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

[peter]

Impressive averages by any standard. In head and body, Kruger male lions, a century ago, were equal to male tigers in Central India (also a century ago) and only two inches below today's male Amur tigers.

A few remarks have to be added, of course:

1 - Stevenson-Hamilton, as he announced in the Appendix, selected the fifty largest males, whereas the average for Central India was a result of a sample half that size. Some of the tigers Dunbar Brander mentioned were selected for size, but the great majority of the 42 he used for his average were not.   

2 - The Amur sample, apart from being significantly smaller as well, had a number of 3-year old tigers, some of which, judging from the other measurements, clearly had some growing to do. This is important, as there is no doubt there are significant differences between age groups (adolescents, young adults and mature males). For indirect proof, go to the Natal leopard table I posted in this thread. The differences between age groups are significant.

3 - If we would include the remarks to get to a more reliable average for India and Russia, my guess is tigers would be a bit longer in head and body and quite a bit longer in total length. Kruger lions would just fall short of 9 feet straight (let's assume they averaged 8.11), whereas Central India tigers would get to 9.3 and Amur tigers, without the 3-year olds, would probably reach 9.9.

4 - A century ago, Kruger lions were not as heavy as similar-sized male tigers in Central India. The Kruger sample, of course, is very small (5 males only) and it also is a fact the lions were adjusted (not true for Central Indian tigers), but a century ago a big male, as Stevenson-Hamilton wrote, was below 400 pounds, whereas a Central India tiger, according to all in the know, was well over that mark.

Today's Krugers are 414 pounds (adjusted), but that's still below the average for today's males in Central India. They could compare to the average for Primorye, but my guess is Miquelle, who thought males averaged 430 pounds, could be just about right.

The question is why Kruger lions, in spite of their large size, fall short of the average seen in India and Russia. My guess is WaveRiders, who thought Zimbabwe and East-Africa male lions, although a bit shorter, are more robust is right. Same as in tigers, so it seems. Those inhabiting Russia, in spite of their length, are not as robust as those living in better conditions in India, although it has to be added that tigers in Nepal and North-India, also very long, are definitely heavier than Amur tigers and those in Central India. We know food is not a factor in Kruger, but it is a factor in Russia. When food is no issue, like in India, tigers, at similar length, seem quite a bit heavier. Why is that?

5 - One last issue. Data. Why is it I see robust tigers not weighed time and again? Why is it Krechmar wrote there are still big tigers in Russia? How reliable is the sample used to get to the averages published and much quoted? The problem, as usual, is data. Good, reliable data. Plenty of them, to be precise. Why is it such a problem in so many regions with researchers? If we don't get enough data, the result can be misinformation. My guess is we are close to just that. Reply