Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

Options

peter

Co-owner of Wildfact

2,611 Replies

34 Topics

Joined: Mar 2014

Reputation: 52

#1,080

09-11-2022, 05:23 PM

(09-11-2022, 12:19 PM)Roflcopters Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Fateh’s pugmarks on a safari vehicle tire tread

*This image is copyright of its original author

here you can see it more clear, his paw directly on a safari vehicle tire tread. he had a fierce reputation in Ranthambore and was known as one of the most aggressive male in the park. he also killed two males in a fight. T36 and T109 were both killed by Fateh.

T36 (below)
http://www.navinraheja.com/articles-story8.html

T109 (below)
https://ranthambhorenationalpark.in/blog/injured-tiger-t-109-dies-ranthambore-national-park?format=amp

I apologize for hijacking this thread with out of topic content, this is gonna be my last post here for a bit.

COPTERS

This is how it's done: good information and respect. Excellent contribution.

ABOUT POSTING

This forum is about the natural world. What we want is good information and, when members interact, respect. Respect for good information, forum rules and each other. When members disagree, a debate can follow. A debate based on good arguments and respect, that is. That important? Yes. If a member posts good information and adds insult, a warning will follow. One. Not two.

THE SIZE OF TIGERS IN INDIA

India has a lot of national parks and tiger reserves. Although most of them are smallish, biologists think there could be at least 3,000 adult wild tigers in all of India, meaby a bit more. A great achievement for a country that has over 1,5 billion people.

In the old days, most tigers shot by hunters were measured and, if possible, weighed. Taking 'correct measurements' of large tigers was a sport within a 'sport'. Some hunters wrote books in which large tigers featured, but most didn't. Some of those that didn't wrote letters to the JBNHS and other magazines. Going over everything I found in books and magazines, I'd say there's quite a bit of good information about the size of tigers up to, say, 1950.

Today, tigers are protected. The only people who have an opportunity to measure and weigh wild tigers are tiger biologists. Although some of them provided information about some individuals, I've yet to see a peer-reviewed document with good information about the length and weight of wild tigers. Same for skulls. As a result, it isn't easy to get to sound conclusions about the size of adult tigers. It is to be expected that the lack of good information will result in confusion. When members discuss the size of tigers in India today, this has to be kept in mind.

As a result of the lack of accurate and reliable information, those interested in the length and weight of wild tigers have no other option but to use information collected by hunters and Forest Officers a long time ago.

The 42 male tigers shot in central India and measured 'between pegs' by Dunbar Brander over a century ago averaged 9.3 (281,94 cm) and 420 pounds (190,51 kg), whereas 39 females averaged 8.4 (254,00 cm) and 290 pounds (131,54 kg). The longest tiger measured 'between pegs' in this region was 10.3 (312,42 cm), but the heaviest was a male of 9.11 (302,26 cm) with a head and body length of 7.3 (220,98 cm). Most unfortunately, this tiger wasn't weighed.

I've quite a few books in which tigers shot in central parts of India feature. In the days these books were published, adult male tigers, according to those who knew (referring to experience) averaged 9.4 - 9.6 (284,48 - 289,56 cm) 'between pegs'. The great majority of those shot ranged between 380-500 pounds (172,37 - 226,80 kg), but some were quite a bit heavier. Not one of these giants was weighed, but those with experience (forest officers and hunters) thought they ranged between 600-700 pounds (272,16 - 317,52 kg). The longest males measured 'between pegs' I found were 10.6 (320,04 cm) and 10.4 (314,96 cm). Males of this size, even back then, were few and far between.

As a general rule, tigers shot in the northwestern part of what used to be British India, compared to those shot in central India, were a bit longer and heavier (referring to averages), whereas those shot in the northeastern part were about similar in length, but heavier. Although many assume tigers shot in the southwestern part of India, compared to those shot in central India, were smaller, the information I found suggests they compared for total length measured 'between pegs'. The longest male measured in this way in this part of India was 10.2 (309,88 cm), but reliable observers and hunters saw individuals they described as 'immense' in jungles where they could walk for weeks without seeing a soul. Not seldom, these males were quite old (15-20 years of age).

The only region where tigers seemed to be a bit smaller was southeast India. Some adult males shot and measured in that part of India compared to large males from Sumatra for length and weight, but those who had shot tigers in both regions thought Sumatrans had relatively larger skulls.

Talking about skulls. The longest skull measured by V. Mazak ('Der Tiger', third edition, 1983), at 378 mm, was just under 15 inches (381,0 mm), but reliable hunters and observers wrote the longest skulls measured in the correct way (the distance between the insertion of the incisors in the upper jaw to the last part of the condylae measured in a straight line) ranged between 15-16 inches (381,0 - 406,4 mm). The information I have strongly suggests tigers in northern and northeastern India produced the longest skulls (referring to averages), but tigers shot in the northeastern part of India might have had the heaviest skulls.

As to regional differences in size. The information I have (referring to total length measured 'between pegs', weight and skull size) suggests tigers in northern India were larger than elsewhere, but large individuals, like in African lions, were shot in nearly all parts of what used to be British India (including Burma and the southern tip of Malaysia). With 'large', I mean males exceeding 9.6 (289,56 cm) and 500 pounds (226,80 kg).

And what about tigers today? Today, tigers are protected. Almost a century ago, the difference between male tigers shot in a region where they were hunted (northern India) and not hunted (Nepal) was about 4 inches (10,16 cm) measured 'over curves'. Recent information, however, suggests there's, lengthwise, little to choose between tigers today and tigers shot a century ago. Today's tigers, however, seem to be heavier. This could be a result of more prey animals and more competition.

Captive male tigers in India (referring to recent information based on a largish sample) range between 380-465 pounds (172,37 - 210,65 kg). The average, depending on the sample, seems to range between 400-420 pounds (181,44 - 190,51 kg), let's say 410 pounds (185,97 kg). Their wild relatives, depending on the region selected, might have 50 pounds (22,68 kg) on them (at the level of averages), maybe a bit more in some regions. Although most of those interested in big tigers wouldn't be impressed, I agree with Dunbar Brander and many others who had the opportunity to compare tigers born in captivity with wild tigers: wild tigers are much more dense, muscular and athletic. They also have a very different attitude. Same for lions. PC saw wild lions and tigers from up close. Ask him about their attitude towards humans. What I can tell you is a big cat of 400 pounds in good condition is quite something to behold.

A FEW PICS

Here's a few photographs showing (the pugmarks of) large male Indian tigers to finish the post.

1 - Rajaji

Copters first posted this photograph some years ago. It still is the most impressive I saw. Remember pugmarks are the best indicator of size: