Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Pckts]

(01-31-2023, 07:28 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 05:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:17 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:44 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 03:11 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:43 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:28 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 02:03 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 01:38 AM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(01-31-2023, 12:13 AM)Pckts Wrote: Around 200kgs is a good average for male Bengals.

jhala states 200 to 260 is normal range in his journal . https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ing_Tigers , the vet khandal of ranthambhors says most of the tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore . avg should be somewhere in middle of the range or slightly tilted towards lower end , not exactly lowest. avg is lower is some parks where they dont work i understand , but it should be something more than 200kg .

The real average for any substantial data base is going to be around 200kg. We're talking real verifiable data, a larger male will surely be in the 250kg range while a smaller will be in the 185kg range. You'll see outliers for above and below but not in any real significant numbers.

nepal journal which had range 200 to 261 had avg of 235kg , its tough to predict the avg exactly unless you know how many males are territorial and how many small size males are there , if u take range 180 to 250 in many parks like of south india or tadoba then again avg would hover around mid of the range , smuts lions ranged from 150 to 225 and avg was 187.5 , exactly in the middle , if u exactly know how many tigers are big and how many small then its okk.

Averages are meaningless, some tigers are going to be 185kg some are going to be 280kg and everything in between. Generally speaking no matter the location, if you have an ample sample size the averages will drift towards that 200kg. But you're just as likely to find a 185kg Tiger as you are a 280kg Tiger. Some areas are going to have a propensity to have larger Tigers than others, but that just means you're more likely to find higher weighing Tigers there but doesn't mean they won't have smaller sized ones as well, just not as likely.

i am  talking about normal range stated by scientist jhala or khandal , eliminating exceptional large or exceptional small wandering tigers, khandal says most of tigers are between 220 to 260 in ranthambhore then how avg is 200, normal range stated by  jhala in his paper is 200 to 260 , then how avg is 200 ? we have to consider the fact that jhala and khandal are not youtube or wildfact fanboys they are scientist and vet .

Jhala is per comm. 
There is no real verified weights or significant sample size. I can present you with a verified data base with a large amount of cats from all over India. 
Brander, Cooch Behar, Hewett and any other of theses captures mentioned, you add them to the data base and you're going to have an average of around 200kg.

Once again, we're talking about verified and presented data. Captures, weights, measurements, stomach content, etc. all provided. For someone like Jhala or Khandal that's not the case. On top of that, like I stated, different parks will have larger or smaller specimens. Kanha will have the largest of C. Indian Tigers and Ranth. should be there as well but even so from both parks you have males that were less than 200kg and males that were over 280kg.

no jhala reserach paper mentioning range 200 to 260 is published not personal comment as people can see here https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ing_Tigers , i think brander or cooch beher were not scientist rather hunter , they may had hunted many sub-adults and some males out of prime , they hadnt shortlisted tigers in age group like smuts did , thats why avg is lower , khanadal and jhala are more reliable or knowledgeable than many people i think.

It literally says “unpublished data”

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is per. Communication only. And like @Jerricson said this is based off a very small sample size. 

In regards to reliability and knowledge, no one has more experience with Tigers than the likes of the names I’ve mentioned and no one has presented a more complete and large data base. Age groups and health is generally stated as well and almost all presented are adults. Where as food content is also generally mentioned but not so by Jhala.

Brander was hunter ,he shot tigers not darted them , his expertize over scientists or vets is debatable , his ability to determine age perfectly and health is also debatable .  this journal "field guide for aging tigers" is uploaded by jhala and shahu in which he stated range as 200-260 , its not someone quoting him via personal communication . in panna tigers chart many 2.5 to 3.5 yr old sub-adults are 170-185kg which could have grown upto 210-230 kg easily , thats what i am saying , there could something like that in branders data .

Brander was much more than just a “trophy hunter.” 
He is probably the foremost expert on Tigers and was responsible for their conservation throughout the majority of his life.

He measured and weighed more individuals in far more locations. Not just ones that were sick or died or translocated. He was hunting the largest and most dominate cats of the areas during his time. There is nothing to debate, in terms of wild interaction his experience is 2nd to none. It’s very easy to discredit someone because they were a Hunter but if you take the time to read their books and experiences you see their knowledge and experience shine through. 

I highly suggest you start reading these old hunters books, there’s a reason why every modern big cat expert references these people. Reply