WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
 (04-15-2022, 03:12 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: If I remember correctly you gave as "average" weight of that Nepalese male of about 290 kg with a range of like 286 - 306 kg empty (based on the highest food intake of 34 kg and 14-19 kg average stomach content calculations). Correct, the figure of 286 kg came in the scenario that the tiger of 320 kg gorged itself with 34 kg, the maximum food intake actually measured for a tiger. The figure of 306 kg came in the case that the tiger of 320 kg did only ate the minimum amount recorded for a tiger in 24 hours, which is 14 kg. Both extreme scenarions are unlikely. In this case, we can estimate a consumption of about 20 kg, based in the largest intake recorded for male M-91 in Panna which is described that was in a full belly. In that case we can estimate a body mass of about 300 kg "empty" for the Nepalese tiger, which is the most likely situation. The estimation of 290 kg came from the estimations used by Dr Karanth of his tigers, which were corrected with 30 kg, but this also seems unlikely as Smythies described that the tiger was able to run and even jump, something that a gorged tiger will hardly do. That is why I think that the most likely scenario is that this tiger weighed between 290-300 kg "empty", based in the evidence and been generous.   (04-15-2022, 04:21 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-15-2022, 03:12 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: If I remember correctly you gave as "average" weight of that Nepalese male of about 290 kg with a range of like 286 - 306 kg empty (based on the highest food intake of 34 kg and 14-19 kg average stomach content calculations). Very interesting topic, these monster tigers. Do you know what scales were used? Especially interesting regarding the 320 kg tiger? (04-15-2022, 01:00 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-14-2022, 11:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: GuateGojira U Havn\t included many large tigers in the list some of them are well documented too' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v='p4UydvVBovU and some of them are well verified like 320kg tiger hunted in nepal 1942 or 317kg colonal wagh tiger , these tigers have photographs and have large measurements which looks in their picture . yeah this is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4UydvVBovU this male was estimated live 272kg on very old documentary ,yes 320 kg nepal tiger is very much reliable (could be 290-306 empty ), but what i meant to say those hunted tigers who have measurements and pics you should keep them in valid hunting record and those verified by scientist like 320kg male you should keep it in scientific records . (04-16-2022, 07:31 PM)Pantherinae Wrote: Very interesting topic, these monster tigers. Do you know what scales were used? Especially interesting regarding the 320 kg tiger? Sadly hunters do not describe what scales they used. Just two or three reports or studies describe the scales, but most of them no. The regular scale in those old days was the spring scale, but what tipe (straight or circular) we don't know. (04-16-2022, 05:46 PM)Chooser Wrote: That is a very old email that, apparently, was an answer of Dr Dale Miquelle to an old user named Waveriders. We have no idea if that email is correct or even real, but the description says that the animal itself was placed in a straight line and latter they put the tape along the body, which was already in a straight form, reducing the curves. So is a mix between "straight line" and "over curves", which means that the difference with the method "straight" was probably no more than 10 cm. After all modern scientists do not search for "records" but for reliable information. The pictures that I have saw of tigers been measured in the Russian Far East seems to confirm that mix of methods, and that is why in my comparative images I add the label "along the curves" in the figures of the Amur tiger. (04-16-2022, 11:14 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: yeah this is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4UydvVBovU this male was estimated live 272kg on very old documentary ,yes 320 kg nepal tiger is very much reliable (could be 290-306 empty ), but what i meant to say those hunted tigers who have measurements and pics you should keep them in valid hunting record and those verified by scientist like 320kg male you should keep it in scientific records . They are valid and interesting, is just that for space issues I don't include them in my comparative images, in an special Appendix for "exceptional" records. But even if we include them (the six of them), the average is not more than 205 kg, as that sample is so even that the curve do not move too much, if at all. (04-19-2022, 02:48 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:If the method used in Russia in the period 1992-2004 was applied in the same way as in northeastern India in the period 1870-1908, it means we have to deduct 5,45 inches (13,84 cm) from the total length 'over curves' to get to the total length measured in a straight line ('between pegs'). The result (294,00 - 13,83 = 280,17 cm、195-13.84＝181.16cm) The correct shoulder height should be the length from shoulder to claw minus the front palm, that is, the male tiger is 115-14.2 = 100.8 cm, and the female tiger is 99-11.9 = 87.1 cm.(04-16-2022, 05:46 PM)Chooser Wrote: (04-19-2022, 04:01 AM)Chooser Wrote: If the method used in Russia in the period 1992-2004 was applied in the same way as in northeastern India in the period 1870-1908, it means we have to deduct 5,45 inches (13,84 cm) from the total length 'over curves' to get to the total length measured in a straight line ('between pegs'). The result (294,00 - 13,83 = 280,17 cm、195-13.84＝181.16cm) The correct shoulder height should be the length from shoulder to claw minus the front palm, that is, the male tiger is 115-14.2 = 100.8 cm, and the female tiger is 99-11.9 = 87.1 cm. Basicaly is the same, but not applied in the same form, as the hunters in the past did presed the tape more than modern zoologists to increase the size in some ocations. Experts like Brander, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and Hewett estimated a difference between 3 - 7 inches with an average about 5 inches (13 cm), but I think that Russian scientists do not presed the tape as much and that is why I estimated at least 10 cm. Even then, in that scenario of 13-14 cm, you should take something else in count, the head-body of the Russian tigers is from nose to roth of tail when this one is in a angle of 90 degrees (see Kerley et al. (2005) for details), not to the hip end, that means that even when the head-body for males will be about 180 cm straight (I estimate about 183 cm in my graphics), the real head-body will be about 190 cm taking in count a diameter for a tail base of about 10 cm, and this is in straight line. About the shoulder height, honestly your calculation is completelly unnecesary and even hunters like the Maharaja did measured the shoulder height "between pegs" even when they measured the body length on the curves, you sould read Brown (1893) for details on this, now on the Amur tigers check this:  *This image is copyright of its original author The shoulder height is already calculated for the withers to wrist, that will be an standing height. I saw a video (available in Youtube by the way) were we can see that the height of a tigress in Russia is measured in pieces, so that suggest that the arm length was not straight and this will underestimate the real height, but even then, a height of 95 cm for males and 81 cm for females is reliable and accurate. (04-19-2022, 04:31 AM)瓜特戈吉拉 Wrote:我同意你对体长的看法，但我不认为肩到手腕是站立高度。躺着的肩高和站着的高度确实是有区别的，但是肩高应该是肩膀到掌垫的高度而不是手腕的高度是不合理的。(04-19-2022, 04:01 AM)选择器 Wrote: 如果俄罗斯在 1992-2004 年期间使用的方法与 1870-1908 年期间在印度东北部使用的方法相同，这意味着我们必须从总长度中减去 5.45 英寸（13.84 厘米）'过曲线”以获得以直线测量的总长度（“钉之间”）。结果（294,00 - 13,83 = 280,17 cm、195-13.84＝181.16cm）正确的肩高应该是肩到爪的长度减去前掌，即雄虎为115-14.2 = 100.8 厘米，雌虎是 99-11.9 = 87.1 厘米。 (04-19-2022, 05:28 AM)Chooser Wrote: 我同意你对体长的看法，但我不认为肩到手腕是站立高度。躺着的肩高和站着的高度确实是有区别的，但是肩高应该是肩膀到掌垫的高度而不是手腕的高度是不合理的。 I think that you have a valid point here, as the real standing height should be a little more than the length between shoulder and wrist. However, as long as we don't have any other corroboration, those values are the closer to a real standing height, or at least, the height of the animal in motion with legs not to much streched. (04-20-2022, 12:59 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-19-2022, 05:28 AM)Chooser Wrote: 我同意你对体长的看法，但我不认为肩到手腕是站立高度。躺着的肩高和站着的高度确实是有区别的，但是肩高应该是肩膀到掌垫的高度而不是手腕的高度是不合理的。 The biggest problem with the shoulder height of the Northeast Tiger is that the measurer didn't pull the forelimb straight like the lion and Bengal Tiger, and it didn't measure from the shoulder to the palm pad, so some dimensions were lost. (04-20-2022, 03:28 AM)Chooser Wrote: The biggest problem with the shoulder height of the Northeast Tiger is that the measurer didn't pull the forelimb straight like the lion and Bengal Tiger, and it didn't measure from the shoulder to the palm pad, so some dimensions were lost. Correct, but remember that any measurement of shoulder height will be variable, so I think that like Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) says, the average male Bengal and Amur tiger measure about 100 cm in height, females smaller at about 85 cm. (04-19-2022, 02:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-16-2022, 11:14 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: yeah this is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4UydvVBovU this male was estimated live 272kg on very old documentary ,yes 320 kg nepal tiger is very much reliable (could be 290-306 empty ), but what i meant to say those hunted tigers who have measurements and pics you should keep them in valid hunting record and those verified by scientist like 320kg male you should keep it in scientific records . hello guate do u have the pics of that 281kg gwalior tiger , as we have seen images of that 320kg nepal tiger (290-300empty). 
@GuateGojira am i able to see the full sample size of your average weights? also was the 280kg male from ghunghuti range ever added to the list? i remember the statement came straight from the principal chief conservator of forest. did anyone ever look into this?
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 78 Guest(s) |