Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Ansh Singh]

(04-28-2022, 10:39 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 06:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the Smythsonian Tiger of 389kg also similarly had a tail like this, about an 86cm tail, then the rest of the head body length would be 235cm and a Tiger of that body length (if has the same proportions of an average Bengal Tiger) can mathematically reach upto 396kg.

Now, in the case of the 389kg specimen, the stomach content would have been around 15kg in my opinion. That means a weight of about 370-375kg and if the Tiger was even 225-230cm in head body but was proportionally taller or had a proportionally wider chest then the 389kg is possible. (perhaps not practical but possible)

All we know is the total length between pegs for that Tiger which was 322cm, the rest of the details are unknown so if more measurements were available, then it would have been possible to make better judgements but with a small tail or by being tall and bulky or by having both, the Tiger could have reached that weight for real.

People say that 389kg is impossible but it’s physically possible. If he had that sort of length with a very short tail then the Tiger can definitely support this weight.

We have a couple of other examples of big tigers and short tails:

The Bachelor of Powalgarh, for example, measured about 323 cm "over curves" and probably 310 cm "between pegs". We estimate a good size but the picture shows a true giant! Check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger certainly measured over 210 cm in head-body "between pegs", sadly we can't see its tail.


Other is the tiger of the Maharaha of Nepal that weighed 320 kg and total length of 328 cm  over curves" (at least 311 cm "between pegs"), the incredibly realistic paint shows a short tail in relation with its overall size, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger is another candidate for over 210 cm in head body length "straight".

Now, these two giants are very bulky as we can see and reflect huge body masses, but what about the Smithsonian tiger, well.........

*This image is copyright of its original author

Certainly this tiger is not near the size of the Bachelor or the Nepalese giant, it looks more like an average sized one, and the reported size for its skull confirm it. Honestly it do not look gorged or anything like that so that statement can't be use to justify its huge mass, check this other picture too:

*This image is copyright of its original author

But with this photographic evidence we can see that there is something wrong with the weight of this tiger, even the reported length of 323 cm "between pegs" seems too much for this specimen, unless than its tail was very long (up to 114 cm in the maximum records (Brander, 1927)), in that case the length seems reliable as this tiger can be a little over 200 cm in head-body straight. So, while this tiger did existed, was certainly measured and obviously weighed, the weight was certainly incorrect, maybe the scale used was bad, or something happen but from my point of view this tiger can't weight over 300 kg, leave alone the 389 kg claimed.

Evidence suggest that the biggest tigers can reach 320-330 cm in total length (up to 221 cm in head-body confirmed) and weights between 260-290 kg "empty". The Smithsonian tiger while cover all the levels of reliability of Slaght et al. (2005) and can be clasiffied as "highly reliable" is an example when we also need to use the logic and not only the raw data, as this tiger, alghouth of a good size, it can't be of that enormous weight, from my point of view at least.

The tiger of 389 kg and the lion 313 kg reported by Guinness are not reliable and should not be used for comparison. That is my final word on this.

Yeah 389 kg tiger and 313 kg lion is absolutely overestimation Reply