|
Captive Lion and Tiger weights
|
Boboo the African lion is no longer a tiny cub.
Weighing 471 pounds and with a scruffy mane emerging, the 3 1/2-year-old is grown up and ready to lead his own pride. That’s why the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium shipped him to the Phoenix Zoo this week, a new home with enough space — should the right female arrive. Boboo arrived Monday and is doing well, the Phoenix Zoo announced Tuesday. He’ll be introduced to a 20-year-old female African lion, Cookie, and live in an exhibit with her if they get along. They will not breed. The nonprofit Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a group of more than 230 accredited institutions in the United States and abroad, recommended Boboo move to Arizona. The Phoenix Zoo’s 8-year-old male lion, Kitambi, died in August from an infection. Kitambi also was born at the Columbus Zoo, and he and Boboo have the same parents. https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190312/b...lion-pride
Caprichio is our largest tiger at Carolina Tiger Rescue. He weighs 478 pounds and it is all muscle! This big boy takes time to get used to things. However, once he warms up to new experiences, he is as relaxed as can be. He also loves attention from passersby.
He currently weighs over 480 lbs now... Caprichio is the largest tiger at Carolina Tiger Rescue currently weighing in at over 480 pounds. We have had some overweight cats before but Caprichio is all muscle! This big boy has a beautiful, bright orange coat and a head so large you can't miss it! Caprichio does have a bowed back leg that is likely due to malnutrition as a cub and he walks with a bit of a limp, but he does not let it slow him down! https://carolinatigerrescue.org/species/...hio-tiger/ Rajah has a laid-back attitude and is a favorite on the tour. He is about 9 feet tall when he stands up on his hind legs and weighed 336 pounds when most recently weighed in April 2018. https://carolinatigerrescue.org/species/tiger/rajah-tiger/  (02-24-2019, 10:35 AM)andeancat Wrote: The late Mohan (RIP), one of the most beautiful Asiatic Lions I have seen. Right before he was put to sleep he weighed 182.5 kg. He was 16.5 years old. I forgot to mention earlier, but Mohan was really a good looking lion. I have visited that zoo every year and he was really nice to see every time. Right on opposite were and are Amur tigers of Korkeasaari zoo. Sometimes both big cats roaring one after another :) Of course often just relaxing, but luckily not always. (02-24-2019, 10:35 AM)andeancat Wrote: The late Mohan (RIP), one of the most beautiful Asiatic Lions I have seen. Right before he was put to sleep he weighed 182.5 kg. He was 16.5 years old. Btw I asked from Korkeasaari zoo. Veterinarian from Korkeasaari said, that in his prime condition Mohan was about 220 kg.  (03-02-2019, 07:38 PM)Sanju Wrote: Maybe Jimbo and Han weigh the same but Jimbo is much more impressive, because it looks like Jimbo is taller, have larger skull and maybe longer than Han. I think Jimbo and Ali have the same body size in terms of shoulder height, skull length, etc. I think Jimbo is a Southern African lion too just like Ali. 
"Yuri, an 8-year-old, 435-pound Amur tiger, arrived in late January from Bronx Zoo, according to a news release. His arrival was at the recommendation of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' Species Survival Plan. Yuri's new home will be in the zoo's The EDGE exhibit."
https://coloradocommunitymedia.com/stori...zoo,277720? (04-04-2019, 10:48 AM)Sanju Wrote: One could say that in captivity, lions (https://books.google.com/books?id=ylEQAA...edir_esc=y, https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CJ...rican+lion) and tigers (https://books.google.com/books?id=uIqtQgAACAAJ&dq) can be fed so much so as to become sumos for their respective species. In the wild, no lion or tiger would be fed so much so as to weigh 1,000 pounds or something like that! 
@BorneanTiger :
About #279: these two obese big cats are clearly two aberrations because in wild they wouldn't weigh as much by far. In the same case when you read in the Guinness Book that the heaviest man is two time heavier than an adult silverback gorilla. Of course but he is unable to move...  (05-28-2019, 02:47 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:(04-04-2019, 10:48 AM)Sanju Wrote: True. This is why we prefer good information on wild big cats. Information about the size of captive big cats, however, is interesting for a number of reasons. One is we now know a bit more about individual variation. Two is the upper limits have become more visible. Three is captive big cats tell us a bit more about the way their wild relatives respond to human-related stress (referring to habitat destruction, prey depletion, hunting, poaching and low numbers). Two examples of the effect of stress. a - Indian tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) Captive male Indian tigers (referring to recent information on captive tigers in Indian zoos) average 400-410 pounds. The upper limit seems to be about 460-470 pounds. Wild male Indian tigers (excluding the Sunderbans) seem to average 460-470 pounds. In some regions (Nepal, northern and northeastern India), it could be close to, or even over, 500 pounds. Sunquist, regarding Royal Chitwan (Nepal), got to 520, but his sample (7) was small, meaning we need to know a bit more about the effect of baits. All weights mentioned above, to be sure, are not 'corrected'. One reason is there's, weightwise, no clear rule regarding 'normal' or 'abnormal' regarding big cats. Two is the method used to determine the 'normal' weight for a wild big cat is unclear. Three is nothing in known on captive tigers in this respect. Four is a large sample will include all kinds of individuals. The effect of individual variation in the food department will even out, that is. Five is the weight of a healthy wild male depends on the circumstances. Six is the actual weight recorded by field biologists is accurate. This, on the other hand, is not true for the weight after 'correction' for the reasons stated above. As to the correction factor often used. Information provided by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar suggested that a 'gorged' male tiger is 55-60 pounds heavier than a non-gorged male tiger of similar dimensions. That, however, doesn't mean biologists automatically need to deduct 60 pounds from every individual they weighed to get to the 'normal' weight of that particular male. If they disagree, my advice would be to add 60 pounds to the weight of tigers well below par. This in order to limit the effect of these 'corrections'. One could conclude that the difference between captive and wild male Indian tigers, weightwise, is significant and be close. Why is that? If we exclude the effect of samples and all kinds of factors used to get to the 'correct' weight, the answer is tigers, more than other big cats, respond to circumstances. In this department, they seem much more responsive than, for example, lions. Assuming it really is about circumstances, the next question is what circumstances. In India and Nepal, most tigers nowadays live in or close to reserves or national parks. Most of these are well-stocked and some are protected. Protection isn't taken as serious as in Russia, but it's good enough to keep the total number of tigers more or less stable. One could say tigers thrive in most reserves and be right. Tigers are territorial. This means competition is severe in quite a few reserves. Infighting is a major problem in India. Every years, numbers of tigers are killed in territorial disputes. One effect is it limits the number of tigers in esrves. Another is the most competative tigers breed. As to the effect of competition on size. What I see in India and Nepal isn't length, but robustness. Wild Indian tigers seem to be more massive than wild tigers in other regions. Confirmed in skulls? Yes. Can the difference between captive and wild Indian tigers be expressed in pounds? To a degree. At the level of averages, the difference between captive (400-410 pounds) and wild male Indian tigers (460-470 pounds) is significant. At least 15%, I'd say. In some regions, the difference could be as much as 25%. Has the difference between captive and wild male Indian tigers, regarding weight, increased in the last decades? Based on what I have, the answer is affirmative: well-stocked reserves, decent numbers and competition have an effect, so it seems. b - Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) In 2005, information on the size of wild Amur tigers was published (in Russian). The publication also had information about the 'historic size' of Amur tigers. As to the size of Amur tigers today: adult males of 3 years and older average 389 pounds (176,4 kg.) and about 9.8 in total length (measured 'over curves'). A century ago or thereabout, they averaged 215-220 kg. (475-486 pounds). Weightwise, the difference between today and a century ago in males, therefore, is 80-100 pounds roughly. Weightwise, wild male Amur tigers today more or less compare to wild male Indochinese tigers. In captivity, however, Amur tigers are the largest big cats today. What I saw strongly suggest they're taller, longer and heavier than other big cats. By a margin, I can add. Although reliable information is missing, my guess is captive male Amur tigers in European zoos and institutions, sizewise, more or less compare to wild Amur tigers shot a century ago. So what is going on here? Those who compared records of wild Amur tigers (see above) concluded the size of wild Amur tigers started to decline in the sixties and seventies of the last century. This was a few decades after the enormous decline in numbers in the first decades of that century. A result of low numbers then? Not likely, as some of the largest individuals were shot in the forties, fifties and early sixties of that century, when the number of Amur tigers was well below 100 individuals. My guess is it was an indirect result of habitat destruction, prey depletion and poaching. After the collapse in numbers in the thirties and forties, conservation was taken more serious in Russia. It resulted in more tigers. After the collapse of the Sovjet-Union in 1989 and the collapse of the economy not much later, the situation again deteriorated, resulting in more poaching. In the last 15 years or so things again changed for the better. Today, there could be about 550-650 wild tigers in Russia, China and North-Korea. The circumstances they face seem to be better than a few decades ago as well. In the next decade, new reserves will be created in both Russia and China. Did the change result in larger animals? There's no reliable information on size, but it seems most males today range between 160-210 kg. The heaviest was a young adult male of 212 kg. (468 pounds). Before 2005 (referring to the report published in 2005), males averaged 389 pounds. Today, they, most probably, average 410-420 pounds. When the conditions improve, chances are adult males will get closer to the average of their captive relatives (440-480 pounds). If Indian and Amur tigers compare, the average of wild male Amur tigers living in good conditions should be 10-15% heavier than their captive relatives. But Indian tigers live in near-perfect conditions and can hunt large herbivores all the time, whereas Amur tigers face long winters, occasional periods of starvation and, on top of that, large scavengers. They need size, but I wonder about weight. All in, I'd say numbers, regarding size, are important, but not as important as conditions. Based on what we see in India, habitat, the number and size of prey animals and protection seem to be more important. Wild tigers quickly respond to stress by losing size. It's likely they also quickly respond to more promising conditions. Another advantage of captive tigers is they can be used to upgrade their wild relatives in the department of genes and variation. After the population bottleneck in the thirties and forties of the last century, Amur tigers in particular seem to need it. c - The upper limit in wild tigers Biologists today more or less dismiss anything they didn't see themselves. I understand, but the problem is they never collected good information in the size department themselves. That is to say, not enough. This is why they still use info provided by hunters. Hunters they deeply distrust, especially in the department of size. To keep it short: the dismissals of exceptional records resulted in 500-pound scales when they entered wild India themselves. Not quite adequate, they concluded. When 600-pound scales were introduced, the problem wasn't quite solved. In some parts of India and Nepal, male tigers can exceed that weight. By a margin, according to some rangers and experienced photographers. So what is the upper limit of tigers in India, Nepal, Russia and Indochina? Based on what we have, my guess is the old hunters could have been right after all. Some male tigers can reach 11 feet in total length 'over curves' and even a bit more, that is. Weightwise things are a bit more complicated, but there's plenty of information about tigers exceeding even 700 pounds in some regions. I'm not too sure about the Hasinger tiger shot in Uttar Pradesh, but very heavy tigers have been shot in the last century in Russia as well. Except for the 560-pound male shot by Baikov near the Korean border, all records were rejected. The researchers had good reasons, but that doesn't mean these tigers never existed. When you read books of those who had the opportunity to visit wild India in the 19th century, you will quickly conclude the situation was very different back then. According to these early settlers and hunters, the situation rapidly deteriorated after 1850-1860. The destruction was dramatic. So much so, that some warned of the consequences well before 1900. Some of these early settlers and hunters saw, or shot, 11-feet tigers themselves. Their seniors, however, had seen tigers dwarfing these 11-footers in all respects. According to most modern biologists, these settlers, in spite of their interesting observations, didn't quite know how to count, let alone how measure a big cat. But captive big cats today tell us these settlers could have been more accurate than most are willing to admit. In order to get things straight: not the Baikovs and Corbetts, but today's biologists are the ones who saved tigers from extinction. It most definitely deserved them a monument. I also read and like their books and articles a lot. Most unfortunately, I often race through the chapters about size. I don't quite know why that is, but it has to do with numbers and tapes. But I readily admit I dream all too often about 12-feet tigers exceeding 800 pounds. I'm working on it, though. 
Now that's a big cat! Apollo the liger weighs 705lbs, 'eats anything in sight' and has been compared to a sabre-toothed tiger
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7127463/Lion-tiger-hybrid-weighing-705lbs-bred-South-Carolina.html?ito=social-facebook&fbclid=IwAR1u85xVPfKLEjhm8Kq8rjS-aORgnzuJA9JFytB1q6b9Ubd0VVfK0NONao0
@Pckts :
About #282: interesting account... But this felid is the Frankenstein's ghost among big cats. We are living a time during which real big felids (lions and tigers), are disappearing and some guy are making some crossing between different species in order to create a new creature and to get into the World Record Book. "If we are able to do it, so let us do it !", as simple as that... And so what ? Never a such creature will live in wild, it wouldn't be capable of that. It's an aberration and it's sad. Yes, I think it's sad. It the only one word that comes in mind when I think about ligers. Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein", H.G Wells "The island of Doctor Moreau". Now we are clearly able to realize our nightmares. Of course the liger isn't a dangerous animal, just a curiosity, or an abnormality, select the word you prefer... We're playing with the genetic, everything goes well for the moment... But just one time, things can degenerate. And there are also a lot of movies depicting that: "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", "Jurassique Park", "Jurassique World", "Godzilla" and more. To entertain the people, the creatures are spectacular (dinosaurs, apes, giant reptiles), but the same thing with some microscopic creatures could produce a worldwide outbreak. I stop to soliloquy.
A "very large" lion from the Barbary region was said to have been presented to King Frederick I of Sweden in the 18th century, who then pitted it in a fight against a bear held by butchers in Stockholm: https://books.google.com/books?id=Io5NAA...on&f=false
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |