|
For Waverider
|
 (10-12-2016, 08:53 PM)BoldChamp Wrote:(10-12-2016, 08:04 PM)Pckts Wrote:(10-11-2016, 07:50 PM)BoldChamp Wrote: Weights of adult male tigers from Chitwan has also been published of about 400 lbs for 2 specimens, and another of 450 lbs, posted by WaveRiders. So you are willing to accept hunting records? Fantastic, @peter just so happened to have done an extensive collection of reliable hunting records and weights on N. India/Nepal Tigers, I assume you will obviously add the weights obtained here http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-e...is?page=57 to your "7 individual males" Take the time Bold, really read his hard work. Everything is discussed, measurements being obtained, how they were obtained, the backrounds of the people, the weights and so on.  *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  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author These are just the tables, the information on all of them are provided in the link. But I assume you will be adding these tigers to the 2 you mention of course, right?
Now N. India and Nepal
 *This image is copyright of its original author b - Remarks 1 - Tiger 02 was " ... a monster. It took fourteen men to pull him out of the steep nulla at the bottom of which he lay ... " (pp. 82). 2 - Tiger 06, at 10 feet 5 and a half inches in total length, was the biggest Hewett ever measured. 3 - Tiger 26 was a bit shorter and not as heavy as most others. He had been severely incapacitated, but seemed in good condition: " ... it turned out that he had been wounded in the jaw some time before, both of his lower canine teeth having been shot away and part of his tongue cut off. It must have been very difficult for him to get his food, but he was not in bad condition and had a most lovely coat and ruff ... " (pp. 140). 4 - Tiger 30 was a large one. Hewett wrote " ... I was not able to weigh him, but he must have been about five hundred pounds. Quite recently, he had killed a bear. The forest guard had a theory that he jumped on the bear's back from a point of vantage ... " (pp. 149). 5 - There is a mistake in the remark on tiger 31. It said this tiger (no. 31) was taller and younger than tiger no. 35. This has to be 'tiger no. 30'. 6 - Tiger 35, shot by his daughter Lorna, was measured the morning after he had been shot. Hewett wrote " ... I have never seen a finer tiger. He measured 10 feet 2 inches, and must have been an inch or two longer had the tape been put over him before he had got stiff. He was in his winter coat and very perfectly marked. The measurements of his skull as given by Messrs. Spicer & Co., of Leamington, who set up the skin, are in their words 'over the bone' as follows: Length - 16,25 inches, Weight cleaned 4 lb. 14 oz. ... " (pp. 180). This is the longest skull of an Indian tiger that I know of, but I wonder about the part " ... over the bone ... ". The length of a skull has to be measured in a straight line. My guess is this skull was measured in a different way. Maybe 'over the bone' means 'over the curve of the skull'. This would explain the moderate weight and the lack of width. I have no clue as to the real greatest length in a straight line, as I never measured a skull 'over the curve'. There is, I think, no question that the skull was not 16,25 inches in greatest total length in a straight line. My guess for now would be just over 14 inches. 7 - As to the scale used to weigh the tigers in the table. Hewett wrote " ... I had a weighing machine made at Calcutta at the end of April 1908, and used it intermittently to weigh a number of tigers and tigresses and some leopards, but it was not always in good order, and I had often to send it away for repairs. As a result, though I was able to weigh some very good tigers, chiefly in 1909 and 1910, I only had it available twice when a 10-foot tiger was in the bag, and, finally, as the machine was going out of action so often, I did not bother to have it repaired ... " (pp. 72-73). 8 - Tiger 34, although average in total length, was the heaviest by a margin. There are no details about this tiger. Hewett, however, wrote that the region in which he was shot was different from the northern part of the UP: " ... The jungle in the Mirzapur district is quite different from that in the northern part of the United Provinces. There are none of the swamps and big savannahs, such as exist at the foot of the Himalayas, and no sal forests. The country is very like certain parts of the Central provinces. It is very hilly and there are a number of small rivers ... " (pp. 161). 9 - One more to finish this paragraph. It's about a tiger cub stung to death by bees or hornets: " ... In the reserved forest near Amangarh we found a tigress with three small cubs, of which we succeeded in capturing one, a female to which we gave the name of Tilli. She was a delightful little creature, and was most agreeable in her bamboo cage except when she was given a feed of the liver of sambar or spotted deer, when she would roar like a grown-up animal. We had every hope of making a real pet of her. But unfortunately this was prevented by a tragedy a short time after. We were going to ride up the hill next day from Kaladhungi to Naini Tal, and send her on in advance. The syces coming down the hill with our ponies succeeded, by smoking, in disturbing large numbers of bees, and probably hornets, near one of the halting grounds. The men taking Tilly uphill stupidly stopped there, and she was violently attacked and stung to death. The poor little thing succumbed just as she arrived at Naini Tal ... " (pp. 122).  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-e...is?page=59 Here you go Bold, this should add substantial individuals to the data base, shouldn't it?  *This image is copyright of its original author Northern India and Nepal compared to the Deccan c- Males The table below has the vital statistics of 131 male Indian tigers and 66 Nepal male tigers. All tigers were shot and measured between 1869-1939:  *This image is copyright of its original author
(10-12-2016, 08:50 PM)Shardul Wrote: @Pckts I know your feeling but one of my guilty pleasures still is debating, I do enjoy what comes from it. While most refuse to acknowledge if they are wrong it still forces us to take harder looks at things and I'll be the first to admit that it has forced me to look at theories I once had and rethink my conclusions... aka I was wrong and it helped me realize it..... But that is extremely rare  Most of these guys have been debating for years, we all know one another and I'd like to think that MOST of us have matured as well as gained much more knowledge and are able to debate in a educated and productive way. You're one of my favorite people to read when debating, I really enjoy your "straight to the point" and "logical" style, your concise postings are enjoyable. I know between you and @Dr. Panthera I was opened up to a new world of understanding habitat and location when it came to the idea of avg. Prey size or availability. It obviously became much clearer once I finally went to africa and got to see how prey species travel and their preferences to certain habitat but you began that trek. All I'm saying is that I think good can come from it as long as it's not done in a "trolling" sort of way.  (10-13-2016, 03:57 AM)Pckts Wrote:(10-12-2016, 08:50 PM)Shardul Wrote: @Pckts Thanks for the appreciation, and I agree with everything you say. However, exchange of ideas can only happen with a person who has an open mind. You, me, Peter, Guate, Sanjay, tigerluver, we all love tigers, but we do not spend every living moment of our lives discrediting or disparaging lions. I have no problem in believing the 272 kg lion. Why can't a lion be that big? If tomorrow some scientists decide to weigh 50 adult tigers from different parts of India & Nepal, and 50 adult lions from different parts of africa, using the same methodology and equipment, and were to conclude that both cats average the same size, I would be very happy to believe them. People like waverider or boldchamp have devoted their lives to discrediting a single animal, which reveals a deep malaise. They are not willing to believe any data that doesn't conform to their preexisting notions. You cannot learn anything from a debate with these people. 
@Pckts I already have that data, bro. I use only data from reputable hunters, of course. I prefer using between pegs measurements, instead of 'over curves', though. Not saying this in an argumentive way, just making a statement.
@Shardul Again, you are wrong about me. When have i ever discredited tigers? They are my second fav animals, bro. And, i study tigers as much as i study lions. As for the weight debate, i do have the data on the weights of at least 50 adult male Amurs, hundred`s for lions, and probably over a hundred for Bengal tigers. You can agree or not, but, from the data, i have found that majority of the lions and tigers weighed, were between 400-500 lbs, and it was very similar. Adult male lions, Bengals, and Siberians have weighed as little as 330 lbs, or 320 lbs. The greatest lengths of these animals are within an inch or 2 from each other (or slightly more, or less). The food requirement for each of these cats (the amount of food they need to maintain condition) is stated as being 4-5 kg, 3.1-4.1 kg, and 3.4-4.6 kg (and some say 4-5 kg), in the same order that i mentioned them. There are unconfirmed reports of both animals reaching over 800 lbs in the wild. Notice how the food requirement of each is roughly equal. Larger animals require more food. And, i have hundreds on the weight and measurement data of captive lions, Bengals, and Siberians. Again....most weights within the same range, and averages statistically equal. (10-13-2016, 10:36 PM)BoldChamp Wrote: @Pckts I already have that data, bro. I use only data from reputable hunters, of course. I prefer using between pegs measurements, instead of 'over curves', though. Not saying this in an argumentive way, just making a statement. Did you read what @peter wrote to go a long with the data shown. While you may "have" the data or "saw" the data, I doubt you have ever seen it presented in such a way with a break down of each measuring method, scales, hunting process and so on. You also chose to not include these weights and measurements when providing your claim of "2 more Nepal Tigers" and I figured you must not of been aware since you didn't include all the other ones available. How you prefer measuring is fine, you can have your personal preference but it doesn't change the results shown in both methods and how they compare. I doubt you have any other Captive lion or Siberian weights that we don't have, but if you have any Pure Bengal weights, that would be a first since they are so hard to come by. So that being said, I must ask you to actually show these weights and where they were obtained. (10-13-2016, 10:47 PM)Pckts Wrote:(10-13-2016, 10:36 PM)BoldChamp Wrote: @Pckts I already have that data, bro. I use only data from reputable hunters, of course. I prefer using between pegs measurements, instead of 'over curves', though. Not saying this in an argumentive way, just making a statement. Do you really believe when i see data, that i dont immediately save it, but also add it to my other data collections for comparison? I separate the different measurements and procedures, of course, and i only mention those 3 weights of the Nepal tigers because i had only recently seen those. I have all of the assam, Cooch Behar tiger data, of course. The results i have seen is that the measurements between lions and tigers differ by only an inch or 2. I also have data on captive lions and tigers that i have never seen posted by others. Im not sure who has it or not, because im not a part of the debates like i was some years ago. I work 6 days a week and i train (arm wrestling). I personally asked many zoos of their weights of lions and tigers, and a few of which i never posted or seen guate used. I have data on a lion in captivity a little over 280 kg. Guate never used it, and i posted it before. But, i will show some ones i think havent been included in the tables.
N
(10-14-2016, 02:00 AM)BoldChamp Wrote: @Pckts Also, i dont always use studbook tigers, because personally, i dont think it matters. I have found that majority of adult male tigers, studbook or otherwise, are between 360-440 lbs. It certainly matters if you're claiming a tiger to be "bengal" or "amur" and so on. The weight you have found seems to be about average size, certainly can find tons higher than that. Look through the captive cats thread, you'll see tons of weights, verified as well. 440 is about average, the 360lb mark certainly isn't, that number is on the low side. I have my doubts about your "weight claims" though, to be honest. I don't think it's too hard to present your data since I assume it's all via email, right? (10-14-2016, 02:06 AM)Pckts Wrote: N A tiger that is mostly Bengal, is basically a Bengal. 360 lb specimens is not average, but its part of the normal range. Even scientists dont always use studbook specimens when determining weights. The data is not all via email, but most are. Its not hard to present the data....im just at work as we speak. Its not busy at the moment, so i have a lil time.
@BoldChamp
Thenwhy provide two more weights that had nothing to do with sunquist? Chitwan has 7 different male tigers used on the table, the other two you provided plus the many other individuals shown in peters tables provide a large data base. Obviously showing n. Indian tigers being above the 210kg avg. " A tiger that is mostly Bengal, is basically a Bengal. 360 lb specimens is not average, but its part of the normal range. Even scientists dont always use studbook specimens when determining weights. The data is not all via email, but most are. Its not hard to present the data....im just at work as we speak. Its not busy at the moment, so i have a lil time." How do you determine "mostly Bengal?" No valid breeding program will use any cat that doesn't have its stud book or some sort of database. No conservation or reintroduction program would allow any cats missing a stud book. You also say the 360lbs is with in the "normal range" which is true but so is 520lbs or more, yet when providing your "avg" you only go up to 440lbs, odd because I know you know about captive tigers above 440lbs.
@WaveRiders
I still see you calling us out on another forum when you're a member here and the data is right in front of you... Just look up^^^ Lets have a discussion, but lets have one where the members can actually respond, not one done behind their backs. Seems like a reasonable request, doesn't it? 
Don't lose your time @Pckts, @WaveRiders is probably not going to came here, he is definitely full of blind hate. If not, why the constant attacks against me, your person, @peter and the full forum, and why he never return? Only the insecure-angry-afraid persons act like that. I decided to ignore him, because if you give them attention, you make them important.
I don't understand the level of hate of this guy, for people that he don't know, and for an animal that is greatly endangered (the tiger, in his case). It is sad to see a person investing so much time in creating bullying, when in REAL life he probably will not even dare to see you in the eye. If he is a professional, he could showed it in his entire topic, but his last posts show his true colors. He called me a "cheater", but I am not going to answer him in the same way, because that will put me at his same low level. He is trying to awake the old "GuateGojira" that liked to fight, by I am not going to follow his game. By the way, presenting the image of a single post, labeling just some parts and taking out the full context of the words, like @WaveRiders is doing, is been a cheater, because he is not presenting the entire context of the words and why were mentioned in that specific moment. I am not attacking Dr Nowell and Dr Jackson, nor anyone here, like he is stating, I just mentioned that the book published by them had some inaccuracies in the weight figures of the leopards (it was showed by another poster, by the way) and that they are the only source of all the books that quote the weight of 272 kg for the lion in Kenya. By the way, and is fair to said it, I searched where he mentioned that Dr Sunquist told him that he saw no difference in the method of measuring tigers in Nagarahole, and I found that I was wrong, it was not his comment, but just a comment of @peter, here is the image:  *This image is copyright of its original author Yes, it was my mistake, and I am not afraid to accept it, because we learn from our errors. I even started a revision of my comparative images in base of skeletons to make them more accurate. I am not against corrections of my partners, in fact I always wrote this when I publish something in this forum, however is the level of hate that affect the correction and is here where @WaveRiders shows that his goal is not accuracy, but a simple grudge against me and a nearly schizophrenic feeling against this forum. The entire forum, and I, is not going to change under this attack, we have made an excellent work and the people love it, we are going to continue sharing the true and full information, free for all, and without the need of creating dramatic fights to call attention. Note: @WaveRiders , your are not banned, so you can return in any moment, to present your case, in an educate form leaving your atavism of the "lion-vs-tiger" debate. I still hope that the WaveRiders that wrote the post No. 45 in your topic could return, a person that showed his points, that debated with me and that like I showed in post No. 46, we ended in peace in that moment. Is up to you @WaveRiders, I am not going to continue this war. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |