|
Lion Directory
|
 (08-13-2014, 10:39 AM)'Richardrli' Wrote: It says "up to 20kg" meaning the real contents was likely less, I'd say 240kg is the minimum.In fact, the figure of 20 kg is conservative for a gorged lion (stomach bulging) like this one here. This male was not baited, but feed recently on a wild kill and seems to be alone in that moment. Male lions are know to eat up to 43 kg, which means that this lion could weight as low as 217 kg. However, Dr Hu Berry seems to be unbiased and conservative and his estimation of c.240 kg should remain as canon right now.  'GuateGojira dateline='' Wrote:Agreed guate! 240 should stand! An exeptional large lion anyway!'Richardrli dateline='' Wrote: It says "up to 20kg" meaning the real contents was likely less, I'd say 240kg is the minimum.In fact, the figure of 20 kg is conservative for a gorged lion (stomach bulging) like this one here. This male was not baited, but feed recently on a wild kill and seems to be alone in that moment. Male lions are know to eat up to 43 kg, which means that this lion could weight as low as 217 kg. However, Dr Hu Berry seems to be unbiased and conservative and his estimation of c.240 kg should remain as canon right now. (08-13-2014, 06:08 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Body weight and length are directly correlated, but the correlation is extremely weak in lions for some reason. Tigers have a strong correlation of r^2 = >.75, but the lions I have on record around 0.30, abysmal.In fact, I have some doubts about the relation of size (total length or body length?) and weight in tigers. For example, the largest Amur tiger captured in Sikhote-Alin measured 208 cm in head-body (309 cm in total length) but weighed only 169 kg! However, on the other side, the largest male captured in Nagarahole measured 204 cm in head-body (311 cm in total length) and weighed 227 kg. Even more impressive, the famous Sauraha from Nepal measured only 197 cm in head-body (310 cm in total length) but weighed 261 kg. Maybe this are just exceptions to the rule, but even then, it shows that like humans, some tigers are long but light and others are short but heavy. Take in count that none of those three males had stomach content. 
I have seen nothing that would make me think Tigers are more often Baited than Lions. Tigers where flushed out of jungles by elephant back and shot for many years and weights still coincide with any others.
I do think that most larger tiger weights are related to body length but of course there have been many exceptions to this rule. Which is the case for any rule in regards to wild life.  (08-13-2014, 07:52 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(08-13-2014, 06:08 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Body weight and length are directly correlated, but the correlation is extremely weak in lions for some reason. Tigers have a strong correlation of r^2 = >.75, but the lions I have on record around 0.30, abysmal.In fact, I have some doubts about the relation of size (total length or body length?) and weight in tigers. For one, for whatever reason Amurs and Bengals have totally different body proportions. I've no idea why, but even the 306 kg specimen mentioned by Mazak is proportionately light (details in the extinct feline thread). I don't have the details on the Nagarhole male. What was his age, by the way? If I remember correctly this is a corrected value? Regardless, there will certainly be examples of awkward variation. The longest male on record was 221 kg or something exceptionally light, while we have a 389 kg, gorged or not, tiger of length 322 cm. These freaks cause that 0.25 R-squared value we're missing. Sauraha fits the average proporton of a tiger. When 30 specimens (chart in the extinct felines thread) from different sources give a correlation of >0.75, can't doubt the correlation between total length and weight. I had to hypothesis test all this for my paper, you'll see it there in a long while (too much on my plate right now). To be honest I don't know how much baiting occurs, that was just a loose guess. I don't correct body masses in my database. I've taken everything as is, dying and lanky specimens to gorged big guys, it all balances out. Agree with you Pckts. (08-13-2014, 06:33 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote:Madla was claimed as the largest tiger seen by Valmik then when weighed it proved him correct.(08-13-2014, 02:00 PM)'Pantherinae' Wrote: @GuateGojira These cats are massive, absolutely. But you can definitely tell the difference between a "good sized male" and a "massive male", you'll have a tough time saying one massive male is larger than another massive male, but still can tell the difference between freak cats like Waghdoh and Average males like T12. 'Pckts dateline='' Wrote:'Siegfried dateline='' Wrote:Madla was claimed as the largest tiger seen by Valmik then when weighed it proved him correct.'Pantherinae dateline='' Wrote: @GuateGojira Agree with every word! A large animal appers different than a massive animal! But weight is harder to estimate! But sure it's like a massive male like You said wagdoh and T-12, or xakanaxa male lion compared to mr. t.
Weight is a much harder estimate, because its a exact science. But I would venture to say that most animal vets or Wildlife biologists can get with in the 10-30kg range (high or low) on most of these cats. Which is still a decent estimate.
'Pckts dateline='' Wrote: Weight is a much harder estimate, because its a exact science. But I would venture to say that most animal vets or Wildlife biologists can get with in the 10-30kg range (high or low) on most of these cats. Which is still a decent estimate.Yeah some vets and biologist's are amazing and it's impressive i gotta be honest I estimated aragon aslan's brother at 220-230, but he was only 170-190 range, The biologist in The park had The same estimate, so she missed big time aswell, but there does exist better and biologist with more passion than that biologist. Get within The 10-30 kg range is impressive The bigger The cat The more impressive it is.
Bigger cats I would imagine would be harder to guess.
Once a animal is soo big, it just becomes "ahh inspiring" and you don't really have much to compare it to, in terms of weight just because the larger size is seen so rarely.
I also think a lion may be slightly harder to estimate weight just because his mane would hide many features that you could use to compare. I:E: Shoulder height, chest girth, neck girth and fore limb girth.
I would assume the best way to estimate a lion would be by its mid section, rear section, body length and back height. (08-13-2014, 11:41 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote:I think I should agree in the fact that Amur tigers seems lighter than Bengal ones, however (and interestingly) they have the largest (overall) and most massive skulls of the entire species!(08-13-2014, 07:52 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:(08-13-2014, 06:08 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Body weight and length are directly correlated, but the correlation is extremely weak in lions for some reason. Tigers have a strong correlation of r^2 = >.75, but the lions I have on record around 0.30, abysmal.In fact, I have some doubts about the relation of size (total length or body length?) and weight in tigers. The male T-03 from Nagarahole NP, known as "Dasa", was an adult male (no exact age) tracked from January 1990 to September 1991. This male was a transient one until June 1990, which suggest an age of at least 4-5 years old. Then he was a resident but lost it radiocollar in 1991. Sadly, at the end, he was killed by a gaur during a failed hunt. The real weight of this male was of 257 kg, however as he was baited, Dr Karanth adjusted his body mass by 30 kg and the result was of 227 kg. Don't know why he adjusted it by so much, maybe he was indeed gorged, or maybe Nagarahole tigers have a higher food intake than for example, Nepalese tigers, which eat between 14-19 kg in a day, based in baits and natural kills. As far I know, there is no study about the food intake of Nagarahole tigers at all. Finally, indirectly, you resolved my doubt, you are using "total length", not "head-body length". Then, in this form, the Bengal tigers "Dasa" (311 cm - 227 kg) and "Sauraha" (310 cm - 261 kg) are "larger" than the Amur male "Maurice" (309 cm - 179 kg). By the way, none of these weights have stomach content. 
Guys good information, but i guess slightly misplaced ? [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
(08-14-2014, 11:00 AM)'sanjay' Wrote: Guys good information, but i guess slightly misplaced ? [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]Jajajaja, you are right. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] However, the point was explained and the extra data will be usefull for other posters. [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img] 
The reason why this forum stinks and will always do.
One tiger fan, can JAJJAJAJAJA everywhere, flooding every lion thread with crappy tiger stuff .Heck he even get's a MOD! Hey Sanjay!...do some cleaning around here!Them moderators acting like some fanboys on all lion threads, it's freaking pathetic, seriously. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |