smith et al. (1983) and the young male of 200 kg that dominated the east area of the park until it was poisoned:
*This image is copyright of its original author
From the book "The Face of the Tiger", going after a bait (lower right corner).
*This image is copyright of its original author
From the book "Tiger moon", with our highly estimated Dr Sunquist and his wife Fiona.
This is the first time that these pictures are presented in a forum, enjoy them and they will be useful to those that are making profile pictures from all the famous tigers.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Peter (I think) posted this image before, but I scan it from my book in a clearer/larger version.