Size comparisons

[Vinay]

(12-28-2016, 11:37 PM)Pckts Wrote: Attached to the tables are the sources as well as the google link to them.
You also left out the most important word in the sentence..

Fairly normal "Maximum"
Not fairly normal like you presented.



Here they are in a "table form"

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This slaght et al 2005 data (your so called 249.5 kg tiger) was from Goodwin 1933 research not his own.

Didn't get it!! Why are you stopped at 240 kg ?? By your source it is clearly visible normal MAXIMUM weights are 400 kg,389 kg,384 kg and so on in a SINGLE PARA. 


'SLAGHT ET AL 2005' is a strange guy.......  every tiger he measured was over 200kg but NO identification number,head body length,Total body length,Height nothing only WEIGHTS. Of-course i 100% believes him and other historic 400 kg Normal maximum weights of Amur. Reply