A Discussion on the Reliability of Hunting Records

[Dr Panthera]

(11-06-2015, 05:30 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Dr Panthera
Respectful rebuttals to your points.

1- The method problem department really stops at length. There's only one way to weigh something.

2- Modern peer-review process doesn't care about the data points either. It's the entire scope of the work reviewed, not whether you weighed your cat perfectly. 

2 and 3- @peter also has thoroughly touched on how hunters had a lot to lose if they were caught exaggerating records. In such a competitive sport, the big ones would be questioned by your competitors. Also note that hunting record tigers are on average lighter than our modern records. So I wouldn't think much tampering had been done.

The only hunting record regarding tigers that is questionable is the 384 kg specimen. A 320 kg tiger of Smythies is very possible, albeit the very high end. Keep in mind that in Smythies' tiger's region, in scientific record, we have 2 +/- 270 kg tigers, if what I learned about Nuna and Island Bhale is true, make that 4. Same for lions, we have a few cases of ~250 kg cats, 300 kg would eventually be reached by the freakishly large one.

3- Tigers and lions (cave lions) well of 400 kg existed and were morphologically viable. If you mean the prey base wouldn't be enough, for one specimen it would be, but not for a whole population. Yes, for a modern tiger 380 kg is insane, but once every thousands of generations, it isn't out of the question, like a 8 foot human isn't out of the question.

Sorry I was not clear there, yes of course only one way of determining mass ( weighing the animal, versus determining length over the curves versus between pegs ) what I mean is that the scales , their accuracy, and calibration showed a huge degree of variation , in the 19th century as far as I know there was no standardization of equipment, even in the same hunter book he would use different types of scales  at different times.
A peer review of any scientific work will question data that may seem novel, unclear, or contrary to previous finding, of course with the emphasis on the entire thing.
I will not paint all hunters with same brush some were men of integrity and their records seem reasonable others were dubious, most hunters though selected for large specimens ...at that time if you could shoot a 500lb tiger or more would be a better trophy than a 400 lb , so hunting records are biased towards larger animals when selection was an option and can not be taken to represent the whole population, a simple example: in the area where I live in Canada the average weight of white tailed deer bucks killed in traffic accidents is around 150 lbs...those who are killed by hunters 225 lbs ...in Niassa the radio collared male leopards were significantly smaller than the trophy hunted leopards.
Historically when both lions and tigers numbered in the hundreds of thousands massive cats were more likely than nowadays, the reduction in all resources favor more adaptable smaller size and we see that in the sundarban and indochina.
How many 8 foot humans have you met? Exactly!!! We may also see a few seven foot tall guys out there but an average tall guy will be 6 to 6'4" , this is like bringing the average height of the NBA players and say this is the average American .
Of course possible but highly selective and not representative of the whole population.
I totally understand the scientific community reluctance of accepting hunting records, at the same time I do not discount these records as fabrications they can provide important historical data and can help with the study and conservation of animals particularly when modern scientific data are limited.
As you mentioned when hunting records and modern data show similar sizes for Bengal tigers now and then ( and the same with African lions) but the same records show higher historical sizes for Amur and Indochinese Tigers and Asiatic lions than we can deduce and consider the genetic factors and environmental factors that caused that and so on.
Finally I thank you for your input and interest Reply