Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[BorneanTiger]

Guys, there's something peculiar about the work of Smith et al. that was quoted by Raúl Valvert (https://www.scribd.com/document/55287778...from_embed). Valvert stated that the heaviest wild male Bengal tigers in his work were from Chitwan National Park in Nepal, with average weights of 221 kg (487 pounds) on adjusted bellies, and that these were figures for 7 male tigers from the work of Smith et al. and Sunquist:
   
   

Smith et al. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3808080?ori...b_contents) said that between 1973 and 1980, 154 attempts to capture tigers had been made, with tigers being seen on 109 attempts. They gave a table on the tigers, including their age groups and numbers: 7 cubs, 4 subadult females, 19 adult females (altogether 23 subadult and adult females), 12 subadult males, and 7 adult males (altogether 19 subadult and adult males), and altogether, these are 49 tigers in the table, but then they said that a total of 26 tigers (15 males and 11 females) were immobilized, with 15 of them having been recaptured 1–4 times, and then that the tigers were immobilized and successfully located on 49 occasions.

How is this contradiction possible? 26 tigers being recorded on 49 occasions doesn't mean 49 tigers being recorded altogether (which is what the table says).
   
    Reply