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

[GuateGojira]

(02-12-2015, 05:49 PM)'WaveRiders' Wrote:  
A brief summary to make things easier for GuateGojira “to clarify a lot of misconceptions created by Waveriders in the tiger topic”. The issues raised for Chitawan and Nagarahole tiger weights and measurements are probably part of these “many misconceptions”.
 
I just kindly invite him to carefully read at least 5 times my previous posts and the present one in order not to misinterpret my statements and not to twist them. It is not very exciting have to answer to repeat the same concepts again and again.
 
 
1)
Bottoming a 272 kg scale capacity, Sauraha M105 and M026 male tigers evidently weighed more then 272 kg not accounting for the weighing equipment (likely 4 to 8 kg). Regardless of the scale used being a spring or an electronic one and provided with an adjustable zero, it could therefore be more correctly stated that they weighed more then 264-268 kg or more then 265 kg (rounded figure).

 
2)
I am not aware of any comments of possible estimation of stomach contents in official and/or scientific (peer-reviewed) documents. Nothing appears to have been written on them. The animals have been weighed after have likely spent a whole night, 12 hours or so, feeding at a baited kill. Should this circumstance have actually been the case, as it appears because of the capturing technique using baits if not in some cases after the first capture, it is reasonable to estimate that these two very large male tigers had likely 15-20+ kg of food/liquid contents in the stomach and guts. This estimate comes from have observed adult male tigers in Chitawan NP to eat 56 kg and 57 kg of food in 3 days of undisturbed eating and from a detailed statistics obtained by observation of prevalently adult female tigers feeding habits suggesting an average of 14,0 kg of food eaten in the first day (disturbed kill as for a weighing operation). Following tiger behaviour at a kill the very most if not all of the first day food intake is presumably eaten during the first night after the kill and not during the following day.
 
 
3)
There are apparently private communications of Sunquist circulated in the web suggesting an estimated weight of 261 kg for the Sauraha male M105 has been obtained from a regression equation using morphological parameters. Another e-mail from Sunquist states that Sauraha Male M105 was captured by him in 1974 and that weighed 258,2 kg. Presumably it is another weight estimate.
 
 
4)
There is an apparent private communication of Sunquist circulated in the web suggesting he was not struck by belly size while capturing tigers in Nepal and that he thought “they had not yet eaten their fill when captured”. He does not refer specifically to any one tiger, but speaks in general. The implication of this statement in tiger ecology is that when a tiger kills he can spent even 12 hours or so of a night sitting after a kill with little or no feeding. I wonder how this can be confirmed.
With Sunquist statement considered valid, the Chitawan tigers have presumably been weighed with no relevant amount of food contents in the stomach.

 
5)
I am not aware of any confirmation from Sunquist, Smith or anybody else involved in the 1970s/1980s tiger study in Nepal that the weight of 261 kg appearing as maximum weight in the N=7 sample of adult males in Smith et al. (1983) is either the weight of an individual different from M105 and M026 that therefore actually scaled 261 kg or the estimated weight of Sauraha M105 suggested by Sunquist or an actual weight of M026 at one of his captures. Should the first case or the third case be true this is an actual weight of either a distinct individual (as I am inclined to believe) or M026. Should the second case be true we do not have 261 kg as the precise figure of maximum recorded weight for a wild tiger in scientific publications. We can only say >272 kg or > ca. 265kg or > ca. 245 kg or whatever.
 
 
6)
The official document from Dr Tamang (PhD Dissertation, 1982, pag. 63) written under Sunquist supervision states the total length of Sauaraha M105 tiger as long as 3100 mm was measured “along the curves of the back” and that the tail measured 1030 mm. I strongly believe all relevant member of AVA and this board have seen the scanned page of this document reporting the method of measurement.
 
 
7)
There are apparently private communications of Sunquist circulated in the web referring to the tigers he studied in Chitawan stating the following:
a) “Animals were measured in a straight line, between the pegs. We did try to position the animals so that the back was in a straight line, thus avoiding the curves of the back”
b) “Straight-line measurements but tried to make sure that animals were straight, reduce the number of curves”
 
I just wonder how an American scientist of Sunquist’ calibre with English mother tongue could provide answers with such syntax errors and bizarre way to explain himself.
 
 
8)
In the book “Tigers” Karanth (2003, pag 47) writes “most biologists now measure the length of tigers along the contours of the spine from the tip of the nose to the end of the tails”.
 
His statement would implicate that the Nagarahole tigers he studied during late 1980s and early 1990s have been measured along the curves of the back, in accordance with the official document highlighted above from Tamang (1982) describing how the Chitawan tigers have been measured. This would not be a surprise as Karanth began to study tigers under Sunquist teaching and supervision.
 
 
As much as I can recall, this is I what we know. I have tried not to provide personal interpretation or comments unless really forced to do it.
 
In previous threads I have seen contorted way to explain that the official document from Tamang (1982) made under Sunquist teaching and supervision does not count, that only the private e-mails from Sunquist count (!), that Karanth does not know how to measure a tiger as he measured only 2 of them, that Karanth did not realize what he was doing when he measured a tiger, that Karanth misinterpreted himself (!) and so on. All of that is very bizarre.
 
 
                           WaveRiders
 

 

 

This post is laughable and a pour intent to provoke me. I not going to fall on this Waveriders, but I will answer to this.
 
1. The scale used was a spring scale, no digital scale was used in those days. I personally talked with butchers that still use this type of scales (not exactly equal, but very similar) and they told me that the minimum difference can range between 5 to 10 kg, depending of the style of the scale. That was the safe range that I used. In this case, the big males M105 and M126 weighed no less than 260 kg, that is sure, even taking in count a food intake of 14-19 kg.
 
2. In the point No. 2 is where you twist the things. The animals spend LESS than 10 hours in the kill, and although I also estimated a stomach content of 14-19 kg for the males, at the end, the evidence and the time of the bait-feeding suggest a lower food intake. The problem here is that you are using figures of UNDISTURBED kills when the animals were capture in DISTURBED kills. It doesn’t matter how many food a tiger can eat if at the end, about 14 kg seems to be the average for disturbed kills, which was the case in ALL the captures. However, while you stated otherwise in previous posts, you correct it here, probably because you already saw your mistake and you know that I will show it right now. Finally, you have no evidence to say that tigers ate most of the prey in the first night, that is just inference, but at the end, plausible. Finally, on this point, it was Dr Sunquist himself who suggest using the figure of 14 kg, knowing that this is the correct figure for tigers in about 24 hours, from baits and natural kills.
 
3. The official calculation from Sauraha male was of 261 kg, and guess what, that was from a personal communication with ME. According with you, I was using emails from other people, but well, here is an email from Sunquist to me, directly. Let’s see what other excuse you have for this. The estimation of 258.2 kg was probably just another estimation, however, the figure of 261 kg has been confirmed twice, which add weigh to its reliability.
 
4. Again the word “apparent”. So, only your “evidence” is reliable??? Well, if at least you presented some evidence… His statement (Sunquist) ARE valid, after all, he weighed those tigers. Where is the point in dismissing his words???
 
5. The weight of 261 kg is from the Sauraha male, the evidence is in Smith et al. 1983. If you read that document (other 5 times maybe?), you will see that the tigers in those samples were captured between 1973 and 1980. The male M126 and the other two large males were weighed after that dates. The only large male weighed in that range was Sauraha, so the weight of 261 kg can only be from “him”. Besides, in the document it is said that a male died drowning, so this is the Sauraha male. 2 + 2 = 4, do you get it?
 
6. The document-image posted in AVA is from Tamang, but the man that actually measured the tigers was Dr Sunquist, so I believe in him. Dr Sunquist told me (in another email, but you don’t like them, sadly) that he don’t remembered were that image came, but he only said that the numbers were correct, although the method described not. Besides, at the end, along the curves doesn’t mean “over the curves”, like the hunter’s method. It just means over the back, and although it is omitted the word “straight”, Sunquist clearly say it, to THREE people (Bold, Paul and me) the same thing. Do you think he is lying? If so, why???
 
7. If you are trying to suggest that those emails were false, well, ask that to him directly. Also, ask to the posters that received those emails, like Damon (Bold Cham and lion-fan), Paul (KingTheropod and tiger-fan) and of course me. When you ask something by email, the answers are normally short and direct, not a huge dissertation, especially for such an irrelevant topic (for them, at least). By the way, where is the “bizarre” explanation, his words are simple, just that. I dare you to write him and ask him about this, and also, ask the other posters too, specially to Bold Champ, which been a lion fan is probably a good friend from you.
 
8. About Dr Karanth, I have already explained his motives about why he writes that. He doesn’t want to be compared to any hunter, and to use the same method like other hunters will be simply silly. Again, along the contours, or along the spine doesn’t mean the “over curves” method, just that the tape is straight along the contours, not following them. Big misconception of the method Waveriders.
 
On the final issue (no number), you definitely filled this only with your personal interpretations, if not, why you used the words “apparent” or “I am not aware” in all your phrases here?
 
Finally, the document of “Tamang” was made by “Tamang”, and although Sunquist teach him, that doesn’t mean that it had his words. IF you have made a thesis (or reviewed one, if you are already graduated), you most know that they don’t take a review in every single word, they read the thesis overall and make you corrections, but little specific words are not always corrected. You should know that, don’t try to sin of perfection. Besides, Sunquist emails are perfectly reliable and if you don’t believe in them, that is your problem dude.
 
In fact, Karanth know how to measure tigers, no one had say that he doesn’t. He never misinterpreted “himself”. YOUR words are the bizarre ones, as no one have say anything of this. Karanth measured his tigers along the contours, but not over the curves, following each contour joining the tape in every single curve, like the hunters method. He only put the tape along the body, in a straight line, and measured its animals from nose to tail. Why you have omitted this?
  Reply