WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
|
Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill
|
Any guesses on this gaurs weight? He seems absolutely massive to me or is he bloated?
 *This image is copyright of its original author
@GuateGojira
Did I forget this image?  *This image is copyright of its original author What about this image? There's no weight attached to it nor is there even a sex applied to it.  *This image is copyright of its original author "weighing a kill as often as possible" which wasn't often at all and I've already posted where they speak about not weighing the animals and estimating the size. And again, no notation on weights of "bulls killed by Tigers"  *This image is copyright of its original author These are estimates since the Carcasses of course were fed on and again we don't know which were weighed and which were estimated but according to the actual study, almost all presented were estimated and not weighed outright. ADM/Prime and everything in between is loose to claim it's a 1000kg Gaur, since they come in many sizes. Hence the huge range from 500-1000kg Why don't you just get in contact with Karanth or Sunquist and ask them if they actually found a carcass killed by a Tiger and weighed it at 1000kg? I emailed Karanth but it got shot back so I don't know if you have a better email address or not.  (04-16-2020, 11:39 PM)Pckts Wrote: @GuateGojira You say: "What about this image? There's no weight attached to it nor is there even a sex applied to it." Dude, is this for real??? You claimed that the animals were not weighed several times, now I show you the image where IT SHOWS that the animals killed were ACTUALLY WEIGHED. The problem is not if the image have a weight or not, is the fact that you continue saying that they did not weighed the carcasses when there is an image that actually shows how they weighed even the biggest gaurs. You say: "weighing a kill as often as possible" which wasn't often at all and I've already posted where they speak about not weighing the animals and estimating the size.And again, no notation on weights of "bulls killed by Tigers" That is NOT what it says, READ again, it says "By weighing a kill it is often possible to figure it out how much meat the tiger ate from it". You see, you are not even reading correctly, here is the image again, read it at least two or three times: *This image is copyright of its original author And also you say that "which wasn't often at all", so now you are calling Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist liars. I think that you allready reached a point were there is no other excuse from your part that the only thing that you can do is going against the reputation of these experts, and that is veeeeeery low from you part @Pckts. You say: "These are estimates since the Carcasses of course were fed on and again we don't know which were weighed and which were estimated but according to the actual study, almost all presented were estimated and not weighed outright." And the point is? Those were real weights and they just estimated the amount ate by the predators, like I told you, they could easely found gaurs of 900 kg in the carcasses and the rest was estimated based in the amount that a tiger can eat in 24 hours and the amount of days that the tiger was with the kill. Certainly there is no problem with that. And a gaur of 900 kg with an average stomach content will weight 1,000 kg easly. Oh yes, don't forget that those huge figures for gaurs or any big herbivore includes stomach content. You say: "ADM/Prime and everything in between is loose to claim it's a 1000kg Gaur, since they come in many sizes. Hence the huge range from 500-1000kg" And again, what is the point? If they found big gaurs of 900 - 1000 kg with claw marks, bite marks and a tiger near to them, it is obvious that a tiger killed them. So it is not a loose claim, they saw the carcasses, they saw the evidence, are you agains they conclutions? You say: "Why don't you just get in contact with Karanth or Sunquist and ask them if they actually found a carcass killed by a Tiger and weighed it at 1000kg? I emailed Karanth but it got shot back so I don't know if you have a better email address or not." Why we are going to ask something that is CLEARLY explained several times in the books and documents that they presented? This is like asking if they weighed tigers in they studies. You are been redundant in all this, it's really exhausting to have a debate with a person that constantly deny the evidence again and again and again, without showing any evidence of the contrary appart of his own opinions. Go and ask them if you want it, you are the one that do not believe in them. I have the books from them and there are not going to publish something without a background of information.
@GuateGojira
Quote:And also you say that "which wasn't often at all", so now you are calling Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist liars. I think that you allready reached a point were there is no other excuse from your part that the only thing that you can do is going against the reputation of these experts, and that is veeeeeery low from you part @Pckts.Stop putting words in my mouth, I've never said anything along these lines. We're both interpreting the same data, you have no conclusive evidence to back your claim and neither do I. Quote:Dude, is this for real??? You claimed that the animals were not weighed several times, now I show you the image where IT SHOWS that the animals killed were ACTUALLY WEIGHED. The problem is not if the image have a weight or not, is the fact that you continue saying that they did not weighed the carcasses when there is an image that actually shows how they weighed even the biggest gaurs.I said in the Studies I posted, never did I say that he never weighed a single carcass. Again putting words in my mouth. Quote: Those were real weights and they just estimated the amount ate by the predators, like I told you, they could easely found gaurs of 900 kg in the carcasses and the rest was estimated based in the amount that a tiger can eat in 24 hours and the amount of days that the tiger was with the kill. Certainly there is no problem with that. And a gaur of 900 kg with an average stomach content will weight 1,000 kg easly. Oh yes, don't forget that those huge figures for gaurs or any big herbivore includes stomach content.Again there is no single 1000kg weight associated to any kill, it's a range of size for Gaurs. New study published just yesterday documenting the predation rate of tigers on Gaur and Banteng in Thailand https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6268 Results : From June 2005 to May 2017, we visited kill sites of 24 radio—collared tigers (9 males and 15 females) and recorded a total of 82 gaur and 79 banteng kills based on carcass or skeletal remains. Of all gaur killed, 15.9% were adult males and 29.3% were adult females; adult male banteng comprised 29.1% of kills and 26.6% of kills were adult females. (Table 1). In contrast, calves composed 39% of gaur kills versus 26.6% of banteng kills. As a consequence, despite the fact gaur males were approximately 1.3 times heavier than male banteng, and gaur females were 1.1 times the weight of female banteng, the average weights of both gaur killed (397.9 kg) was less than the average weight of banteng killed (423.9 kg) (Table 1). Based on the average sex and age class weights, and the number of kills in each class, the average weight of adult gaur kills was 737.8 kg and they composed 83.7% of the biomass of gaur killed by tigers. Similarly, the mean adult banteng killed weighted 652.2 kg and adults composed 85.6% of biomass of this species killed by tigers. Adults composed 48.8% of gaur and 79.4% of banteng killed by male tigers; whereas, adult gaur and banteng composed 41.1% and 37.8% of female kills, respectively (Table 2). None of the prediction that we suggested would be support for the hypothesis that gaur and banteng are approaching the size limit of tiger prey were significant. Prediction 1: Male tigers killed fewer adult gaur (n = 21) compared with adult banteng (n = 27), but the difference was not significant (χ2 = 0.75 (1), p = .386). Prediction 2: Females also killed fewer adult male bovids (n = 11) than adult female bovids (n = 21), but the difference was not significant (χ2 = 2.133 (1), p = .063). Prediction 3: Females did not kill significantly fewer adult gaur and banteng (n = 33) than male tigers did (n = 48) (χ2 = 3.13 (1), p < .090). Given that our three predictions were not supported by significant results, our hypothesis that gaur and banteng are near the upper size limit of tiger prey is not confirmed. Using dental annuli and horn characteristics to classify age and sex of gaur and banteng, combined with published weights for these classes Showing estimates again and these Gaur are larger than you see in India. *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author at this point there is no new data presented on your end other than the same accounts that we both read and interpreted differently. As of now I see no reason to change my view that a healthy 1000kg big bull should have to worry about losing it's life to a Tiger unless unusual circumstances present themselves. Am I 100% convinced, of course not, it's the wild and the minute anyone thinks they know everything that goes on in the wild they are lost. But from what I've seen, if it happens, it is going to be a 1/1,000,000 occurrence. 
Fabrizio Bignotti: " I hv never met this lion. Very strong. He put down a buffalo by himself. Neither I hv seen such bright yellow eyes on a lion. He is a nomad. "
It's just an account, without either photo or movie of the fight. But iwe can believe he was sincerely impressed...
@Pckts, the study you quote says that the average weight of adult gaurs killed by tigers was 737.8 kilos. Does this figure include female gaurs? Because, if it does, it very well proves that tigers prey on gaurs as big as 1000 kilos as simple sexual dimorphism between the weights of male and female gaurs would give you that average figure.
Also, the incident of gaur killing the big male tiger is from kabini and was narrated by Karanth himself. What that part doesn’t tell you is that tiger was a gaur specialist. He killed many gaurs (big ones too) before one finally got him and he was a bit on the obese side apparently. (04-18-2020, 12:53 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Pckts, the study you quote says that the average weight of adult gaurs killed by tigers was 737.8 kilos. Does this figure include female gaurs? Because, if it does, it very well proves that tigers prey on gaurs as big as 1000 kilos as simple sexual dimorphism between the weights of male and female gaurs would give you that average figure. "They determined the percentage of age and sex classes killed by tigers and used published weights of each age class, to calculate the mean weight of each of the tiger's main prey species. These weights have subsequently been used in most tiger diet studies. In South‐East Asia, a new and accurate estimate of average prey weights, especially of large prey, may be especially important for estimating prey biomass in a tiger's diet because the complement of large‐ and medium‐sized prey classes (Andheria, Karanth, & Kumar, 2007) differs from South Asia. " "This study estimated mean weights of gaur and banteng killed by tigers. These averages will help elucidate the role of these two of the largest prey species in the regional diet of tigers. Using the same approach as Karanth and Sunquist (1995), we estimated the proportion of sex and age class of gaur and banteng at tiger kill sites and obtained published weights of each age and sex class. The proportion of these size classes also provides insight into tiger predation strategies. Carbone, Pettorelli, and Stephens (2011) generalized that the prey to predator biomass ratio has a stronger impact on larger carnivores than it does on smaller carnivores. Hayward et al. (2006), Hayward, O’Brien, and Kerley (2007) refined this generality to predict the optimum prey sizes for several large carnivores; for tigers, the ratio was reported to be 1:1 (Hayward, Jedrzejewski, & Jedrzewska, 2012)." "Using dental annuli and horn characteristics to classify age and sex of gaur and banteng, combined with published weights for these classes (Ahrestani, 2018; Hoogerwerf, 1970), enabled us to calculate the average weights of gaur and banteng killed by tigers. These weights are key to estimating the biomass of these species in the diet of tigers. Because adult male gaur are 1.3 times larger than adult male banteng, and males of both species are >3.5 times larger than Hayward et al. (2012) optimum 1:1 predator to prey ratio, we hypothesize that these species, and especially the large size classes, are approaching the maximum size limit of tiger prey. Support for this hypothesis would be (a) male tigers kill a smaller percentage of larger adult male gaur than smaller adult banteng, (b) female tigers, which average two thirds the weight of adult male tigers, kill a smaller percentage of adult males of both species compared with male tigers, and © female tigers kill fewer males of both species compared with males. It is important to note that our research does not imply prey preference (Hayward et al., 2012); we simply report size, sex, and age class of gaur and banteng killed by tigers in our study area." "At kill sites (15 00′–15 40′ N, 99 00′–99 25′ E), we collected the lower mandible of each gaur or banteng for aging. We determined sex of adult animals based on the configuration of horns (Ahrestani, 2018). The ages of calves and juveniles were determined by teeth eruptions sequence (Dyce, Sack, & Wensing, 2009). For adult prey, we extracted the first molar from the mandible, washed the tooth in water, decalcified it in a weak acid solution (HNO3 5%), and finally rinsed it again in water to stop decalcification (Klevezal, 1996; Spinage, 1976). Each molar was then dehydrated in isopropyl alcohol, frozen, and sectioned with a microtome to create 15–20 µm longitudinal cross‐sectional slices that were mounted on a glass slide. Slices were stained with Giemsa blood and labeled; stained sections were subsequently examined at 10x magnification, and cementum annuli were counted (Figure 3). We concluded that the local single rainy season resulted in a single annuli pattern in western Thailand and confirmed this by comparing annuli data to horn patterns (Ahrestani & Prins, 2011). A single cementum annuli in tropical ungulates was first reported by Spinage (1976). We also followed Ahrestani and Prins (2011) in grouping ages into the following classes: calves (0–1 year), juveniles (>1 to 3 years), young adult (>3 to 6 years), and mature adults (>6‐years)." "To determine mean prey size killed by tigers, we multiplied the frequency of each age class, or for adults the sex and age class, by the estimated weight of that class. Age class weights were derived from Ahrestani (2018) and Hoogerwerf (1970). Estimated mean sizes of prey species killed by tigers are used by Ackerman et al. (1984) and Chakrabarti et al. (2016) to calculate the biomass represented by a single scat of each prey species. We also compared the mean weight of gaur and banteng killed by tigers. To evaluate the hypothesis that gaur and banteng are approaching the limit of prey size killed by tigers, we conducted 3 chi‐squared tests comparing the number of kills by male and female tigers of adult male gaur and banteng." "From June 2005 to May 2017, we visited kill sites of 24 radio—collared tigers (9 males and 15 females) and recorded a total of 82 gaur and 79 banteng kills based on carcass or skeletal remains. Of all gaur killed, 15.9% were adult males and 29.3% were adult females; adult male banteng comprised 29.1% of kills and 26.6% of kills were adult females. (Table 1). In contrast, calves composed 39% of gaur kills versus 26.6% of banteng kills. As a consequence, despite the fact gaur males were approximately 1.3 times heavier than male banteng, and gaur females were 1.1 times the weight of female banteng, the average weights of both gaur killed (397.9 kg) was less than the average weight of banteng killed (423.9 kg) (Table 1)." "TABLE 1. Mean weights of gaur (Bos gaurus) and banteng (B. javanicus) killed by tigers based on number of kills in different sex and age classes and published weights of those classes from Ahrestani (2018) and Hoogerwerf (1970)" For Adult Male Gaur they used a mean weight of 900kg and for Adult Male Banteng they used a mean weight of 700kg. Based on the average sex and age class weights, and the number of kills in each class, the average weight of adult gaur kills was 737.8 kg and they composed 83.7% of the biomass of gaur killed by tigers. Similarly, the mean adult banteng killed weighted 652.2 kg and adults composed 85.6% of biomass of this species killed by tigers. Adults composed 48.8% of gaur and 79.4% of banteng killed by male tigers; whereas, adult gaur and banteng composed 41.1% and 37.8% of female kills, respectively (Table 2). " For example, Simcharoen et al. (2018) reported that gaur and banteng, two of the largest prey that tigers consume, compose 46%–59% of the tiger's diet. However, in that study, the authors used Karanth and Sunquist’s (1995) average gaur weight of 287 kg for both gaur and banteng. Our study estimated the average weight of these species in Thailand following a similar approach to Karanth and Sunquist (1995). A reassessment of mean weight of these species killed by tigers was needed because Sunquist and Karanth's estimate was the only previous, rigorous estimate published." Weights are estimates based on certain factors and here they explain that even if a carcass is left, it's not how much a Tiger can consume that should be reduced from the weight but it's the fact that multiple scavengers will also feast upon the prey item. "Tigers often leave carcasses in the heat of the day to seek shade, drink water, and rest, particularly when a kill is made more open environments. Scavengers use these opportunities to feed on tiger carcasses. In contrast, if a female with large cubs kills in dense cover near water, she and her offspring are likely to remain nearby and there is little opportunity for other species to scavenge. However, neither Chakrabarti et al.’s or Ackerman et al.’s research, or previous diet studies, have adequately estimated the role of scavenging or its impact on the biomass of large prey in the tiger's diet. Camera trap photographs have documented many other species at kill sites; for example, we recently recorded three Asian water monitors (Varanus salvator) (~1.4 m long) and several wild boars (Sus scrofa) scavenging an adult banteng kill between tiger feeding bouts at HKK (unpublished data)." Also in regards to the Kabini Male, that's no surprising to me, S. Indian Tigers are certainly Gaur specialists. I'd imagine that all Tigers are bovine specialists when they coexist in any actual numbers. At this point I'm fighting a losing battle, the fact is that Tigers can kill bull Gaurs and they do so. Apparently I'm splitting hairs when I doubt they can kill big, alpha ones straight up. I have my doubts but who knows, maybe they can.
The incident from Kabini you talked about:
Yet, I feel some trepidation. From 1990 to 1996, while doing the very first radio-telemetry study of tigers in India, I followed a young, rather obese male tiger nicknamed Das in honor of our portly camp cook. Das had also specialized in hunting gaur. Radio-tracking Das on foot one morning, I blundered close to a gaur cow, which he had apparently badly mauled. The wounded gaur angrily charged me, and I barely managed to escape. Later that night Das killed and ate her. My camera trap research shows that even in Bandipur-Nagarahole’s protected population, about 20 percent of tigers are lost every year. Tigers die in conflict with humans or occasionally from poaching on the edges of Reserves, but more often than not they die fighting other tigers over mates, kills, or territories. Occasionally tigers also die from injuries sustained while hunting potentially dangerous prey. One day in October 1991, after two years of radio-tracking Das, I homed in on his signals in the remoteness of his 50-square kilometer home range only to find his week-old, decayed carcass. Investigation of the flatted bushes, trampled grass, and huge hoof prints of a gaur at the site revealed that, for once, his predatory skills had failed Das. His addiction to hunting gaur had finally rendered the magnificent cat into a mere mortality statistic. (04-18-2020, 01:34 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: The incident from Kabini you talked about:Still gives credibility to the idea that a big bull could possibly be outside the range of a Tiger. Obviously every encounter is different but there's now quite a few accounts of bulls killing Tigers and I'd imagine the really big ones are the ones that are the culprits more often than not.
@Pckts, depends on what you consider a big bull. Kaziranga tigers kill huge water buffaloes. Those rival most gaur bulls, weighing close to a ton.
And, from the study above, my calculations extrapolate that taking into account the different percentage of males and female gaurs killed, the average male gaur preyed upon ranged from 900 kilos if the average weight of female is assumed at 650 kilos to males killed averaging 993 kilos for the average weight of females at 600 kilos. Now, the thing about averages is it has a fluctuation in both direction. Meaning if we take the figure of 900 kilos for male gaur predation as a figure, you are possibly looking at a range of 750-1050 +- 50. If we take the other end of the spectrum of average males killed at 993 kilos, then you have a higher chance of fluctuation with specimens from 750-1250. You can take any of those figures, the underlying data shows that 1000 kilo bulls are very much in the ballpark, some even bigger. Of course unless there is video evidence of a tiger taking down a gaur, there will be many who will be skeptical, and that’s fine as well.
@Ashutosh
Remember that those mean weights are taken based off of previous studies, not actual weights of prey taken. They are basing the weights off of age and sex determined by tooth erosion and then determine the weight from other studies. In regards to Water buffalo in Kaziranga, they can absolutely be massive as well but of the few carcasses we've seen or injured animals, do we know if any were bulls? They are very hard to determine for the laymen. (04-14-2020, 09:27 PM)Pckts Wrote: 1000kg by all accounts is a top tier Gaur in India.@Pckts, the mean weight they took in the study was from Indian gaurs and you yourself agree that gaurs from South East Asia are bigger which points to even a higher mean weight and therefore higher average weights for this study of Indochinese tigers. So, the numbers I quoted would be a conservative estimates. As for water buffaloes in Kaziranga, bulls are killed. But, it is rare. Some of it is because of their size and aggressiveness, but, the rarity is also because of numbers. There aren’t as many water buffaloes as there are Gaur. Plus, there are like 5 places where they coexist with tigers in significant numbers unlike Gaurs and tigers who have significant coexisting overlap. (04-18-2020, 03:22 AM)Ashutosh Wrote:(04-14-2020, 09:27 PM)Pckts Wrote: 1000kg by all accounts is a top tier Gaur in India.@Pckts, the mean weight they took in the study was from Indian gaurs and you yourself agree that gaurs from South East Asia are bigger which points to even a higher mean weight and therefore higher average weights for this study of Indochinese tigers. So, the numbers I quoted would be a conservative estimates. I can only go off of what they say and they mention two different Gaur studies I'm not aware of so that might be where they get their weights from. And who knows, their mean weights used could still be larger than Indian mean weights, data is limited. The water buffalo case for me is unknown since they coexist in few places now and the lack of accounts of Tigers preying on big bulls is non existent that I'm aware of.not saying it's not possible I've just seen nothing of the sort, have you? (04-17-2020, 11:47 PM)Pckts Wrote: @GuateGojira You say: "Stop putting words in my mouth, I've never said anything along these lines. We're both interpreting the same data, you have no conclusive evidence to back your claim and neither do I." Sorry but that is exactly what you are saying between lines. If you say that a person is saying/writing something incorrect, you are calling him liar or incompetent, don't you think? You say: "I said in the Studies I posted, never did I say that he never weighed a single carcass. Again putting words in my mouth." We are talking of the same study (no plural, there is only one study that you posted and is the same that I posted) and you repeat it several times that the weights were estimated, that they were not weighed. Did I need to put the screenshot of all the times that you said that? You say: "Again there is no single 1000kg weight associated to any kill, it's a range of size for Gaurs." That is YOUR claim, not the one of Dr Karanth of Dr Sunquist. Like I explained several times, they DID weighed the animals and they estimated the rest from what the tiger ate. Taking in count the maximum and the minimum that a tiger can eat, 35 and 10 kg respectivelly, and the amount of time that the tiger expended in the prey, they estimated the remain body mass of the carcass. Sunquist (2010) says that "Tigers will sometimes feed on very large kills for more than a week, and adult gaur seem to provide more meat than a tiger can consume. In Nagarahole, tigers only eat about one-third of the meat on adult gaur carcasses, often walking away from the kill after 3 or 4 days." So, knowing that a tiger spend a maximum of 4 days in a gaur kill and that they can eat a maximum of 35 kg, we can say that, if they found a carcass of gaur that weighed at least 800 kg, and taking in count the amount ate of about 136 kg, they could estimate that the particular gaur weighed about 940 kg at least. So a bigger animal of at least 900 kg weighed, plus the amount consumed of the tiger, of at least 100 kg (25 kg per day, a good amount for a big male, they could estimate the weigh of the gaur of up to 1000 kg. Even then, you must see that all those carcasses were found killed by tigers, so there is more than enough evidence that tiger do kill males over 800 or 900 kg, and plus the amount ate, the real weight of the animal killed, including the stomach content, was of 1000 kg. Now, about the study of Thailand (which I allready posted the first details of it in the Indochinese tiger topic), is very insteresting and shows the same trend of that of Nagarahole, althoug in this case it says that they did not weighed the animals, that they used estimations from other studies (still reliable). What interest me is that the average weight of the gaurs (males, females and youngs included?) was of 737.8 kg which is more than the 287 kg recorded in Nagarahole NP in India. That means that the smaller Indochina tigers (average male of c.180 kg and average female of c.115 kg) are killing the huge gaurs with a hunter to hunted ratio of at least 1:4 which is still impresive! And you claimed that bulls in Indochina are bigger than those from India, that means that a large Thailand male of up to 210 kg killing a bull of over 1,000 kg will be a feat more impresive than those from India, don't you think? Let me read the entire study, I need more details of it. About the claim of the gaur of the tiger found dead, it is interesting that you belive in this record but you ignored and discarted the records where the gaur were killed, I still remember that @peter showed to you those records and you just drop them to the wast basket! Also we have the report of Schaller of the tigress that killed the bull gaur and you just complained that he never saw the actuall kill. So, using your same way thinking, the guy in the report did not saw the fight, so probably "the gaur was allready dead and the tiger just went there, tried to eat the bull but it was so stupid that impalled itself in the horns of the carcasses", that is what you may think.....  Or maybe, because the record do not show a tiger winning is "reliable". The case is that even those two accounts do not show that a tiger can't kill a big bull of over 1,000 kg, for the contrary, it only shows that sometimes the tiger loose the figths, which is perfectly normall in any carnivore. So here are a few accounts of tigers winning, but probably these are "unreliable" for you:  *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 Also, like @Ashutosh said, the tiger "Dasha" or T-03 was a gaur expert, which means that he killed several gaurs of several sizes. The case that you put was just the result of his error. You say: "at this point there is no new data presented on your end other than the same accounts that we both read and interpreted differently. As of now I see no reason to change my view that a healthy 1000kg big bull should have to worry about losing it's life to a Tiger unless unusual circumstances present themselves. Am I 100% convinced, of course not, it's the wild and the minute anyone thinks they know everything that goes on in the wild they are lost." In this case you have a personal problem, because all the people, scientists and experts, "interpret" the document of Karanth & Sunqusit (1995) in the same form that I. You say that there is no new data for the moment and that is correct as no study appart from that of Karanth and Schaller took the time to see the sex, health and age of the prey killed. From my part, Dr Karanth, Dr Sunquist and I are 100% sure that a tiger can and do kill gaurs of up to 1,000 kg and that is the scientific status, if you don't belive it is up to you. By the way I will like to clarify that I am not trying to convince you, for the contrary I am just showing to any other reader how wron you are in this point and in fact I am happy because this is an oportunity to show the information then the casual reader will have the oportunity to learn and to see what the scientists do and how even with evidence there is going to be allways people that denied the facts A side note: THIS is for you Roberto and Rossie, I mentioned both of you here  , like I promess. Take note of all this. Finally, you say: "But from what I've seen, if it happens, it is going to be a 1/1,000,000 occurrence." Wow, this is funny in many levels!  In table 4 in the document of Karanth & Sunquist (1995) it says that they studied 69 gaur kills, from that 62 were clasified by sex and age and the 14.6% were adult males, which means that 9 adult males were recorded and from that Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) mention that "several" of them were up to 1,000 kg, which means that more than 2 males weighed up to that figure. So with such a relative small sample, we can see that the even of tigers killing adult bull gaur is not 1 in a million, but is more common that we can expect.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |