There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
In the past, GuateGojira created a comparison of the size of the tigers.
It includes records measured by scientists and reliable historical records.
According to it, the tiger's total length is up to 315cm, its body length is up to 221cm, its standing height is up to 114cm and its weight up to 272kg
But I think tigers can be grow up to 225cm(in body length)(Mazak, 1983), 115cm high(in standing height)(Baikov, 1925) and weigh up to 320kg.
07-05-2022, 03:35 AM( This post was last modified: 07-05-2022, 03:42 AM by GuateGojira )
(01-31-2021, 04:08 PM)qocjfgh1014 Wrote: In the past, GuateGojira created a comparison of the size of the tigers.
It includes records measured by scientists and reliable historical records.
According to it, the tiger's total length is up to 315cm, its body length is up to 221cm, its standing height is up to 114cm and its weight up to 272kg
But I think tigers can be grow up to 225cm(in body length)(Mazak, 1983), 115cm high(in standing height)(Baikov, 1925) and weigh up to 320kg.
How much do you think tigers can grow to?
I did not noticed this post until now, more than one year later!
In order to get a plausible answer to this question, we need to focus on two subspecies/populations, the Bengal and the Amur tigers. Caspian and Indochina tigers had reports of specimens that almoust equal its sizes, but are rare and the biggest Bengal/Amur tigers are the biggest cats in modern records.
In previous comparative images I stated that the longest tiger measured "between pegs" was the biggest male recorded by Meinertzhagen with 315 cm, but now I accept and use the tiger of 323 cm reported by Gordon as all the measurements seems correct for an animal measured "between pegs". However, total length is not the best form the get the real size of a tiger, as the biggest tiger reported at this moment is the huge male of Brander with 221 cm in head-body, but with a tail of less than 90 cm, and if that tiger would had a tail of 113 cm like the Sauraha male of Nepal, it could measure no less than 330 cm! That is why I firmly believe that the existence of tigers of up to 330 cm "between pegs" is/was possible although very rare. On the Amur side, the biggest male actually measured in the wild was of 210 cm head-body "over curves" (probably around 195 cm "between pegs"), but the report of Mazák about the biggest tiger reported by Yankovsky (350 cm "over curves" - 330 cm "between pegs") suggest, according with him, a head-body of 225 cm "between pegs". There is also the report of the huge tiger of Colonel Ramsay, which measurements match and surpass those from the big tiger of Brander and its head-body "between pegs" was probably between 225 - 230 cm; its shoulder height was of 109 cm, chest girth of 160 cm.
Using this information, we can say that the biggest male tigers can reach measurements over 220 cm "between pegs" but in very rare occasions, with a plausible length of up to 230 cm. However, this maximum size was certainly reached or surpassed by the Pleistocene tigers, with the maximum estimated head-body length for Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) of 220 cm and for Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) was between 230 - 240 cm, depending of the method. All these length measurements were estimated to be "between pegs".
About the shoulder height, the maximum reported by Brander, Cooch Behar and Shillingford, is between 112 - 114 cm "between pegs", but Mazák believed that up to 110 cm in real standing height is already amazing. The figure of 115 cm reported by Baikov is not a correct measurement as he associated it with a length of 390 cm, which is certainly a skin measurement. Under this evidence of record tigers, we can see that a hunted tiger measured in the floor "between pegs" will be up to 114 cm based in actual records, but in real standing height probably do not surpass the 110 cm (walking tigers do not stand 100% straight).
Finally, about the body mass, there is a debate about the hunting records, that is why I stated the maximum figure of 272 kg as this one was recorded by scientists. However, in the side of Bengal tigers, there are some records that surpass that figure and the biggest male tiger recorded in the Indian subcontinent is a male of 320 kg (the record reported by Guinness of 389 kg is not reliable) reported from Nepal, in the area that will be know as Chitwan in the future. However, as this male was probably baited, its "empty" weight could be around 290 kg, probably a little more as the tiger was still running and fighting before its death, which suggest that the tigers was not gorged and could actually weighed 300 kg "empty". Amur tigers had been reported with body masses of over 300 kg and up to 384 kg, however a study made by scientists showed that the biggest weight reliable recorded was a male of 254 kg (Slaght et al., 2005). There is the case of a male of 325 kg reported from Kirin province (northeast China) that is still in doubt, the problem is that Slagth et al. (2005) found the record from a French translation (1938) of the original document (1929), and when they checked and English translation (1936) they found that the weight was not mentioned there. So, as they could not found the original document from Baikov of 1929 (the one that was used by Heptner & Sludskii), they leave it as "unreliable".
Using all this information, we can say that the biggest tigers recorded could measured c.225 cm in head-body "between pegs", a standing height of 110 cm, chest girth of 160 cm and a weight of c.290 kg "empty". This will be a real giant, but normally the "longest" is not the "tallest" and certainly long bodied tigers are not guarantee that are the "heaviest". This is normal among animals and even human, so no big surprise.
(01-31-2021, 04:08 PM)qocjfgh1014 Wrote: In the past, GuateGojira created a comparison of the size of the tigers.
It includes records measured by scientists and reliable historical records.
According to it, the tiger's total length is up to 315cm, its body length is up to 221cm, its standing height is up to 114cm and its weight up to 272kg
But I think tigers can be grow up to 225cm(in body length)(Mazak, 1983), 115cm high(in standing height)(Baikov, 1925) and weigh up to 320kg.
How much do you think tigers can grow to?
I did not noticed this post until now, more than one year later!
In order to get a plausible answer to this question, we need to focus on two subspecies/populations, the Bengal and the Amur tigers. Caspian and Indochina tigers had reports of specimens that almoust equal its sizes, but are rare and the biggest Bengal/Amur tigers are the biggest cats in modern records.
In previous comparative images I stated that the longest tiger measured "between pegs" was the biggest male recorded by Meinertzhagen with 315 cm, but now I accept and use the tiger of 323 cm reported by Gordon as all the measurements seems correct for an animal measured "between pegs". However, total length is not the best form the get the real size of a tiger, as the biggest tiger reported at this moment is the huge male of Brander with 221 cm in head-body, but with a tail of less than 90 cm, and if that tiger would had a tail of 113 cm like the Sauraha male of Nepal, it could measure no less than 330 cm! That is why I firmly believe that the existence of tigers of up to 330 cm "between pegs" is/was possible although very rare. On the Amur side, the biggest male actually measured in the wild was of 210 cm head-body "over curves" (probably around 195 cm "between pegs"), but the report of Mazák about the biggest tiger reported by Yankovsky (350 cm "over curves" - 330 cm "between pegs") suggest, according with him, a head-body of 225 cm "between pegs". There is also the report of the huge tiger of Colonel Ramsay, which measurements match and surpass those from the big tiger of Brander and its head-body "between pegs" was probably between 225 - 230 cm; its shoulder height was of 109 cm, chest girth of 160 cm.
Using this information, we can say that the biggest male tigers can reach measurements over 220 cm "between pegs" but in very rare occasions, with a plausible length of up to 230 cm. However, this maximum size was certainly reached or surpassed by the Pleistocene tigers, with the maximum estimated head-body length for Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) of 220 cm and for Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) was between 230 - 240 cm, depending of the method. All these length measurements were estimated to be "between pegs".
About the shoulder height, the maximum reported by Brander, Cooch Behar and Shillingford, is between 112 - 114 cm "between pegs", but Mazák believed that up to 110 cm in real standing height is already amazing. The figure of 115 cm reported by Baikov is not a correct measurement as he associated it with a length of 390 cm, which is certainly a skin measurement. Under this evidence of record tigers, we can see that a hunted tiger measured in the floor "between pegs" will be up to 114 cm based in actual records, but in real standing height probably do not surpass the 110 cm (walking tigers do not stand 100% straight).
Finally, about the body mass, there is a debate about the hunting records, that is why I stated the maximum figure of 272 kg as this one was recorded by scientists. However, in the side of Bengal tigers, there are some records that surpass that figure and the biggest male tiger recorded in the Indian subcontinent is a male of 320 kg (the record reported by Guinness of 389 kg is not reliable) reported from Nepal, in the area that will be know as Chitwan in the future. However, as this male was probably baited, its "empty" weight could be around 290 kg, probably a little more as the tiger was still running and fighting before its death, which suggest that the tigers was not gorged and could actually weighed 300 kg "empty". Amur tigers had been reported with body masses of over 300 kg and up to 384 kg, however a study made by scientists showed that the biggest weight reliable recorded was a male of 254 kg (Slaght et al., 2005). There is the case of a male of 325 kg reported from Kirin province (northeast China) that is still in doubt, the problem is that Slagth et al. (2005) found the record from a French translation (1938) of the original document (1929), and when they checked and English translation (1936) they found that the weight was not mentioned there. So, as they could not found the original document from Baikov of 1929 (the one that was used by Heptner & Sludskii), they leave it as "unreliable".
Using all this information, we can say that the biggest tigers recorded could measured c.225 cm in head-body "between pegs", a standing height of 110 cm, chest girth of 160 cm and a weight of c.290 kg "empty". This will be a real giant, but normally the "longest" is not the "tallest" and certainly long bodied tigers are not guarantee that are the "heaviest". This is normal among animals and even human, so no big surprise.
Any doubt, feel free to ask.
Greetings.
The Col. Ramsay Tiger would have been huge. From the measurements he gave, the head-body length of the Tiger between pegs would have been no less than 231cm.
I believe that the head-body length in straight line is about 95% of the head-body length over the curves and this relation would probably work well in most cases.
What do you think of making a compilation of the weights and measurements of EVERY individual Tiger?? I understand this would take a lot of time and effort but I am willing to do all the compilation work and I also have access to most of the sources you listed in your references but could you provide the data which is not accessible??
I had also considered making the compilation of the length and weights of all crocodile but the problem is that almost all that is available is about saltwater crocodiles and other than that a little about Nile Crocodiles but the data for other species is almost non-existent and we also don’t know the ages of the crocodile in almost any of these cases.
07-06-2022, 11:27 PM( This post was last modified: 07-06-2022, 11:28 PM by Charger01 )
(07-06-2022, 10:09 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(07-05-2022, 03:35 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(01-31-2021, 04:08 PM)qocjfgh1014 Wrote: In the past, GuateGojira created a comparison of the size of the tigers.
It includes records measured by scientists and reliable historical records.
According to it, the tiger's total length is up to 315cm, its body length is up to 221cm, its standing height is up to 114cm and its weight up to 272kg
But I think tigers can be grow up to 225cm(in body length)(Mazak, 1983), 115cm high(in standing height)(Baikov, 1925) and weigh up to 320kg.
How much do you think tigers can grow to?
I did not noticed this post until now, more than one year later!
In order to get a plausible answer to this question, we need to focus on two subspecies/populations, the Bengal and the Amur tigers. Caspian and Indochina tigers had reports of specimens that almoust equal its sizes, but are rare and the biggest Bengal/Amur tigers are the biggest cats in modern records.
In previous comparative images I stated that the longest tiger measured "between pegs" was the biggest male recorded by Meinertzhagen with 315 cm, but now I accept and use the tiger of 323 cm reported by Gordon as all the measurements seems correct for an animal measured "between pegs". However, total length is not the best form the get the real size of a tiger, as the biggest tiger reported at this moment is the huge male of Brander with 221 cm in head-body, but with a tail of less than 90 cm, and if that tiger would had a tail of 113 cm like the Sauraha male of Nepal, it could measure no less than 330 cm! That is why I firmly believe that the existence of tigers of up to 330 cm "between pegs" is/was possible although very rare. On the Amur side, the biggest male actually measured in the wild was of 210 cm head-body "over curves" (probably around 195 cm "between pegs"), but the report of Mazák about the biggest tiger reported by Yankovsky (350 cm "over curves" - 330 cm "between pegs") suggest, according with him, a head-body of 225 cm "between pegs". There is also the report of the huge tiger of Colonel Ramsay, which measurements match and surpass those from the big tiger of Brander and its head-body "between pegs" was probably between 225 - 230 cm; its shoulder height was of 109 cm, chest girth of 160 cm.
Using this information, we can say that the biggest male tigers can reach measurements over 220 cm "between pegs" but in very rare occasions, with a plausible length of up to 230 cm. However, this maximum size was certainly reached or surpassed by the Pleistocene tigers, with the maximum estimated head-body length for Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) of 220 cm and for Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) was between 230 - 240 cm, depending of the method. All these length measurements were estimated to be "between pegs".
About the shoulder height, the maximum reported by Brander, Cooch Behar and Shillingford, is between 112 - 114 cm "between pegs", but Mazák believed that up to 110 cm in real standing height is already amazing. The figure of 115 cm reported by Baikov is not a correct measurement as he associated it with a length of 390 cm, which is certainly a skin measurement. Under this evidence of record tigers, we can see that a hunted tiger measured in the floor "between pegs" will be up to 114 cm based in actual records, but in real standing height probably do not surpass the 110 cm (walking tigers do not stand 100% straight).
Finally, about the body mass, there is a debate about the hunting records, that is why I stated the maximum figure of 272 kg as this one was recorded by scientists. However, in the side of Bengal tigers, there are some records that surpass that figure and the biggest male tiger recorded in the Indian subcontinent is a male of 320 kg (the record reported by Guinness of 389 kg is not reliable) reported from Nepal, in the area that will be know as Chitwan in the future. However, as this male was probably baited, its "empty" weight could be around 290 kg, probably a little more as the tiger was still running and fighting before its death, which suggest that the tigers was not gorged and could actually weighed 300 kg "empty". Amur tigers had been reported with body masses of over 300 kg and up to 384 kg, however a study made by scientists showed that the biggest weight reliable recorded was a male of 254 kg (Slaght et al., 2005). There is the case of a male of 325 kg reported from Kirin province (northeast China) that is still in doubt, the problem is that Slagth et al. (2005) found the record from a French translation (1938) of the original document (1929), and when they checked and English translation (1936) they found that the weight was not mentioned there. So, as they could not found the original document from Baikov of 1929 (the one that was used by Heptner & Sludskii), they leave it as "unreliable".
Using all this information, we can say that the biggest tigers recorded could measured c.225 cm in head-body "between pegs", a standing height of 110 cm, chest girth of 160 cm and a weight of c.290 kg "empty". This will be a real giant, but normally the "longest" is not the "tallest" and certainly long bodied tigers are not guarantee that are the "heaviest". This is normal among animals and even human, so no big surprise.
Any doubt, feel free to ask.
Greetings.
The Col. Ramsay Tiger would have been huge. From the measurements he gave, the head-body length of the Tiger between pegs would have been no less than 231cm.
I believe that the head-body length in straight line is about 95% of the head-body length over the curves and this relation would probably work well in most cases.
What do you think of making a compilation of the weights and measurements of EVERY individual Tiger?? I understand this would take a lot of time and effort but I am willing to do all the compilation work and I also have access to most of the sources you listed in your references but could you provide the data which is not accessible??
I had also considered making the compilation of the length and weights of all crocodile but the problem is that almost all that is available is about saltwater crocodiles and other than that a little about Nile Crocodiles but the data for other species is almost non-existent and we also don’t know the ages of the crocodile in almost any of these cases.
I compiled something similar for as many individual tigers as I could find. Mainly used 3 measurements- Total length, Head-Body length and Chest girth. Will share in some time
07-06-2022, 11:33 PM( This post was last modified: 07-07-2022, 02:03 AM by LonePredator )
(07-06-2022, 11:27 PM)Khan85 Wrote:
(07-06-2022, 10:09 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(07-05-2022, 03:35 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(01-31-2021, 04:08 PM)qocjfgh1014 Wrote: In the past, GuateGojira created a comparison of the size of the tigers.
It includes records measured by scientists and reliable historical records.
According to it, the tiger's total length is up to 315cm, its body length is up to 221cm, its standing height is up to 114cm and its weight up to 272kg
But I think tigers can be grow up to 225cm(in body length)(Mazak, 1983), 115cm high(in standing height)(Baikov, 1925) and weigh up to 320kg.
How much do you think tigers can grow to?
I did not noticed this post until now, more than one year later!
In order to get a plausible answer to this question, we need to focus on two subspecies/populations, the Bengal and the Amur tigers. Caspian and Indochina tigers had reports of specimens that almoust equal its sizes, but are rare and the biggest Bengal/Amur tigers are the biggest cats in modern records.
In previous comparative images I stated that the longest tiger measured "between pegs" was the biggest male recorded by Meinertzhagen with 315 cm, but now I accept and use the tiger of 323 cm reported by Gordon as all the measurements seems correct for an animal measured "between pegs". However, total length is not the best form the get the real size of a tiger, as the biggest tiger reported at this moment is the huge male of Brander with 221 cm in head-body, but with a tail of less than 90 cm, and if that tiger would had a tail of 113 cm like the Sauraha male of Nepal, it could measure no less than 330 cm! That is why I firmly believe that the existence of tigers of up to 330 cm "between pegs" is/was possible although very rare. On the Amur side, the biggest male actually measured in the wild was of 210 cm head-body "over curves" (probably around 195 cm "between pegs"), but the report of Mazák about the biggest tiger reported by Yankovsky (350 cm "over curves" - 330 cm "between pegs") suggest, according with him, a head-body of 225 cm "between pegs". There is also the report of the huge tiger of Colonel Ramsay, which measurements match and surpass those from the big tiger of Brander and its head-body "between pegs" was probably between 225 - 230 cm; its shoulder height was of 109 cm, chest girth of 160 cm.
Using this information, we can say that the biggest male tigers can reach measurements over 220 cm "between pegs" but in very rare occasions, with a plausible length of up to 230 cm. However, this maximum size was certainly reached or surpassed by the Pleistocene tigers, with the maximum estimated head-body length for Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) of 220 cm and for Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) was between 230 - 240 cm, depending of the method. All these length measurements were estimated to be "between pegs".
About the shoulder height, the maximum reported by Brander, Cooch Behar and Shillingford, is between 112 - 114 cm "between pegs", but Mazák believed that up to 110 cm in real standing height is already amazing. The figure of 115 cm reported by Baikov is not a correct measurement as he associated it with a length of 390 cm, which is certainly a skin measurement. Under this evidence of record tigers, we can see that a hunted tiger measured in the floor "between pegs" will be up to 114 cm based in actual records, but in real standing height probably do not surpass the 110 cm (walking tigers do not stand 100% straight).
Finally, about the body mass, there is a debate about the hunting records, that is why I stated the maximum figure of 272 kg as this one was recorded by scientists. However, in the side of Bengal tigers, there are some records that surpass that figure and the biggest male tiger recorded in the Indian subcontinent is a male of 320 kg (the record reported by Guinness of 389 kg is not reliable) reported from Nepal, in the area that will be know as Chitwan in the future. However, as this male was probably baited, its "empty" weight could be around 290 kg, probably a little more as the tiger was still running and fighting before its death, which suggest that the tigers was not gorged and could actually weighed 300 kg "empty". Amur tigers had been reported with body masses of over 300 kg and up to 384 kg, however a study made by scientists showed that the biggest weight reliable recorded was a male of 254 kg (Slaght et al., 2005). There is the case of a male of 325 kg reported from Kirin province (northeast China) that is still in doubt, the problem is that Slagth et al. (2005) found the record from a French translation (1938) of the original document (1929), and when they checked and English translation (1936) they found that the weight was not mentioned there. So, as they could not found the original document from Baikov of 1929 (the one that was used by Heptner & Sludskii), they leave it as "unreliable".
Using all this information, we can say that the biggest tigers recorded could measured c.225 cm in head-body "between pegs", a standing height of 110 cm, chest girth of 160 cm and a weight of c.290 kg "empty". This will be a real giant, but normally the "longest" is not the "tallest" and certainly long bodied tigers are not guarantee that are the "heaviest". This is normal among animals and even human, so no big surprise.
Any doubt, feel free to ask.
Greetings.
The Col. Ramsay Tiger would have been huge. From the measurements he gave, the head-body length of the Tiger between pegs would have been no less than 231cm.
I believe that the head-body length in straight line is about 95% of the head-body length over the curves and this relation would probably work well in most cases.
What do you think of making a compilation of the weights and measurements of EVERY individual Tiger?? I understand this would take a lot of time and effort but I am willing to do all the compilation work and I also have access to most of the sources you listed in your references but could you provide the data which is not accessible??
I had also considered making the compilation of the length and weights of all crocodile but the problem is that almost all that is available is about saltwater crocodiles and other than that a little about Nile Crocodiles but the data for other species is almost non-existent and we also don’t know the ages of the crocodile in almost any of these cases.
I compiled something similar for as many individual tigers as I could find. Mainly used 3 measurements- Total length, Head-Body length and Chest girth. Will share in some time
And what is your sample size?? By the way, I am thinking of including all Tigers in the compilation. Including the ones which have not been weighed but only measured in dimensions. Weight, shoulder height, total length, head-body length all of it.
Maybe the data you have compiled could be of a lot of help in making this possible.
(07-06-2022, 10:09 PM)LonePredator Wrote: What do you think of making a compilation of the weights and measurements of EVERY individual Tiger?? I understand this would take a lot of time and effort but I am willing to do all the compilation work and I also have access to most of the sources you listed in your references but could you provide the data which is not accessible??
Funny thing is that I have it, but is separated. I have one big table with all the body measurements and other with all the body masses. I did not made it together because I never tough that it will be usefull. So give me time and I will try to put them together.
(07-06-2022, 10:09 PM)LonePredator Wrote: What do you think of making a compilation of the weights and measurements of EVERY individual Tiger?? I understand this would take a lot of time and effort but I am willing to do all the compilation work and I also have access to most of the sources you listed in your references but could you provide the data which is not accessible??
Funny thing is that I have it, but is separated. I have one big table with all the body measurements and other with all the body masses. I did not made it together because I never tough that it will be usefull. So give me time and I will try to put them together.
(07-06-2022, 10:09 PM)LonePredator Wrote: The Col. Ramsay Tiger would have been huge. From the measurements he gave, the head-body length of the Tiger between pegs would have been no less than 231cm.
I believe that the head-body length in straight line is about 95% of the head-body length over the curves and this relation would probably work well in most cases.
Tail is also a good tool, if the tail is at least 30% or more than the total length, then we can make sure that the measurement was between pegs. However this may work with the big tails only, as the smaller ones, like the one of the tiger of Brander, are a rarity but may happen and will provide incorrect values.
Using the tail as a surrogate, I got a head-body of 229 cm "straight", and correcting the measurement with the 20 cm suggested by Mazák I got 231 cm "straight". Certainly, that was a huge tiger of around 230 cm in head-body length "straight"!
For those that don't have the measurements of this tiger, here is the image:
*This image is copyright of its original author
In the same document, the weight of this tiger was estimated at 616 lb (279.4 kg), and based in the measurements it seems that about 280 kg "emtpy" is not out of question, specially when I estimate that the maximum body mass that a modern tiger can get will be around 290 kg, using the giant Nepalese tiger as an example.
07-07-2022, 09:14 PM( This post was last modified: 07-07-2022, 09:22 PM by LonePredator )
(07-07-2022, 08:45 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(07-06-2022, 10:09 PM)LonePredator Wrote: The Col. Ramsay Tiger would have been huge. From the measurements he gave, the head-body length of the Tiger between pegs would have been no less than 231cm.
I believe that the head-body length in straight line is about 95% of the head-body length over the curves and this relation would probably work well in most cases.
Tail is also a good tool, if the tail is at least 30% or more than the total length, then we can make sure that the measurement was between pegs. However this may work with the big tails only, as the smaller ones, like the one of the tiger of Brander, are a rarity but may happen and will provide incorrect values.
Using the tail as a surrogate, I got a head-body of 229 cm "straight", and correcting the measurement with the 20 cm suggested by Mazák I got 231 cm "straight". Certainly, that was a huge tiger of around 230 cm in head-body length "straight"!
For those that don't have the measurements of this tiger, here is the image:
*This image is copyright of its original author
In the same document, the weight of this tiger was estimated at 616 lb (279.4 kg), and based in the measurements it seems that about 280 kg "emtpy" is not out of question, specially when I estimate that the maximum body mass that a modern tiger can get will be around 290 kg, using the giant Nepalese tiger as an example.
As for my weight estimation, if I consider the HB length of 229cm like you said and the height as 109cm as given and chest girth as 160cm as given and make an isometric calculation by taking a 190cm long, 100cm tall, 130cm chest girth, 200kg Tiger as surrogate then...
(07-07-2022, 08:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Can you share the two tables for now?
Yes, this is the one for males with only measurements "between pegs":
*This image is copyright of its original author
This did not include the new measurements of the Panna tigers, so you should include them latter, and still include the Sundarbans specimens, which should be remouved. Now, if someone says why this sample is only of 156 males when in my comparative image I mention 216? Well, this is because I did include the 42 males from Brander and the 18 males from Marshall (Naga area) in the final average, although they only provided total length, and then you have the total sample of 216 males.
This is another table with only modern records:
*This image is copyright of its original author
About the weights, I only have the table that already shared since April of this year, as I did not made one with single figures and its authors, just groups of collections based in the area to calculate the average of each place. Here is again, but with a few corrections that I made in May 2022:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now, joining these two tables, that will be the real challenge!
(07-07-2022, 09:14 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Isn't the tail length already given though? There is a tail length of 3 feet 9 inches already given in that document.
By the way, even when length is taken over curves, the tail is still measured straight right?? So can simply subtract tail length from total length and will will that give us the head-body length over curves??
As for my weight estimation, if I consider the HB length of 229cm like you said and the height as 109cm as given and chest girth as 160cm as given and make an isometric calculation by taking a 190cm long, 100cm tall, 130cm chest girth, 200kg Tiger as surrogate then...
229÷190=1.205
(1.205^3) x 200 = 351
109÷100=1.09
(1.09^3) x 200 = 259
160÷130=1.2307
(1.2307^3) x 200 = 372
(351+259+372) ÷ 3 = 327kg
So I make a final weight estimate of 327kg
Yes, that is exactly what I have done, took the tail length, substracted it for the total length and latter made the correction of the 20 cm.
And yes, the tail is always taken straight, is the only form as it is just a single straight line from the base to the tip. That is why I told you that using the tail length we can also try to get the approximate head-body straight and like in the example that I showed, the difference is not too much (229 against 231).
About the weight, I personally think that 327 kg is too much, 300 is already extreme for any modern cat. I prefer to be conservative in this point with my 290 kg estimated from the Nepalese male of 320 kg, assuming a stomach content of 30 kg, although I honestly think that it should be less, may be 20 kg as the tiger was still runing and jumping before been shot, something that a gorged tiger could not do.
07-07-2022, 09:36 PM( This post was last modified: 07-07-2022, 10:14 PM by LonePredator )
(07-07-2022, 09:25 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(07-07-2022, 09:14 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Isn't the tail length already given though? There is a tail length of 3 feet 9 inches already given in that document.
By the way, even when length is taken over curves, the tail is still measured straight right?? So can simply subtract tail length from total length and will will that give us the head-body length over curves??
As for my weight estimation, if I consider the HB length of 229cm like you said and the height as 109cm as given and chest girth as 160cm as given and make an isometric calculation by taking a 190cm long, 100cm tall, 130cm chest girth, 200kg Tiger as surrogate then...
229÷190=1.205
(1.205^3) x 200 = 351
109÷100=1.09
(1.09^3) x 200 = 259
160÷130=1.2307
(1.2307^3) x 200 = 372
(351+259+372) ÷ 3 = 327kg
So I make a final weight estimate of 327kg
Yes, that is exactly what I have done, took the tail length, substracted it for the total length and latter made the correction of the 20 cm.
And yes, the tail is always taken straight, is the only form as it is just a single straight line from the base to the tip. That is why I told you that using the tail length we can also try to get the approximate head-body straight and like in the example that I showed, the difference is not too much (229 against 231).
About the weight, I personally think that 327 kg is too much, 300 is already extreme for any modern cat. I prefer to be conservative in this point with my 290 kg estimated from the Nepalese male of 320 kg, assuming a stomach content of 30 kg, although I honestly think that it should be less, may be 20 kg as the tiger was still runing and jumping before been shot, something that a gorged tiger could not do.
Yes, 30kg might be too much to subtract and I understand where you are coming from regarding the conservative weight estimate but the Tiger literally had prehistoric dimensions and also had a 160cm chest girth so I also don’t think it was that frail either so maybe we can agree to disagree on this one :)
And I had some time on hand and I drew an unfinished Bengal and Amur.
A General Theory of the Size of Tigers
