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.
10-13-2022, 11:16 PM( This post was last modified: 10-13-2022, 11:16 PM by Pckts )
Here is a comparison between Branders big male and Hicks two big males mentioned. I'm also adding the other one I posted about from Karantaka
All between the pegs, branders is chest girth while the other two are unspecified but most likely around the abdomen since the size is large.
Branders Khara Tiger shot by Hick's son Ghogri Tiger shot by Hicks. Mysore State Tiger Shot by Hicks
59'' body girth 66'' Body Girth (most likely around the abdomen) 75'' Body girth (most likely around the abdomen) 64'' Body Girth (most likely around the abdomen)
39'' Head 38 1/2'' Head 37'' Head 42'' Head
21'' Forearm girth 18'' Forearm girth 19 1/2'' Forearm girth 19'' Forearm Girth
43'' shoulder height 48'' Shoulder Height (possibly to tip of paw) 48'' Shoulder Height (possibly to tip of paw) 49'' Shoulder Height (possibly to tip of paw)
7'3'' Body Length 7 1/2'' Body Length 6'11'' Body Length Total Length 9'7'' (around 6'10'' Body length est*)
2'8'' Tail Length 3' Tail Length 2'10'' Tail Length
So assuming the body girth is around the abdomen for the other two lets just say chest girth is similar, Ghogri male was quoted as being the heavier of the two from Hicks though so we can say Ghogri and Branders have the same chest girth while the Khara Male was a little smaller. But it could be different, the two males from Hicks could have larger chest girths as well so keep that in mind.
The head size from Branders is slightly larger than the other two.
The forearm girth from Branders was a bit larger than the other two.
The shoulder height was quite a bit shorter from Branders but I'd guess the other two were probably measured to the paw while Branders was measured to the beginning of the heel pad. So regardless I'd still think the other two were a bit taller at the shoulder than Branders.
Body Length again favors Branders and Tail length is less meaningful since it doesn't hold much weight.
Overall, the 3 should be in the 600lb range, I'd favor Branders over the other two if the measurement differences are as I state, but if they aren't then that'd be a different ballgame and the other two would most likely be the much heavier cats.
We'll see what you guys think.
*Mysore Male* He has a huge head but seems to be a little shorter in body while being the tallest amongst them. He'd probably be close to the 600lb range as well, maybe a little less but not by much. All of them are massive Tigers, no doubt.
(10-07-2022, 04:38 PM)Jerricson Wrote: I don't know if its just me , but I can't view majority of the pics posted by you @Roflcopters . Its just showing here - 'This image is copyright of its original author'.
weird, i wonder if this is the case for everybody. can someone look into this. @peter
(10-07-2022, 10:52 PM)GreenForest Wrote: @Orpadan I am glad you managed to see the difference between "1" and "7", dear Yusuf. Now, look at the document again, you will see the difference between "4" and "7".
Is this the same dude that appears here every week under a different name only to get banned within 24 hours. sounds like somebody’s angry stalkerish ex girlfriend.
COPTERS
I can see everything you post. If there's a problem, contact Sanjay.
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.
Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.
Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.
10-14-2022, 01:50 PM( This post was last modified: 10-14-2022, 01:53 PM by LonePredator )
(10-14-2022, 01:34 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 01:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 12:27 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.
Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.
WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then .
All height measurements are taken in straight line. The only difference is that some are taken in straight line from scapula to the heel while others are taken from scapula to the farthest end of the paw.
And yes, I’m also sure that Wagdoh’s height was measured the normal way (scapula to the heel)
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.
Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.
WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then .
All height measurements are taken in straight line. The only difference is that some are taken in straight line from scapula to the heel while others are taken from scapula to the farthest end of the paw.
And yes, I’m also sure that Wagdoh’s height was measured the normal way (scapula to the heel)
https://wildtigerhealthcentre.org/wp-con...edited.pdf , shoulder height of samba 36 inch aka 91cm surprised me , he looked tall with tigress , may be lost some height too , wagdoh also seemed taller in prime , he also looked shrinked , wagdoh should be 7-8cm taller in prime too i think ...
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.
Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.
WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then .
All height measurements are taken in straight line. The only difference is that some are taken in straight line from scapula to the heel while others are taken from scapula to the farthest end of the paw.
And yes, I’m also sure that Wagdoh’s height was measured the normal way (scapula to the heel)
No they’re not, when done over the curves the the tape is pressed against the limb starting at the top of the shoulder. This will exaggerate shoulder height vs a straight line.
Next is whether they go to the heel pad or tip of the paw.
The proper protocol would be parallel to the shoulder, not pressed against.
10-14-2022, 05:13 PM( This post was last modified: 10-14-2022, 05:32 PM by Pckts )
(10-14-2022, 01:56 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 01:50 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 01:34 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 01:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 12:27 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.
Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.
WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then .
All height measurements are taken in straight line. The only difference is that some are taken in straight line from scapula to the heel while others are taken from scapula to the farthest end of the paw.
And yes, I’m also sure that Wagdoh’s height was measured the normal way (scapula to the heel)
https://wildtigerhealthcentre.org/wp-con...edited.pdf , shoulder height of samba 36 inch aka 91cm surprised me , he looked tall with tigress , may be lost some height too , wagdoh also seemed taller in prime , he also looked shrinked , wagdoh should be 7-8cm taller in prime too i think ...
Shoulder height cannot shrink, length can minimally.
The vertebrae in the spine are cushioned and as you grow older these “cushions” deteriorate and the spine presses against itself. Humans lose around an inch and actually have 2 more vertebrae than tigers. Generally speaking old age shrinkage is minimal and humans are bipedal so gravity naturally compresses our spine while Big cats dont experience the same effects.
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.
Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.
WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then .
All height measurements are taken in straight line. The only difference is that some are taken in straight line from scapula to the heel while others are taken from scapula to the farthest end of the paw.
And yes, I’m also sure that Wagdoh’s height was measured the normal way (scapula to the heel)
No they’re not, when done over the curves the the tape is pressed against the limb starting at the top of the shoulder. This will exaggerate shoulder height vs a straight line.
Next is whether they go to the heel pad or tip of the paw.
The proper protocol would be parallel to the shoulder, not pressed against.
*This image is copyright of its original author
You claim it's measured over the curves but the picture you attached says it's taken in straight line.
10-14-2022, 05:29 PM( This post was last modified: 10-14-2022, 05:30 PM by Pckts )
(10-14-2022, 05:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 05:03 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 01:50 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 01:34 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 01:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(10-14-2022, 12:27 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:
(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:
Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???
People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.
About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.
Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.
Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:
"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."
So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.
Greetings to all.
Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.
guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.
Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.
WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then .
All height measurements are taken in straight line. The only difference is that some are taken in straight line from scapula to the heel while others are taken from scapula to the farthest end of the paw.
And yes, I’m also sure that Wagdoh’s height was measured the normal way (scapula to the heel)
No they’re not, when done over the curves the the tape is pressed against the limb starting at the top of the shoulder. This will exaggerate shoulder height vs a straight line.
Next is whether they go to the heel pad or tip of the paw.
The proper protocol would be parallel to the shoulder, not pressed against.
*This image is copyright of its original author
You claim it's measured over the curves but the picture you attached says it's taken in straight line.
My claim?
Maybe a misunderstanding, I’m just explaining the differences in protocol. I have no claim outside of that.
(10-13-2022, 07:59 PM)Pckts Wrote: Another interesting note that I’ve read from numerous researchers now is that Tigers have terrible smell. Without a doubt their most important senses are sight and sound. This also must be reflected in their skills which have smaller nasal cavities compared to Lions.
I will no say "terrible", and certainly is the same with lions and any other cat.
The sence of smell of tigers is as good as that of any felid, they can and do detect prey with that when they can. However, they prefer to do it with the sense of hearing most of the time, mainly because the habitat is very close. Sense of smell is better use for communication and territorial marking.
Sight is also very usefull, but is secondary for hunting, remember that cats base they sight in movement.
(10-14-2022, 12:27 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .
Straight when possible, other times curved depending of the person that take the measurement (sadly), from shoulder to tip of paw, in few words, is not an standing height at all.
It is sad that for the moment, only the Siberian Tiger Project published the two type of height measurements. However, using the records of the Maharaja of Cooch Behar and Brander, we know that the shoulder height of Bengal tigers is on average 100 cm in males, and as the modern records are the same as the old one (in body measurements at least), we can guess that they have the same shoulder height. No big deal.
10-14-2022, 09:15 PM( This post was last modified: 10-14-2022, 09:30 PM by GuateGojira )
(10-14-2022, 01:34 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then .
That height is suggestive, as the carcass was stiff for two days. We can guess that was taken from shoulder to wrist (not to paw), and shows that Waghdow was about 1 meter high at shoulders, which is "average" but not small. Check the height of tiger "Ali", the largest Bengal tiger that Mazák measured:
*This image is copyright of its original author
By the way, a secondary source indirectly suggest that "Ali" weighed 265 kg, but I am unable to found the original source. Interesting, this is not mentioned in the book of Mazák "Der Tiger" but apparently it is mentioned in another book also from him: Mazak, V. 1980. Zvırata celeho sveta 7. Velke kocky a gepardi. Statnı zemedelske nakladatelstvı. Praha, Prague, Czech Republic, 192 pp.
Maybe someone can found the original paper and confirm the figure.
10-14-2022, 09:30 PM( This post was last modified: 10-14-2022, 09:31 PM by Pckts )
(10-14-2022, 08:48 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(10-13-2022, 07:59 PM)Pckts Wrote: Another interesting note that I’ve read from numerous researchers now is that Tigers have terrible smell. Without a doubt their most important senses are sight and sound. This also must be reflected in their skills which have smaller nasal cavities compared to Lions.
I will no say "terrible", and certainly is the same with lions and any other cat.
The sence of smell of tigers is as good as that of any felid, they can and do detect prey with that when they can. However, they prefer to do it with the sense of hearing most of the time, mainly because the habitat is very close. Sense of smell is better use for communication and territorial marking.
Sight is also very usefull, but is secondary for hunting, remember that cats base they sight in movement.
I’ll post examples from them as well as quotes. In comparison to the other two mentioned they specifically mention how bad it is. We’re talking with in a few feet and can’t smell them or kills where the tigers walk right past without smelling. But if even a leaf ruffles or branch cracks the Tigers go into immediate alert. Even as far as to mention they can possibly hear a rapid heart beat if close enough but couldn’t prove it obviously. Communication is through the Jacobson organ which allows analyzation of the scent.
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
Now, look at the document again, you will see the difference between "4" and "7". 
). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data.