Wild carnivores and humans compared

[Pckts]

(11-03-2017, 01:31 AM)Apollo Wrote:

(11-02-2017, 09:46 PM)Pckts Wrote:  If you choose to say "well, that male is the biggest so this park must have the biggest," that's your prerogative but you will most likely be doing yourself and others a disservice.

Kindly don't make things up, I never said this.

I didn't mean you in particular, just people in general.


Bias and fanboyism is definitely found in many experts, I was trying to point out that, coz that plays a bad influence.

No matter how you twist the words, the differences is still there. There could be many reasons for it. Prey base, environment, genetics etc. Generally northern, northwestern, central, southern tigers genes dont mix creating genetically isolated populations. These isolation can make certain traits more visible.
 
C. India has shown the largest Genetic variation so far, I just recently posted the study on it.

You said that Kanha tigers were more powerfully built than Tadoba and Pench. So when these 3 reserves which are in close proximity with possible interbreeding can produce such difference in built, why not other genetically isolated populations.

Correct, in regards to Tadoba and Kanha. In pench, I only got to see the Durga female who was a strong female and her sub adult cubs, who were all healthy but still far from full grown.
But Tadoba is very different from Pench and especially Kanha. Tadoba is flat, dry and hot in the summer, Pench is much more hilly, larger and less dry, but still dry, Kanha is far larger, more hilly, much cooler and far less dry.

No one is denying that there will be small and big tigers in all reserves and locations, it's about the general aspect and the differences we are talking about. Just like your take on Kanha.
As a Kanha tigers follower you would have come across many saying Munna genes over and over for his offsprings fighting prowess. When genes can transfer that why not size.
We all know X male, Jhumroo, Bamboo Ram, Star male are all big framed males (very tall atleast) and tigresses like Lakshmi, Machli, Noor (possibly 170kg+, machli's daughter weighed in 170kg when she was subadult and smaller than Machli) can't they produce big tigers.

I believe less in the transfer of a "fighting gene" but I certainly believe far more in the transfer of a size or other physical characteristic gene.

You spoke about terrain and prey base altering tiger physiology. Then why not drier and more flat open terrain create taller tigers in Ranthambore. 
Tigerluver once spoke about Kanha tigers having less facial hair and bigger heads than tigers from near by reserves.
I once spoke about Ranthambore tigers having more mane like features due to more open terrain.

I don't see a need for a height increase based off of those specifics. A mane is something I consider to be a physical characteristic that is passed on through genetics not terrain. The perfect example is Tadoba or Bandhavgarh, you have males like Shivaji or Bhim with longer manes or neck hair and you have males like Mahaman or Gabbar who have none.


Recent  weights from central India shows subadults reaching and surpassing 210-225kg.
In Ranthambore T12 as a subadult weighed 220kg, T24 as a subadult weighed 240kg (injured and unhealthy). So T24 as an adult could have weighed atleast 15 to 25 kgs more, putting him around 255kg to 265kg. We know that T28, T25, T42 etc were all bigger than T24. But for your sake let's put them to be around same size. Then as you say the more robust and bulky tigers from central India should weigh around 280-300kgs.If these cats were similar in frame  (height and length) that's what will happen.

Where is this big weights are coming when they are leaner. No one will say 170kg tigresses and 260kg males to be LEAN unless they have big frames. Think about it.

The same study also show a Male that was 170kg and two females @143kg and 134kg
As we know, a few people who have seen these exact tigers say those weights were off but who knows.

Yes people have different opinions I agree. 
Some people say a tiger is bigger due to its robust built. Others will say a tiger is bigger due to its bigger frame. But generally many fall for the optical illusion of big heads, short musclar bodies giving a more robust and powerful appearance.


Regarding KF and Bheema death, yes there is no 100% concrete evidence but just a possible theory, I personally expect that theory to be reasonable which I will discuss later at tiger directory.

Now instead of continue arguing, let's post some central indian tiger vids showing close to gypsy bonnet (no long range shots).


I personally want to thank @Rishi for sharing that 115cm height info. It's a very important info.

I just wrote my responses in the your message above.
Other than that I agree. Reply