About methods, measurements, errors, baits and the art of debating

[GuateGojira]

2. Measurements of tigers in Nepal:

This was an old issue that was already resolved in the AVA forum. I have three confirmations that the Nepalese tigers were measured in straight line, one was from Tigerlover (not @tigerluver), other from BoldChamp (A.K.A. Damon Ransom and Jimmy Brenton) and the last one to me. Let's put the emails again:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, now, here is the confirmation to my person, in 2009:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see, it was a straight line and the tape was along the body. The issue here is that @WaveRiders is stating that the method used by scientists is the same that the old hunters that produced the exaggerated sizes, but that is a huge mistake.

1. Scientists put the tape along the back, in a straight line, they don't press the tape to enhance the length, but to sustain the tape, at the end the tape is straight, so is like measuring between pegs but without the use of two sticks.

2. Old hunters also put the tape at the back, but the problem with them is that they do pressed the tape loosely trough all the body and this obviously enhance the true size. That is why some records showed tigers of 11 and 12 ft long. I don't see any scientific tiger with that size because they don't search "trophy" specimens or to please any dignitary.

Now, with the doubt in the air, I write to Dr Sunquist this month, but this time I add an image with his previous description. Here is his answer:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here is the image that I send to him:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Confirmation, Nepalese tigers were measured in a straight line, and I am sure that Nagarahole tigers too.

In a previous post (in the topic of the Amur and Bengal tigers) I explained that, but Waveriders say that it was "difficult to digest". So, I put it again, with images.

In an article of 1997, Dr Ullas Karanth write this:
"The Indian tigers are smaller with average males weighing around 200 to 250 kilograms and females a 100 kilos less. Indian tigers are about 155 to 225 centimetres long including head and body, with an additional tail length of 75 to 100 centimetres, if measured correctly along the body curves. However, many old shikar accounts report a nose to tail-tip distance, measured straight between wooden pegs (and, as a way suspected, sometimes between pegs of whisky) making it difficult to get accurate size estimates from them."
Source: http://savingwildtigers.org/karanth.html

Automatically many people believed that he was disproving any straight line measurement, but in fact, it is the method "between pegs from nose to tip of tail" what he disproved. I also stated that he, in some way, do not want to be confused with the old methods, that he described as "archaic". However, if he disprove the "between pegs" method, why he quotes Pocock (1939) as that those figures were specifically stated that were taken in that manner?

Check this image, from a book of 2013 (chapter of the tiger, wrote by Dr Karanth):

*This image is copyright of its original author

He say that old records were incorrectly derived and quotes Pocock (1929) when he presented many skins measurements, however when he mention the reliable records he quotes Pocock (1939). Now, check Pocock (1939):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here is the confusion, Dr Karanth follow the idea that measurements "between tip to tip" are unsatisfactory (sadly many "between pegs" records came in this form) and that many old records don't even say the method. However, he still quoted Pocock (1939) like one of his only three principal sources, so it is obvious that he don't disprove anymore that method, as long as the head-body is stated and if the source is reliable. Are you going to quote a source that you believe is incorrect, for your data? Obviously not, and this document from 2013 shows that he no longer believe what is stated in 1997.

Again, he mention that the measurements of modern records are "along the contour", but like we have see in Dr Sunquist email, that doesn't mean that they pressed the tape exaggerating the size, it is just when they are running the tape, but latter the line is kept straight. At the end, we most remember that Dr Karanth learned the method from Dr Sunquits, and two of those tigers were measured in Sunquist presence.

If we check the images of tigers captured in India, most of them are in a straight line, and those that are not, are not been measured in that particular moment of the photograph. Check this photos from a dead cub and those of the young Nepalese tiger released in resent times.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Can you denied that these animals are been measured in a straight line with the tape along the back?


As we can see, based in the presented evidence, that tigers in Nepal and Nagarahole are been measured in a straight line along the contours of the body, which according with Dr Sunquist, which have measured many tigers himself, is like to measure "between pegs", but without the pegs and with the body itself. Reply