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.
(10-01-2019, 12:56 PM)Hello Wrote: I don't believe what report says 280 kg.He is not even close to that,maybe 180 kg is realistic
Very much likely... or, he may look like that. I talked to Dharmendra Khandal who was the team that tranquilised him. He said he's the same size of Ustaad (reportedly 240kg at that age) & Sitara.
Hard to tell though, but maybe that's why they too underestimated his weight & had to shoot a second dart. Khandal is the guy in black tee & gree shorts;
I was wondering if you could post screenshot of what he said exactly?
10-06-2019, 09:48 AM( This post was last modified: 10-06-2019, 10:02 AM by Rishi )
(10-06-2019, 09:45 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote:
(10-01-2019, 03:58 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-01-2019, 12:56 PM)Hello Wrote: I don't believe what report says 280 kg.He is not even close to that,maybe 180 kg is realistic
Very much likely... or, he may look like that. I talked to Dharmendra Khandal who was the team that tranquilised him. He said he's the same size of Ustaad (reportedly 240kg at that age) & Sitara.
Hard to tell though, but maybe that's why they too underestimated his weight & had to shoot a second dart. Khandal is the guy in black tee & gree shorts;
I was wondering if you could post screenshot of what he said exactly?
I'll try to find it...
Edit:Got it, here you go. He basically said MT-1 looks like that despite his size because of age, like Chhota Matka.
@Rishi
I think you saw the photo I posted of Matka and Chota Matka together recently, I'll find it again if you haven't but in that photo you can still see that Matkasur is still than Chota Matka.
I think after this season comes to an end, you'll really see Chota Matka put on the mass his father has.
I still have my doubts that T-91 was in Ustaads range tbh but good work regardless.
I have a few questions for some of you guys redarding big cat sizes. You all seem to be knowledgeable. While tigers, even those of India, seem to in vary greatly in size based upon region (especially in comparison to lions, which do not show great variability in size), what might be the average sizes of Bengal tigers Northern, Souther, etc. India, and how might those weights compare to those of other cats, namely lions.
Information which I have seen seem to suggest larger regions have tigers averaging close to 220kg, while smallee populations may be closer 120kg. The former is significantly larger than lions, most averaging (in South Africa) 190kg, whilst the latter seem more comparable to large jaguars.
Do tigers compare to lions in size? And how do Sundarban tigers and Sunda tigers compare in size to jaguars?
(10-09-2019, 04:52 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote: I have a few questions for some of you guys redarding big cat sizes. You all seem to be knowledgeable. While tigers, even those of India, seem to in vary greatly in size based upon region (especially in comparison to lions, which do not show great variability in size), what might be the average sizes of Bengal tigers Northern, Souther, etc. India, and how might those weights compare to those of other cats, namely lions.
Information which I have seen seem to suggest larger regions have tigers averaging close to 220kg, while smallee populations may be closer 120kg. The former is significantly larger than lions, most averaging (in South Africa) 190kg, whilst the latter seem more comparable to large jaguars.
Do tigers compare to lions in size? And how do Sundarban tigers and Sunda tigers compare in size to jaguars?
Believe me, comparing at least the biggest lions and tigers is much more complicated than that, partly as the figure of 221 kg (487 lbs) was supposed to be based on 7 male Bengal tigers in Chitwan National Park, Nepal, but it turns out that only a maximum of 4 males were captured there, as noted before, and by no means is South Africa the only place with large lions, with other Southern African countries like Namibia having large lions as well, though we don't have reliable measurements for all populations of Southern African lions, and as for the small Sumatran or Sunda tigers, they do seem to compare at least to the largest South American jaguars (though not the smaller Central or North American jaguars).
(10-09-2019, 04:52 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote: I have a few questions for some of you guys redarding big cat sizes. You all seem to be knowledgeable. While tigers, even those of India, seem to in vary greatly in size based upon region (especially in comparison to lions, which do not show great variability in size), what might be the average sizes of Bengal tigers Northern, Souther, etc. India, and how might those weights compare to those of other cats, namely lions.
Information which I have seen seem to suggest larger regions have tigers averaging close to 220kg, while smallee populations may be closer 120kg. The former is significantly larger than lions, most averaging (in South Africa) 190kg, whilst the latter seem more comparable to large jaguars.
Do tigers compare to lions in size? And how do Sundarban tigers and Sunda tigers compare in size to jaguars?
Believe me, comparing at least the biggest lions and tigers is much more complicated than that, partly as the figure of 221 kg (487 lbs) was supposed to be based on 7 male Bengal tigers in Chitwan National Park, Nepal, but it turns out that only a maximum of 4 males were captured there, as noted before, and by no means is South Africa the only place with large lions, with other Southern African countries like Namibia having large lions as well, though we don't have reliable measurements for all populations of Southern African lions, and as for the small Sumatran or Sunda tigers, they do seem to compare at least to the largest South American jaguars (though not the smaller Central or North American jaguars).
That's what I thought. Indeed, when I say South African lions, I mean the southernmost clade of the Sub-Saharan subspecies (P. l. melanochaita). These seem to be the largest lions alive today, however large lions are present all over Sub-Saharan Africa - to my knowledge, 272kg male was of Kenyan origin.
It was always to my notion that large lions and large tigers were at least comparable in size... recent data on tigers had originally changed my opinion to being that tigers may just be simply larger, generally speaking. But the flaws within the 221kg avg. Bengal tiger numbers do make me second guess that.
It does seem that lions and tigers are similarly massive cats, each respectively robust and heavily built, muscular in specific anatomical ways. Jaguars are also very massive and muscular in some areas south of the Amazon river, and these cats seem to be comparable to large lionesses/tigresses, and likely even males of the smallest tiger populations.
10-10-2019, 10:36 AM( This post was last modified: 10-10-2019, 07:18 PM by Rishi )
(10-09-2019, 04:52 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote: Information which I have seen seem to suggest larger regions have tigers averaging close to 220kg, while smallee populations may be closer 120kg. The former is significantly larger than lions, most averaging (in South Africa) 190kg, whilst the latter seem more comparable to large jaguars.
Do tigers compare to lions in size? And how do Sundarban tigers and Sunda tigers compare in size to jaguars?
This part is absolutely correct. Among tiger subspecies (& even within itself incase of Bengal tigers) size varies drastically... with Terai/NE male Bengals possibly averaging at 500lbs, but rest slightly lower, varying regionally.
Sundarban's & Sumatra males average 300lbs at best. Malayans too, but they've had individuals recording as high as 400lbs.
Lions are much more homogeneous than that. With Okavango & Ngorongoro populations maybe as high as 450lbs, with the rest lower at 400lbs to 350lbs, but not less than that.
While the smallest recorded healthy adult male tiger was 110kg (Sundarban), the smallest lion(s) scaled at 140kg.
I inferred from the camera-trap images (but no known studies have been performed specifically on this) that prime location meta-populations in tigers are considerably larger at average than surplus ones moving out into the buffers... And for lions, measuring just the pride males will result in a much higher average than with all the vagabond adults moving around.
(10-10-2019, 06:27 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote: That's what I thought. Indeed, when I say South African lions, I mean the southernmost clade of the Sub-Saharan subspecies (P. l. melanochaita). These seem to be the largest lions alive today, however large lions are present all over Sub-Saharan Africa - to my knowledge, 272kg male was of Kenyan origin.
There is a 280kg record from fairly reliable source back in the lion weight & Measurements thread. For now that is the confirmed largest.
(10-09-2019, 04:52 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote: Information which I have seen seem to suggest larger regions have tigers averaging close to 220kg, while smallee populations may be closer 120kg. The former is significantly larger than lions, most averaging (in South Africa) 190kg, whilst the latter seem more comparable to large jaguars.
Do tigers compare to lions in size? And how do Sundarban tigers and Sunda tigers compare in size to jaguars?
This part is absolutely correct. Among tiger subspecies (& even within itself incase of Bengal tigers) size varies drastically... with Terai/NE male Bengals possibly averaging at 500lbs, but rest slightly lower, varying regionally.
Sundarban's & Sumatra males average 300lbs at best. Malayans too, but they've had individuals recording as high as 400lbs.
Lions are much more homogeneous than that. With Okavango & Ngorongoro populations maybe as high as 450lbs, with the rest lower at 400lbs to 350lbs, but not less than that.
While the smallest recorded healthy adult male tiger was 110kg (Sundarban), the smallest lion(s) scaled at 140kg.
I inferred from the camera-trap images (but no known studies have been performed specifically on this) that prime location meta-populations in tigers are considerably larger at average than surplus ones moving out into the buffers... And for lions, measuring just the pride males will result in a much higher average than with all the vagabond adults moving around.
(10-10-2019, 06:27 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote: That's what I thought. Indeed, when I say South African lions, I mean the southernmost clade of the Sub-Saharan subspecies (P. l. melanochaita). These seem to be the largest lions alive today, however large lions are present all over Sub-Saharan Africa - to my knowledge, 272kg male was of Kenyan origin.
There is a 280kg record from fairly reliable source back in this thread. For now that is the confirmed largest.
I see. Although I've always seen lions mostly a bit higher than 350-400 (I'd probably assume them closer, the south, to 375-450 and P. l. leo 350-400) that was my original reaction to the Nepalese <500lb sample. That's truly massive for cats. I have always said though that the largest Bengal tigers should be technically considered the largest wild cats... by how much has always been my question.
Is this 500lb avg. reliable? 4 males is really small for a sample. I seen tons of 4 male samples averaging unusually high, even lions I've seen avg. similarly with such small samples. It seems as though it's all agreed upon that Sunda tigers seem mich smaller than these huge animals of India.
10-10-2019, 07:29 PM( This post was last modified: 10-10-2019, 07:36 PM by Rishi )
(10-10-2019, 05:47 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 10:36 AM)Rishi Wrote: This part is absolutely correct. Among tiger subspecies (& even within itself incase of Bengal tigers) size varies drastically... with Terai/NE male Bengals possibly averaging at 500lbs, but rest slightly lower, varying regionally.
Sundarban's & Sumatra males average 300lbs at best. Malayans too, but they've had individuals recording as high as 400lbs.
Lions are much more homogeneous than that. With Okavango & Ngorongoro populations maybe as high as 450lbs, with the rest lower at 400lbs to 350lbs, but not less than that.
While the smallest recorded healthy adult male tiger was 110kg (Sundarban), the smallest lion(s) scaled at 140kg.
I inferred from the camera-trap images (but no known studies have been performed specifically on this) that prime location meta-populations in tigers are considerably larger at average than surplus ones moving out into the buffers... And for lions, measuring just the pride males will result in a much higher average than with all the vagabond adults moving around.
I see. Although I've always seen lions mostly a bit higher than 350-400 (I'd probably assume them closer, the south, to 375-450 and P. l. leo 350-400) that was my original reaction to the Nepalese <500lb sample. That's truly massive for cats. I have always said though that the largest Bengal tigers should be technically considered the largest wild cats... by how much has always been my question.
Is this 500lb avg. reliable? 4 males is really small for a sample. I seen tons of 4 male samples averaging unusually high, even lions I've seen avg. similarly with such small samples. It seems as though it's all agreed upon that Sunda tigers seem mich smaller than these huge animals of India.
Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.
The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.
10-10-2019, 07:33 PM( This post was last modified: 10-10-2019, 07:52 PM by Rishi )
(10-10-2019, 05:47 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 10:36 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 04:52 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote: Information which I have seen seem to suggest larger regions have tigers averaging close to 220kg, while smallee populations may be closer 120kg. The former is significantly larger than lions, most averaging (in South Africa) 190kg, whilst the latter seem more comparable to large jaguars.
Do tigers compare to lions in size? And how do Sundarban tigers and Sunda tigers compare in size to jaguars?
This part is absolutely correct. Among tiger subspecies (& even within itself incase of Bengal tigers) size varies drastically... with Terai/NE male Bengals possibly averaging at 500lbs, but rest slightly lower, varying regionally.
Sundarban's & Sumatra males average 300lbs at best. Malayans too, but they've had individuals recording as high as 400lbs.
Lions are much more homogeneous than that. With Okavango & Ngorongoro populations maybe as high as 450lbs, with the rest lower at 400lbs to 350lbs, but not less than that.
While the smallest recorded healthy adult male tiger was 110kg (Sundarban), the smallest lion(s) scaled at 140kg.
I inferred from the camera-trap images (but no known studies have been performed specifically on this) that prime location meta-populations in tigers are considerably larger at average than surplus ones moving out into the buffers... And for lions, measuring just the pride males will result in a much higher average than with all the vagabond adults moving around.
(10-10-2019, 06:27 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote: That's what I thought. Indeed, when I say South African lions, I mean the southernmost clade of the Sub-Saharan subspecies (P. l. melanochaita). These seem to be the largest lions alive today, however large lions are present all over Sub-Saharan Africa - to my knowledge, 272kg male was of Kenyan origin.
There is a 280kg record from fairly reliable source back in this thread. For now that is the confirmed largest.
I see. Although I've always seen lions mostly a bit higher than 350-400 (I'd probably assume them closer, the south, to 375-450 and P. l. leo 350-400) that was my original reaction to the Nepalese <500lb sample. That's truly massive for cats. I have always said though that the largest Bengal tigers should be technically considered the largest wild cats... by how much has always been my question.
Is this 500lb avg. reliable? 4 males is really small for a sample. I seen tons of 4 male samples averaging unusually high, even lions I've seen avg. similarly with such small samples. It seems as though it's all agreed upon that Sunda tigers seem mich smaller than these huge animals of India.
I've seen both in person and had a very hard time determining which was largest but when comparing the largest individuals of each species that I've seen, I gave the edge to the Tiger. I've also posted quite a few who've seen both as well in the size comparison thread who say the same as well as hunters, so overall I'd say Tigers still have slight edge when comparing at maximums. But overall the overlap is almost identical, just the way they carry it is slightly different.
Although I haven't seen Terai Tigers who I'd give the edge over even Kanha Tigers which is where I saw the largest Male Tiger.
(10-09-2019, 04:52 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote: Information which I have seen seem to suggest larger regions have tigers averaging close to 220kg, while smallee populations may be closer 120kg. The former is significantly larger than lions, most averaging (in South Africa) 190kg, whilst the latter seem more comparable to large jaguars.
Do tigers compare to lions in size? And how do Sundarban tigers and Sunda tigers compare in size to jaguars?
This part is absolutely correct. Among tiger subspecies (& even within itself incase of Bengal tigers) size varies drastically... with Terai/NE male Bengals possibly averaging at 500lbs, but rest slightly lower, varying regionally.
Sundarban's & Sumatra males average 300lbs at best. Malayans too, but they've had individuals recording as high as 400lbs.
Lions are much more homogeneous than that. With Okavango & Ngorongoro populations maybe as high as 450lbs, with the rest lower at 400lbs to 350lbs, but not less than that.
While the smallest recorded healthy adult male tiger was 110kg (Sundarban), the smallest lion(s) scaled at 140kg.
I inferred from the camera-trap images (but no known studies have been performed specifically on this) that prime location meta-populations in tigers are considerably larger at average than surplus ones moving out into the buffers... And for lions, measuring just the pride males will result in a much higher average than with all the vagabond adults moving around.
(10-10-2019, 06:27 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote: That's what I thought. Indeed, when I say South African lions, I mean the southernmost clade of the Sub-Saharan subspecies (P. l. melanochaita). These seem to be the largest lions alive today, however large lions are present all over Sub-Saharan Africa - to my knowledge, 272kg male was of Kenyan origin.
There is a 280kg record from fairly reliable source back in this thread. For now that is the confirmed largest.
I see. Although I've always seen lions mostly a bit higher than 350-400 (I'd probably assume them closer, the south, to 375-450 and P. l. leo 350-400) that was my original reaction to the Nepalese <500lb sample. That's truly massive for cats. I have always said though that the largest Bengal tigers should be technically considered the largest wild cats... by how much has always been my question.
Is this 500lb avg. reliable? 4 males is really small for a sample. I seen tons of 4 male samples averaging unusually high, even lions I've seen avg. similarly with such small samples. It seems as though it's all agreed upon that Sunda tigers seem mich smaller than these huge animals of India.
I've seen both in person and had a very hard time determining which was largest but when comparing the largest individuals of each species that I've seen, I gave the edge to the Tiger. I've also posted quite a few who've seen both as well in the size comparison thread who say the same as well as hunters, so overall I'd say Tigers still have slight edge when comparing at maximums. But overall the overlap is almost identical, just the way they carry it is slightly different.
Although I haven't seen Terai Tigers who I'd give the edge over even Kanha Tigers which is where I saw the largest Male Tiger.
Tigers are the largest cats. I've never questioned the tigers 'status' as the largest of the felines - that is, that tigers are larger than lions when considering upper weights. I have however always wondered by how much.
Some seem to be of the opinion that tigers are the largest cats but lions are a very close second, and that large lions generally fall into the same size range as large tigers. That tigers and lions are the massive cats, with all others falling comfortably below them. This seems to be the opinion of you and @BorneanTiger . The opposing view is that tigers are much larger than lions, and lions fall behind tigers by close to 100lbs - that this general rule applies to lions and tigers generally. I'm interested in seeing which is true.
(10-10-2019, 07:29 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 05:47 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 10:36 AM)Rishi Wrote: This part is absolutely correct. Among tiger subspecies (& even within itself incase of Bengal tigers) size varies drastically... with Terai/NE male Bengals possibly averaging at 500lbs, but rest slightly lower, varying regionally.
Sundarban's & Sumatra males average 300lbs at best. Malayans too, but they've had individuals recording as high as 400lbs.
Lions are much more homogeneous than that. With Okavango & Ngorongoro populations maybe as high as 450lbs, with the rest lower at 400lbs to 350lbs, but not less than that.
While the smallest recorded healthy adult male tiger was 110kg (Sundarban), the smallest lion(s) scaled at 140kg.
I inferred from the camera-trap images (but no known studies have been performed specifically on this) that prime location meta-populations in tigers are considerably larger at average than surplus ones moving out into the buffers... And for lions, measuring just the pride males will result in a much higher average than with all the vagabond adults moving around.
I see. Although I've always seen lions mostly a bit higher than 350-400 (I'd probably assume them closer, the south, to 375-450 and P. l. leo 350-400) that was my original reaction to the Nepalese <500lb sample. That's truly massive for cats. I have always said though that the largest Bengal tigers should be technically considered the largest wild cats... by how much has always been my question.
Is this 500lb avg. reliable? 4 males is really small for a sample. I seen tons of 4 male samples averaging unusually high, even lions I've seen avg. similarly with such small samples. It seems as though it's all agreed upon that Sunda tigers seem mich smaller than these huge animals of India.
Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.
The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.
Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.
I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).
10-11-2019, 10:40 AM( This post was last modified: 10-11-2019, 11:44 AM by Rishi )
(10-11-2019, 01:52 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 07:29 PM)Rishi Wrote: Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.
The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.
Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.
I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).
I was referring to all subspecies, of both species... which i clearly mentioned. It's better not to pick & choose.
"Un-conventional" lion subspecies refer to the recent suggestions that onlines belong to two general subspecies Northern (Asiatic, Barbary & West-African) & Southern (East-African, South-African, Southwest-African). @BorneanTiger can point you towards the detailed posts he made on this topic, if you don't already know.
Because 95% of the very little publicly available & reliable modern tiger weights are from Central or South India, I repeat, the northern tigers' possible average weight was an estimation based on their physique compared to the ones whose weights are known. Could be higher or lower, from population to population.
On top of that only young-adults are collared in India & almost no healthy tigers get tranquilised. Weighing of stranded or problem tigers sedated for capture & release is uncommon. Even if done, that data is rarely released.
We know next to nothing about weight of prime specimens.
considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.
(10-10-2019, 07:29 PM)Rishi Wrote: Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.
The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.
Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.
I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).
I was referring to all subspecies, of both species... which i clearly mentioned. It's better not to pick & choose.
"Un-conventional" lion subspecies refer to the recent suggestions that onlines belong to two general subspecies Northern (Asiatic, Barbary & West-African) & Southern (East-African, South-African, Southwest-African). @BorneanTiger can point you towards the detailed posts he made on this topic, if you don't already know.
Because 95% of the very little publicly available & reliable modern tiger weights are from Central or South India, I repeat, the northern tigers' possible average weight was an estimation based on their physique compared to the ones whose weights are known. Could be higher or lower, from population to population.
On top of that only young-adults are collared in India & almost no healthy tigers get tranquilised. Weighing of stranded or problem tigers sedated for capture & release is uncommon. Even if done, that data is rarely released.
We know next to nothing about weight of prime specimens.
(10-11-2019, 11:16 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.
Thanks, I'll look through. And yes I'm aware of the research done on those lion subspecies (that's what I was referencing). Which was why I chose the larger of the two to compare to large tigers, I like to compare smaller tigers to large jaguars since the range is so great. Using a whole species for comparison fades the usefulness of an average weight. But this is interesting, I'll look into some of the stuff you guys got here - thanks.
(10-11-2019, 11:16 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.
I'm confused man, what's fact..? That 2% of tigers are weighed or that 220kg males are existant? lol well I'm not sure any of this is fact as you'd call it... speculation and theorization, even if accurate at that.
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
