Freak Specimens

[peter]

One thing to remember is it is very difficult to assess the weight of a big cat. Every time I measured and weighed captive big cats, I asked everyone present to give me their estimates on length and weight. Most of 'm saw these animals every day. When I compared their bets with the actual results, the differences were remarkable. Not one of the dozens involved got to within 20 pounds and 10 inches. Ever. Vets included.

In general, people tend to overestimate lions and underestimate tigers. The reason is they look at animals in the same way they look at people. They start with the mental picture, meaning aggressive (is important) animals not to be trifled with are estimated way over their actual qualities. Then they go to the head. Lions, apart from being aggressive as a rule, have big skulls and a mane. They also like a good show. Finally, they look at the front. Chest, shoulders and stockyness. Lions have big skulls, a mane, a shortish, but stocky body, an attitude and they are tall at the shoulder. It usually doesn't take 'm long to get to the conclusion lions are bigger and more fearful. This is how people get to estimates and this is how I get rich. That's why betting is a lucrative business. Always was and always will be.

When you look at reliable info collected by vets and hunters, the conclusion is adult captive male big cats in good health have about a kg. per cm. length (head and body) when the proportions are more or less normal. Smaller animals get to 0,8 or 0,9 kg. per cm. and big ones reach 1,2 tot 1,3 kg. per cm. Fat cats are much heavier. Lions stick to about a kg. per cm. most of the time, but tigers show more variation.

The heaviest lion I know of, at 216,7 cm. in head and body (straight), was 280 kg. (weighed by Dr. P. van Bree) and the heaviest Amur, at 210 cm. in head and body (straight), was estimated at 280-300 kg. (the Duisburg Zoo tiger measured by Dr. Gewalt). The difference was a result of limbs and skull, I think. The skull of the Duisburg Zoo tiger seemed quite a bit larger to me (I measured the skull of the 280 kg. captive lion and saw a lot of pictures of the Duisburg Zoo tiger).

Captive big cats usually are heavier than their wild relatives, but that is a result of excessive food and fat in many cases. The usual difference between captive and wild is about 10% in favour of captive (a bit more in lions and a bit less in tigers), meaning captive lions outweigh their wild relatives by about 35-50 pounds.

The only subspecies in which wild animals are heavier than their captive relatives is the Indian tiger. We know wild Indian male tigers in different regions (transients, young adults and prime animals) ranged between 170-210 kg. roughly (at the level of average) about a century ago. We also know the 20 odd males weighed in the last decades ranged between 200-260 kg. (not one below 200 kg.). Finally, we know large prime males today often reach 500-550 pounds (and up to 600 and even over in two cases). The conclusion, therefore, is Indian tigers, of those actually weighed, are heavier than a century ago. They also are the heaviest wild big cats today.

The last questions are average and max. My guess for now is somewhere between 420-460 for all healthy wild adult males and about 650-680 empty for the largest (Sunderbans and Naga Hills not included), but Kazirangha males still are an enigma. Maybe they are average-sized and massive and maybe they are big all the way. I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they find one well over 700 one day, but animals of that size would be exceptional. The difference between average (say 440-450) and largest (say 650-700) would be 50-60% and possibly a bit over (and not 30-40%, as many suggested).

I noticed a similar trend in skulls. Indian skulls are below the Amurs and those of most lions (averages), but they are relatively massive (wide and heavy). The question is why. The best answer would be density and it seems to be a result of conditions, as captive Indian tigers (who range between 165-210 kg. -average 180-185 kg.- in Indian zoos) are not as heavy as their wild relatives (difference 10-12% in favour of wild). These 'conditions' point towards large prey animals and intense competetition in reserves. I would go for competition for now, as that would be the main difference with a century ago. Captive tigers seem to keep specific characters (subspecies) for about 1-2 generations only. The reason is they seem to be more responsive to circumstances than other big cats. Most tigers quickly degenerate in captivity.   

I wouldn't be bothered about the reports of 'eyewitnesses', as they are known to be notoriously unreliable. Ask the police and Roy Bean. The only criterium is reliable info and what we have is 200-260 kg. for adult males in India so far, but many large animals will never be weighed and measured. If you want to get to an estimate yourself, start with the skull and the relative proportions. Than get to the limbs. More important than chest and spine, so it seems. In tigers, that is.

One last remark in order to prevent problems with those posters offering estimates. Everyone having a go at weights is encouraged to do so, as it helps us getting an idea of specific animals. Most wild animals will never be weighed, which is a pity. All I was saying is my experience says there is a big difference between estimates and reality in captive big cats. No insult intended and none taken, I hope. Ok? Reply