Amur Tigers

[tigerluver]

(05-24-2014, 09:53 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Following the tradition of the Siberian Tiger Project, in the weight of Nellie, I used the average of the two weights recorded: 265 lb and 270 lb, which is 267.5 lb or c.121 kg, which is the figure in my tables.

If we use only the last weights, many corrections should be made, like for example, using 205 kg instead of 193 kg for the large male Dale.

That will be a good point of debate. What do you all think that is more accurate: 1-to use the last weight or 2-to use the average of all weights? [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img]

 

Hey everyone, it's the same tigerluver from yuku. It's been a while.

IMO, if Dale's first weight was taken before his prime, use only the second weight, as the difference is likely due to growth. If not, an average is best. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(05-24-2014, 07:25 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote:

(05-24-2014, 09:53 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Following the tradition of the Siberian Tiger Project, in the weight of Nellie, I used the average of the two weights recorded: 265 lb and 270 lb, which is 267.5 lb or c.121 kg, which is the figure in my tables.

If we use only the last weights, many corrections should be made, like for example, using 205 kg instead of 193 kg for the large male Dale.

That will be a good point of debate. What do you all think that is more accurate: 1-to use the last weight or 2-to use the average of all weights? [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img]

 

 

Hey everyone, it's the same tigerluver from yuku. It's been a while.

IMO, if Dale's first weight was taken before his prime, use only the second weight, as the difference is likely due to growth. If not, an average is best.

 

Hey tigerluver, just check your inbox please. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
  Reply

[GuateGojira]

(05-24-2014, 07:25 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote:

(05-24-2014, 09:53 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Following the tradition of the Siberian Tiger Project, in the weight of Nellie, I used the average of the two weights recorded: 265 lb and 270 lb, which is 267.5 lb or c.121 kg, which is the figure in my tables.

If we use only the last weights, many corrections should be made, like for example, using 205 kg instead of 193 kg for the large male Dale.

That will be a good point of debate. What do you all think that is more accurate: 1-to use the last weight or 2-to use the average of all weights? [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img]

 

 

Hey everyone, it's the same tigerluver from yuku. It's been a while.

IMO, if Dale's first weight was taken before his prime, use only the second weight, as the difference is likely due to growth. If not, an average is best.

 

The first weight of Dale was of 202 kg and was all ready full adult. The second weight was of only 170 kg (including stomach content) and was in bad shape with the lower canines broken. In the third capture he was already 12 years old and weighed 205 kg. Some time latter, he drowned in a pool and died, so he could live much more.

The average of the figures is of 192.3 kg, but Kerley et al. (2005) stated a figure of 193 kg, and that is the one that I used.
  Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

The Duisburg Zoo specimen "Amur" probably has the 90mm canine from the gumline, but measured 'over the front curve', not in the straight line.

Assuming his skull is 17 inches compared to the 16 inches of Madla, 17/16*7.5 = 7.96875

So his canine should be measured about 8 cm. Meanwhile, his weight is around 300kg versus the 250kg of Madla.

This shows the body proportion of the wild/captive tigers are very symmetric. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

Here is the hypothetical skull of the Duisburg Zoo specimen, it is based on the scale up of the 383mm wild Amur skull.

Now the canine size also matches with my estimation. This again shows that the tiger species is very symmetric whether it is captive specimen or wild specimen.

Thanks Guate for the image.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[TheLioness]

http://archive.21stcenturytiger.org/inde...1268655084
The tiger turned out to be a young male (3-4 years old), in good physical condition, weighing 156 kg, and with an 11 cm front pad width.

This tiger seemed un-bothered by where he was. Don't know if you've heard of this male or not guate. Reply

[GuateGojira]

Yes, TheLioness, I know of this male. In fact, he was not in good shape in the full sence of the word. He was a little underweight and sick. The last test showed that he had canine distemper, he died some days later.

I included him in my tables at first, but latter I take him out as he was not a healty specimen at all.

Another tigress, know as Galia, also died of the same. She weighed an estimated of up to 140 kg in her prime, but at her death, she weighed only 96 kg!
  Reply

[TheLioness]

That would explain his behavior then for sure. Reply

[Amnon242]

Check the size difference

Reply

[Pckts]

Tall male for sure. Looks a little skinny though  Reply

[Amnon242]

(06-01-2014, 08:43 PM)Pckts Wrote: Tall male for sure. Looks a little skinny though 

 He is about 16yo... Reply

[Apollo]

IMO in old male tigers and lions the hind quarter weakens out first.
  Reply

[Amnon242]

(06-02-2014, 04:45 PM)Apollo Wrote: IMO in old male tigers and lions the hind quarter weakens out first.
 

exactly

  Reply

[Wanderfalke]

I don´t know, if it´s because maybe he was crouching all the time but his hind legs looked kinda deformed!? Nice example of size difference. Reply

[Roflcopters]

there are definitely signs of deformity, poor guy but i guess he's lived all of his life if he's 16 like Amnon says.  Reply