B2 and Other Great Tiger Pics from India

[peter]

(10-18-2017, 06:19 AM)$uSpiciou$ Wrote:

(10-18-2017, 05:51 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: Are you saying Pandit was bigger than Prime Wagdoh as a sub adult? Im not sure i agree with that, Central Indian tigers don't really have the same coat as Northern Males and i think that plays a huge factor when people compare the two. there are plenty of males from Central India that easily rival Corbett Khali's size.

@Roflcopters  I totally respect your opinion. However I will still stick to what I said.

1. I have seen both Pandit and Waghdoh from close range. Maybe Waghdoh had more weight because of the body mass but I am sure framewise Pandit was bigger and he would have achieved the weight with age.

2. I agree that Central Indians tigers have a different coat. But people actually compare tigers from pictures and sometimes that is a problem. In fact people never take Corbett males seriously since they don't pack the "Being Bulky" factor in the images. I will also tell you the reason for that. Corbett tigers are long and have a larger frame. Most of them are rather sleek but built like a fit machine. So in images they don't too seem heavy. Reality is they are really big as many people claim them to be. I support this point because I have seen plenty of males both in Corbett and Central India. Its only when you see Corbett tigers with naked eye will you realize how big they are actually in reality. 

3. As for Khali #2 is the reason why many readers don't think Khali was as big as people from the park said him to be. Also, Khali although huge was  never the biggest in Corbett. There has been and are biggers one's compared to him. Most of them are never given a name or researched upon and that is the problem.

As for Central Indian Tigers, they are one of my favourites. Just that I have seen alot of Tigers in my life with naked eye and I stand by my point that quite a few Tigers in the sub Himalayan belt(Mostly Terai and Core Corbett) are bigger by quite a margin compared to any other tigers in India barring the mighty Kazirangans.

The information I have on size up to, say, 1940 strongly suggests that tigers in northern India were both longer and heavier than those in other regions. Nepal tigers, and those in Royal Chitwan in particular, topped the list, but those living just south and west of Nepal were close. 

In the last decades of the 19th century, the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his guests shot almost 400 tigers in the northeastern part of India. The book he wrote has a wealth of information on size. Some time ago, I posted a number of tables in the tiger extinction thread. Males averaged about 9.8 in total length measured 'over curves' and just over 460 pounds. Compared to males shot in Central India (referring to Dunbar Brander and a few others), they were about as long, but 40 pounds heavier. This although the sample from northeastern India lacked exceptional individuals. The longest shot by the Maharajah and his guests measured 9.10 in total length in a straight line, whereas three large individuals shot in the Central Provinces were 10.3, 10.2 and 9.11. The 9.11 tiger had a short tail and was very heavy. A century ago, tigers shot in the Central Provinces, compared to tigers shot in Nepal and northern India, were a bit smaller. The largest individuals, however, more or less compared. In length, I mean. Not weight.

The info on the size of tigers shot in northern India is quite abundant and reliable. Based on what was provided by Corbett, Hewett and some others, I concluded that the average of adult males in northern India was about 9.5 - 9.6 in total length measured in a straight line. I'm not too sure about weight, but the average I found was well over 460 pounds for males in those days.

The tigers shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam, however, had large skulls. Although some males ranged between 365 - 400 mm. in greatest total skull length, females in particular stood out in this respect. 

Based on what I read, one could say that average-sized (referring to length) and bulky tigers with large skulls often seem larger than tigers with a more 'classical' appearance. Tigers in northern India and Nepal operate in the classical-appearance department and could be a bit underestimated as a result. Those who saw tigers think these Himalayan tigers are the largest by a margin today, but some heavyweights from southern and central India could compare to the largest males in northern India and Nepal. Tigers in Kaziranha and Manas seem out of this world at times, but my guess is that the difference with other regions will be more visible in females.

Most unfortunately, there's not much on the size of tigers today. What we have, suggests that tigers in India, if anything, are a bit larger and heavier than a century ago. Two males weighed in the last decades of the previous century in Nepal bottomed a 600-pound scale. I wonder about the weight of some of the males seen in Kazirangha. Same for the male who featured in one of the last posts in the tiger extinction thread. The 'rhinokiller' is in the classical-appearance department, but he most probably is a very large individual. Reply