ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

(06-07-2015, 11:05 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: I asked Kanwar a while back about how Munna compared with the males he saw up north and he told me, Munna is big but the tigers he saw up North are the largest he's seen. Different league altogether. Dr. Mel Sunquist takes huge interest in Kaziranga tigers and Dr.Ullas's biggest male that he ever saw was also from Kaziranga. Same with Kanwar Juneja, hes been all around India but never came across a specimen like the Late Kohora king aka KZT023.

If you think Kaziranga tigers are huge, wait until what you might find all around Terai.

Here's a mammoth sized male that i saw from Rajaji's Chilla range and the pugmarks are most likely his as well. Such a huge male, tall, big dimensions, long and truly one of the best specimens i saw in all of 2015 so far.

http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-b2-and-o...ia?page=31

Guaranteed Surpasses Wagdoh, Babathenga, Jai and BMW 's size. Betting my life over this one.

 
check post #465 when you click that link and tell me what you think of that specimen. I know Peter took note of the paw prints because i saw him post that picture in one of his posts not too long ago. Definitely the biggest paw prints on photo that you'll ever see and when you look at that male, it shouldnt surprise anyone. His size is enormous. Pity, none of these tigers will ever get weighed in the wild.

 

Here's the Rajaji National Park pugmarks again:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this could be the tiger who left them:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

I agree it isn't likely the tiger will ever be measured and weighed. The only thing we can do is speculate. Here's my contribution.

The records I have say Himalayan tigers are large animals. Adult males reach 180-210 cm. in head and body in a straight line and 270-310 cm. (up to 320 cm.) in total length. I think they are taller than many think and if they are as musuclar as the Rajaji male, weights of 600 pounds empty can not be excluded. I was going to say the giant in Guate's great comparison (221 cm. in head and body and 320 kg.) is extremely unlikely, but it is a fact that Nepal has produced two 600-pound males in the last four decades. This in a time in which tigers are very close to the edge. Some males no doubt exceed 300 cm. and 250 kg.

Some of you might have seen bulkier tigers than the Rajaji male, but you have to remember it is easier to appear (and get) bulky when you are a bit smaller all the way. Tigers in the northwest, lengthwise, are very close to wild Amurs and as tall or taller. If you see a mature male as muscular as the Rajaji tiger, you can be sure he's heavier than he appears to be. In tigers, total length seem to be the best indicator of weight.

Here's another male. Also a Himalayan tiger, but from the northeast. Sizewise, my money is on the Rajaji tiger, but I agree he is as robust as they come. First posted by Copters in his great thread (B2 and other etc.):

*This image is copyright of its original author

       

How large is a big cat compared to a human? 

Guate's made a comparison of a 400-410 pound African male lion and a 6-feet man. The lion is big by any standard. The extra-large tigers above, well over 500 and possibly 600 pounds, are immense animals. To finish the post, a photograph of a human and a male Indian tiger who was 440-450 pounds in his prime (Dreamworld):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply