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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bigcats News

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

(06-21-2018, 08:06 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 07:43 PM)Spalea Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 07:05 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 06:50 PM)Spalea Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 04:46 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 11:23 AM)Spalea Wrote: From your posts, I would believe you have discovered the biggest wild felid on Earth ! Like

Are you refering to me?

To you @Pantherinae and @Pckts when I have read your discussion. But nothing hugely important !
Well do you think it’s far off? Did you watch the video of Umarpani and MV2 together taken just days ago? You’re writing seems arrogant and I think if you disagree and decide to say something, just say it. Don’t indirectly say it.. That’s never been a good thing
Ooooh be calm ! I don't laugh at you at all. Umapani is indeed a beautiful tiger, I think it really (so the " Like "). There is nothing to make a fuss about, please swallow your susceptibility, thank you.
The way you wrote the previous messages seemed to written with a bit of irony, at least to me.

Spalea wrote:
From you’re posts, I would belive you have Discoverd the biggest wild felid on earth ! ? 

But if I misunderstod I apologise, I’m just saying that if you disagree with anything and you decide to say something just say what you mean is wrong and start a better discussion. That’s what I thought. But since I was wrong I deeply apologise.  
BTW I think there are bigger tigers in Terrai and Assam. Uma is very big, but I didn’t think that big myself, but when you hear about MV2 195 kg (2 years) and Bheema 220 kg (2,5 years) I actually need to look at him as bigger than I thought!

I've heard much bigger than these measurements:

*This image is copyright of its original author

180kg tigress in front of him, he's said to be over 345kg Tiger, weighed!

The source is good to, others here can confirm it.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
-Oscar Wilde
2 users Like Pckts's post
Reply

Switzerland Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
****

(06-21-2018, 08:06 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 07:43 PM)Spalea Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 07:05 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 06:50 PM)Spalea Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 04:46 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 11:23 AM)Spalea Wrote: From your posts, I would believe you have discovered the biggest wild felid on Earth ! Like

Are you refering to me?

To you @Pantherinae and @Pckts when I have read your discussion. But nothing hugely important !
Well do you think it’s far off? Did you watch the video of Umarpani and MV2 together taken just days ago? You’re writing seems arrogant and I think if you disagree and decide to say something, just say it. Don’t indirectly say it.. That’s never been a good thing
Ooooh be calm ! I don't laugh at you at all. Umapani is indeed a beautiful tiger, I think it really (so the " Like "). There is nothing to make a fuss about, please swallow your susceptibility, thank you.
The way you wrote the previous messages seemed to written with a bit of irony, at least to me.

Spalea wrote:
From you’re posts, I would belive you have Discoverd the biggest wild felid on earth ! ? 

But if I misunderstod I apologise, I’m just saying that if you disagree with anything and you decide to say something just say what you mean is wrong and start a better discussion. That’s what I thought. But since I was wrong I deeply apologise.  
BTW I think there are bigger tigers in Terrai and Assam. Uma is very big, but I didn’t think that big myself, but when you hear about MV2 195 kg (2 years) and Bheema 220 kg (2,5 years) I actually need to look at him as bigger than I thought!
OK, no problem...

Being not as specialized about tiger as you and @Pckts, when I spoke about a possible 300 kilos-weighed tiger (from yourself at the #1374), I logically would be able to believe that Umapani could be the biggest wild tiger actually living on Earth (considering the average tiger's weight is 200-220 kilos).

Perhaps other tigers can be even bigger... But actually now, it seems me rather improbable (because of the human action, already discussed at other topics).
2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Norway Pantherinae Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
****

(06-21-2018, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 08:06 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 07:43 PM)Spalea Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 07:05 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 06:50 PM)Spalea Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 04:46 PM)Pantherinae Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 11:23 AM)Spalea Wrote: From your posts, I would believe you have discovered the biggest wild felid on Earth ! Like

Are you refering to me?

To you @Pantherinae and @Pckts when I have read your discussion. But nothing hugely important !
Well do you think it’s far off? Did you watch the video of Umarpani and MV2 together taken just days ago? You’re writing seems arrogant and I think if you disagree and decide to say something, just say it. Don’t indirectly say it.. That’s never been a good thing
Ooooh be calm ! I don't laugh at you at all. Umapani is indeed a beautiful tiger, I think it really (so the " Like "). There is nothing to make a fuss about, please swallow your susceptibility, thank you.
The way you wrote the previous messages seemed to written with a bit of irony, at least to me.

Spalea wrote:
From you’re posts, I would belive you have Discoverd the biggest wild felid on earth ! ? 

But if I misunderstod I apologise, I’m just saying that if you disagree with anything and you decide to say something just say what you mean is wrong and start a better discussion. That’s what I thought. But since I was wrong I deeply apologise.  
BTW I think there are bigger tigers in Terrai and Assam. Uma is very big, but I didn’t think that big myself, but when you hear about MV2 195 kg (2 years) and Bheema 220 kg (2,5 years) I actually need to look at him as bigger than I thought!

I've heard much bigger than these measurements:

*This image is copyright of its original author

180kg tigress in front of him, he's said to be over 345kg Tiger, weighed!

The source is good to, others here can confirm it.

Yes as I said these tigers are comfortably bigger than Uma no doubt, and Uma in my estimates are between 250-300 kg. Makes 340 kg for this monster very reliable imo.
2 users Like Pantherinae's post
Reply

United States Roflcopters Offline
Modern Tiger Expert
****

Thanks @Pckts for all your efforts! MV2 is huge.
2 users Like Roflcopters's post
Reply

United States Roflcopters Offline
Modern Tiger Expert
****

now that i think about it, the biggest female i have ever seen was this Katarniaghat female from Dudhwa tiger reserve.Collarwali (Pench), Baghin nallah (Pench) Choti Mada (Kanha) Badi Mada (Pench)  A mark (Nagzira) Jharni (Navegon buffer) Hirdi Nallah (Kolsa) and a countless others from Central India are very impressive in their own way but this is a level beyond them. females from the North could rival some of the smallest males.


*This image is copyright of its original author


here is the Katarnaghiat female, there is a verified weight of a 180kg tigress from this region so you can imagine how big she is.

this makes me wonder about the Rajaji Male, he was absolutely enormous and his pugmarks the biggest i have ever seen.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Camera trap photo by Wildlife Institute of India, forwarded it to Prerna Bindra. this huge male ruled a large area in Rajaji’s Chilla range.


*This image is copyright of its original author


his pugmarks, biggest you’ll ever see. feel free to show me anything bigger. No Wagdoh, No Umarpani, No Hairyfoot or Madla could provide you with Pugmarks this big. this is why tigers of Terai and Assam are on a whole new level.


*This image is copyright of its original author


It seems like this entire stretch that covers Rajaji, Corbett, Dudhwa and Pilibhit from India side and then add in Shuklaphanta, Chitwan and Bardia from Nepal side. this entire group has some of the biggest males and females in that entire region. look a bit towards the east, Kaziranga, Manas, Buxa, Orang, Nameri, Namdapha and Bhutan. they are just as impressive if not more.
3 users Like Roflcopters's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: Yesterday, 01:03 PM by peter )

SIZE OF INDIAN TIGERS 

A century ago

A century ago, the region just south of the Himalayas produced the longest tigers (total length measured 'over curves'). Chitwan tigers topped the list. Assam tigers shot in the same period, although shorter, were heavier than those shot in northern India, but the Maharajah of Cooch Behar weighed nearly all of his tigers, whereas Sir John Hewett didn't. 

The tigers he wasn't able to weigh were significantly longer than those he weighed. Back then, there was a strong relation between total length and weight in Indian tigers in that long tigers were relatively heavier than shorter tigers. The difference was about 6-7 pounds per inch.   

If he had been able to weigh all tigers he shot, Hewett's average for northern India would have well exceeded that of Assam. Although the average for Assam males was 461 pounds, 450-455 would have been closer to the mark. The reason was a number of 'gorged' tigers. Based on what I had, I got to 475-490 for northern India and a bit more for Nepal.

Today

Many years later, 7 males captured in Chitwan averaged 520 pounds. Although the average was adjusted later, I decided for 520 in order to be able to compare tigers shot a century ago with those captured in the seventies and eighties of the last century.

The comparison I did says there's not much to choose between back then and today for (total) length, but tigers weighed in the last decades were heavier than a century ago. Based on what I have, I'd say that the difference is 20-40 pounds at the level of averages, maybe even a bit more in regions with large tigers.

To be more concrete. The averages today (males of 6 years and older), depending on region (not including the Naga Hills and the Sunderbans) and the local conditions, could range between 420-520 pounds. As exceptional individuals can exceed the 'normal' maximum by 25-35%, males well exceeding 600 pounds can be expected in northern India and Nepal every now and then. The heaviest shot in unmolested Nepal (705 pounds) was 10.9 'over curves' in total length. My guess is that tigers of that size are still around. The problem is the scales used by biologists. That and a lack of experience in darting exceptional individuals.   

Exceptional individuals  

Tigers in northeastern India might top the table for skulls. A century ago, skulls of large males ranged between 360-400 mm. (greatest total length). Not one of these even approached 10 feet in total length measured 'between pegs', meaning they were not of exceptional size. The photographs and videos I saw suggest they (males and females) still have more rounded and larger skulls than elsewhere. Different breed, so it seems.

Exceptional individuals are most often seen in large ecosystems. The larger the system, the better the chance to see an exceptional tiger. Seen in this light, the region just south of the Himalayas (from Rajaji to Kazirangha) and southwestern India (Western Ghats) still top the list. Central India has a chance when reserves are connected. Tigers need a lot of space. 

Based on what I know, I'd say that northern India is the region to visit if you're interested in large tigers. The Rajaji tiger is the largest I saw, but the reserves just east of Rajaji (up to and including Dudhwa) also have large tigers. Same for Chitwan, of course. Tigers in northeastern India often appear to be more massive, but they could be shorter and not as tall. The big skull can result in a somewhat distorted view as well.  

Arunachal Pradesh

I'm very interested in the situation close to the China border (Arunachal Pradesh). Authorities said that two captive, but wild-caught, tigers (male and female) were quite different from your typical Indian tiger: different coat (less stripes), more aggressive and larger all the way.  

I read quite a few books written by people in the know who spent their days in northeastern India. Not a few of them said that male tigers in that part of India were following elephants. They often found remains of youngsters killed and eaten by tigers. Could that culture have resulted in specialisation?

There are reliable reports about lions hunting elephants in some regions of southern Africa and tigers hunting rhinos (including adult females) in northeastern India. Time to read a bit more about the fauna in that part of India, I think. Which large mammals are seen in elevated regions in northeastern India?
5 users Like peter's post
Reply

China Smilodon-Rex Offline
New Join

(Yesterday, 06:49 AM)peter Wrote: SIZE OF INDIAN TIGERS 

A century ago

A century ago, the region just south of the Himalayas produced the longest tigers (total length measured 'over curves'). Chitwan tigers topped the list. Assam tigers shot in the same period, although shorter, were heavier than those shot in northern India, but the Maharajah of Cooch Behar weighed nearly all of his tigers, whereas Sir John Hewett's didn't (his machine broke down too often). 

The tigers he wasn't able to weigh were significantly longer than those he weighed. Not a few of them were described as 'heavy' or 'very heavy'. Back then, there was a distinct relation between total length and weight in Indian tigers in that long tigers were (relatively) heavier than shorter tigers. The difference was about 6-7 pounds per inch. My guess is it was a result of age foremost.  

If he had been able to weigh all tigers he shot, Hewett's average for northern India would have well exceeded that of Assam. Although the average for Assam males was 461 pounds, 450-455 would have been closer to the mark. The reason was a number of 'gorged' tigers. Based on what I had, I got to 475-490 (closer to 490) for northern India and a bit more for Nepal.

Today

Many moons later, 7 males captured in Chitwan averaged 520 pounds. Although the average was adjusted later, I decided for 520 in order to be able to compare tigers shot a century ago with those captured in the seventies and eighties of the last century.

The comparison I did says there's not much to choose between back then and today for (total) length, but tigers weighed in the last decades were heavier than a century ago. Based on what I have, I'd say that the difference is 20-40 pounds at the level of averages, maybe even a bit more in regions with large tigers.

To be more concrete. The averages today (males of 6 years and older), depending on region and the local conditions, could range between 420-520 pounds. As exceptional individuals exceed the 'normal' maximum by 25-35%, males well exceeding 600 pounds can be expected in northern India and Nepal every now and then. The heaviest shot in unmolested Nepal (705 pounds) was 10.9 'over curves' in total length. My guess is that tigers of that size are still around. The problem is the scales used by biologists. That and a lack of experience in darting exceptional individuals.   

Exceptional individuals  

Tigers in northeastern India might top the table for skulls. A century ago, skulls of large males ranged between 360-400 mm. (greatest total length). The photographs and videos I saw suggest they (males and females) still have more rounded and larger skulls than elsewhere. Different breed, so it seems.

Exceptional individuals are most often seen in large and healthy ecosystems. The larger the system, the better the chance to see an exceptional tiger. Seen in this light, the region just south of the Himalayas (all the way from Rajaji to Kazirangha) and southwestern India (Western Ghats) still top the list. Central India has a chance when reserves will be connected. Tigers need a lot of space. 

Based on what I know, I'd say that northern India is the region to visit if you're interested in large tigers. The Rajaji tiger is the largest I saw, but the reserves just east of Rajaji (up to and including Dudhwa) also have a number of large tigers. Same for Chitwan, of course. Tigers in northeastern India often appear to be more massive, but they most probably are shorter and not as tall. The big skull also can result in a bit of distortion.  

Arunachal Pradesh

I'm very interested in the situation close to the China border (Arunachal Pradesh). Authorities said that two captive, but wild-caught, tigers (male and female) were quite different from your typical Indian tiger: different coat (less stripes), more aggressive and larger all the way. Elephant hunters? 

I read quite a few books written by people in the know who spent their days in northeastern India. Not a few of them said that male tigers in that part of India were following elephants. They often found remains of youngsters killed and eaten by tigers. Could that culture have resulted in specialisation?

Far-fetched? There are reliable reports about lions hunting elephants in some regions of southern Africa and tigers hunting rhinos (including adult females) in northeastern India. Time to read a bit more about the fauna in that part of India, I think. Which large mammals are seen in elevated regions in northeastern India?

Do you believe that 320kg bengal tiger recorded by hunting is reliable ?
1 user Likes Smilodon-Rex's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB