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.
(09-08-2020, 07:22 PM)sanjay Wrote: Hey @Scout,
You are new, so for few days your posts will remain not be directly posted. You have to wait until a moderator approve your pending posts. After, the limitation period is over, you can post normally.
This is done to stop spammers or scammers.
Thanks Sanjay, for letting me know
The following 1 user Likes Scout's post:1 user Likes Scout's post • sanjay
(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?
Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.
We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.
09-11-2020, 04:45 PM( This post was last modified: 09-11-2020, 07:28 PM by ScoutEdit Reason: Added a pic
)
(09-11-2020, 08:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?
Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.
We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.
Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens
Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc.
Only adults were used. Body length scales near isometrically at 2.94, much different from Bengal scaling of >3.5. Chest girth also scaled negatively allometrically compared other species. The negative allometry might indicate a loss or limit of body/bone density in my opinion, as even a robusticity measurement is negatively allometric.
(03-07-2015, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
n=53 for girth relationship. n=30 for length relationship.
The chest girth relationship is bad. Length is moderately strong.
A second for Amurs:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Total length this time, n=21
Note the positive allometry in mass vs. total length in the Amur tiger, opposed to the slight negative allometry in the body length relationship. From this, it looks like tails get proportionately shorter at greater lengths, causing the total length to not look as impressive as the mass of the specimen, when in actuality the specimen is long bodied but just short tailed as the graphs suggest.
Finally, I won't bother with a girth comparison, the correlation is abysmal for the Bengal tiger. But here's the side by side total length comparison:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I ran the analysis on chest girth and weight data 5 years ago. I've quoted the posts with the results.
Only adults were used. Body length scales near isometrically at 2.94, much different from Bengal scaling of >3.5. Chest girth also scaled negatively allometrically compared other species. The negative allometry might indicate a loss or limit of body/bone density in my opinion, as even a robusticity measurement is negatively allometric.
(03-07-2015, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
n=53 for girth relationship. n=30 for length relationship.
The chest girth relationship is bad. Length is moderately strong.
A second for Amurs:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Total length this time, n=21
Note the positive allometry in mass vs. total length in the Amur tiger, opposed to the slight negative allometry in the body length relationship. From this, it looks like tails get proportionately shorter at greater lengths, causing the total length to not look as impressive as the mass of the specimen, when in actuality the specimen is long bodied but just short tailed as the graphs suggest.
Finally, I won't bother with a girth comparison, the correlation is abysmal for the Bengal tiger. But here's the side by side total length comparison:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I ran the analysis on chest girth and weight data 5 years ago. I've quoted the posts with the results.
can you help me a bit to understand how do I put the values here?
09-12-2020, 01:48 AM( This post was last modified: 09-12-2020, 07:37 AM by tigerluver )
(09-11-2020, 09:25 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 08:57 PM)tigerluver Wrote:
(03-06-2015, 06:24 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Database:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Only adults were used. Body length scales near isometrically at 2.94, much different from Bengal scaling of >3.5. Chest girth also scaled negatively allometrically compared other species. The negative allometry might indicate a loss or limit of body/bone density in my opinion, as even a robusticity measurement is negatively allometric.
(03-07-2015, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
n=53 for girth relationship. n=30 for length relationship.
The chest girth relationship is bad. Length is moderately strong.
A second for Amurs:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Total length this time, n=21
Note the positive allometry in mass vs. total length in the Amur tiger, opposed to the slight negative allometry in the body length relationship. From this, it looks like tails get proportionately shorter at greater lengths, causing the total length to not look as impressive as the mass of the specimen, when in actuality the specimen is long bodied but just short tailed as the graphs suggest.
Finally, I won't bother with a girth comparison, the correlation is abysmal for the Bengal tiger. But here's the side by side total length comparison:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I ran the analysis on chest girth and weight data 5 years ago. I've quoted the posts with the results.
can you help me a bit to understand how do I put the values here?
My apologies, I should have elaborated. Take the log value of the measurement. Then plug it in for X and multiply by the slope. Then subtract the y-intercept accordingly. Finally, antilog the produced value for the weight in kilograms. For instance, let's use the Amur tiger equation with a chest girth of 140 cm. The steps are:
Note the r^2 values. Low values essentially indicate a weak association. In literature, chest girth seems to be a near useless predictor. This may be due to differing methods of the measurers, as it is more correlated in the STP Amur tiger data.
Only adults were used. Body length scales near isometrically at 2.94, much different from Bengal scaling of >3.5. Chest girth also scaled negatively allometrically compared other species. The negative allometry might indicate a loss or limit of body/bone density in my opinion, as even a robusticity measurement is negatively allometric.
(03-07-2015, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
n=53 for girth relationship. n=30 for length relationship.
The chest girth relationship is bad. Length is moderately strong.
A second for Amurs:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Total length this time, n=21
Note the positive allometry in mass vs. total length in the Amur tiger, opposed to the slight negative allometry in the body length relationship. From this, it looks like tails get proportionately shorter at greater lengths, causing the total length to not look as impressive as the mass of the specimen, when in actuality the specimen is long bodied but just short tailed as the graphs suggest.
Finally, I won't bother with a girth comparison, the correlation is abysmal for the Bengal tiger. But here's the side by side total length comparison:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I ran the analysis on chest girth and weight data 5 years ago. I've quoted the posts with the results.
can you help me a bit to understand how do I put the values here?
My apologies, I should have elaborated. Take the log value of the measurement. Then plug it in for X and multiply by the slope. Then subtract the y-intercept accordingly. Finally, antilog the produced value for the weight in kilograms. For instance, let's use the Amur tiger equation with a chest girth of 140 cm. The steps are:
Note the r^2 values. Low values essentially indicate a weak association. In literature, chest girth seems to be a near useless predictor. This may be due to differing methods of the measurers, as it is more correlated in the STP Amur tiger data.
(09-11-2020, 04:45 PM)Scout Wrote: Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc.
Very big tiger, but is not the one from the Smithsonian. I checked the stripe pattern and do not match.
09-16-2020, 10:33 AM( This post was last modified: 09-16-2020, 01:34 PM by Shadow )
(09-11-2020, 04:45 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 08:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?
Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.
We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.
Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens
Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc.
While discussing about that tiger shot in 1967 and which was said to be 857 lbs it´s good to know, that Guinness has changed their attitute towards that tiger, which is called "Smithsonian tiger" too. They too admit now, that weight is controversial and not certain. Of course for Guinness it´s a slow process, when they have accepted something in past, but they have corrected many other things with time too, because in past they accepted things with very little information to their Guinness Book of Records. This tiger is one of those "records", which wouldn´t be there at all, if someone would try to get it accepted today with so vague information as they managed to do 1967. That´s why also many tiger experts say, that it would need to be verified properly. Which is of course impossible at this point.
As far as I know, in photos that tiger doesn´t look anything too special and measurements aren´t extraordinary, which could be expected to back up claims of so big weight. Also it was weighed in some local sugar mill etc. and it seems that no-one knows today how that weighing was really done and was that scale reliable at all. Since it´s only such (claimed to be) "monster" and never seen before or after in India, I personally don´t take it seriously either. Some people do, but same people are very critical if same kind of vague case with so poor information is showed for some other species.
Anyway, also Guinness say it today, that it´s not clear how heavy that tiger was in reality. This problem seems to be with all "monster" big cats from past, all cases are quite vague and not documented properly at all. This is something, what I think is good to know for people reading these threads. As one biologist said to me, when discussing about tigers and lions and sizes: "Don´t believe all what you read".
09-16-2020, 11:16 PM( This post was last modified: 09-16-2020, 11:26 PM by Scout )
(09-16-2020, 10:33 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 04:45 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 08:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?
Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.
We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.
Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens
Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc.
While discussing about that tiger shot in 1967 and which was said to be 857 lbs it´s good to know, that Guinness has changed their attitute towards that tiger, which is called "Smithsonian tiger" too. They too admit now, that weight is controversial and not certain. Of course for Guinness it´s a slow process, when they have accepted something in past, but they have corrected many other things with time too, because in past they accepted things with very little information to their Guinness Book of Records. This tiger is one of those "records", which wouldn´t be there at all, if someone would try to get it accepted today with so vague information as they managed to do 1967. That´s why also many tiger experts say, that it would need to be verified properly. Which is of course impossible at this point.
As far as I know, in photos that tiger doesn´t look anything too special and measurements aren´t extraordinary, which could be expected to back up claims of so big weight. Also it was weighed in some local sugar mill etc. and it seems that no-one knows today how that weighing was really done and was that scale reliable at all. Since it´s only such (claimed to be) "monster" and never seen before or after in India, I personally don´t take it seriously either. Some people do, but same people are very critical if same kind of vague case with so poor information is showed for some other species.
Anyway, also Guinness say it today, that it´s not clear how heavy that tiger was in reality. This problem seems to be with all "monster" big cats from past, all cases are quite vague and not documented properly at all. This is something, what I think is good to know for people reading these threads. As one biologist said to me, when discussing about tigers and lions and sizes: "Don´t believe all what you read".
Yep, that seems right. The tiger in the pics with Hassinger doesnt look freakishly big like an eight hundred pounder would look. Anyway, I was wondering the size of the tiger I linked above, he appears much bigger than the supposed 857lbs smithsonian tiger.
This one-
I did the reverse search, this tiger was shot by royals in Rajasthan's Comilla region
The following 1 user Likes Scout's post:1 user Likes Scout's post • Rishi
09-17-2020, 12:51 AM( This post was last modified: 09-17-2020, 01:29 AM by Shadow )
(09-16-2020, 11:16 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-16-2020, 10:33 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 04:45 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 08:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?
Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.
We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.
Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens
Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc.
While discussing about that tiger shot in 1967 and which was said to be 857 lbs it´s good to know, that Guinness has changed their attitute towards that tiger, which is called "Smithsonian tiger" too. They too admit now, that weight is controversial and not certain. Of course for Guinness it´s a slow process, when they have accepted something in past, but they have corrected many other things with time too, because in past they accepted things with very little information to their Guinness Book of Records. This tiger is one of those "records", which wouldn´t be there at all, if someone would try to get it accepted today with so vague information as they managed to do 1967. That´s why also many tiger experts say, that it would need to be verified properly. Which is of course impossible at this point.
As far as I know, in photos that tiger doesn´t look anything too special and measurements aren´t extraordinary, which could be expected to back up claims of so big weight. Also it was weighed in some local sugar mill etc. and it seems that no-one knows today how that weighing was really done and was that scale reliable at all. Since it´s only such (claimed to be) "monster" and never seen before or after in India, I personally don´t take it seriously either. Some people do, but same people are very critical if same kind of vague case with so poor information is showed for some other species.
Anyway, also Guinness say it today, that it´s not clear how heavy that tiger was in reality. This problem seems to be with all "monster" big cats from past, all cases are quite vague and not documented properly at all. This is something, what I think is good to know for people reading these threads. As one biologist said to me, when discussing about tigers and lions and sizes: "Don´t believe all what you read".
Yep, that seems right. The tiger in the pics with Hassinger doesnt look freakishly big like an eight hundred pounder would look. Anyway, I was wondering the size of the tiger I linked above, he appears much bigger than the supposed 857lbs smithsonian tiger.
This one-
I did the reverse search, this tiger was shot by royals in Rajasthan's Comilla region
How big is this tiger on photo is once again a tricky one, because typical hunting photo taken so, that killed animal in front and people behind and possible 2-3 meters distance. It makes this quite difficult and very easy to exaggerate size of the tiger. I attach here this photo and I made it a big bigger to show, why I think, that hunters are some meters behind making tiger looking bigger in comparison with people behind it.
That red circle show how you can see terrain under the tail of the tiger. When you look at the foot of the man right behind the tail, you can notice, that you can´t see his foot under the tail, there is just ground. If he would be right behind the tiger very close, you could see his foot/shoe/boot there. But it can´t be seen because there is some empty space in between the tiger and these men and it makes that typical illusion of a very big animal. It can be big, but how big remains a mystery. With this kind of photos even a wolf can be made to look like a 150 kg monster while everyone knows, that already 70 kg wolf is huge and 80-90 kg is enormous. I try to look if I can find photo of one wolf shot in Russia, photo of it really made it look like 2-3 times bigger than wolves are. I have shared it here before, but I don´t remember the thread now.
The following 1 user Likes Shadow's post:1 user Likes Shadow's post • Rishi
(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?
Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.
We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.
Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens
Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc.
While discussing about that tiger shot in 1967 and which was said to be 857 lbs it´s good to know, that Guinness has changed their attitute towards that tiger, which is called "Smithsonian tiger" too. They too admit now, that weight is controversial and not certain. Of course for Guinness it´s a slow process, when they have accepted something in past, but they have corrected many other things with time too, because in past they accepted things with very little information to their Guinness Book of Records. This tiger is one of those "records", which wouldn´t be there at all, if someone would try to get it accepted today with so vague information as they managed to do 1967. That´s why also many tiger experts say, that it would need to be verified properly. Which is of course impossible at this point.
As far as I know, in photos that tiger doesn´t look anything too special and measurements aren´t extraordinary, which could be expected to back up claims of so big weight. Also it was weighed in some local sugar mill etc. and it seems that no-one knows today how that weighing was really done and was that scale reliable at all. Since it´s only such (claimed to be) "monster" and never seen before or after in India, I personally don´t take it seriously either. Some people do, but same people are very critical if same kind of vague case with so poor information is showed for some other species.
Anyway, also Guinness say it today, that it´s not clear how heavy that tiger was in reality. This problem seems to be with all "monster" big cats from past, all cases are quite vague and not documented properly at all. This is something, what I think is good to know for people reading these threads. As one biologist said to me, when discussing about tigers and lions and sizes: "Don´t believe all what you read".
Yep, that seems right. The tiger in the pics with Hassinger doesnt look freakishly big like an eight hundred pounder would look. Anyway, I was wondering the size of the tiger I linked above, he appears much bigger than the supposed 857lbs smithsonian tiger.
This one-
I did the reverse search, this tiger was shot by royals in Rajasthan's Comilla region
This should show it quite clearly why everyone should be careful when looking at photos. These tricks have been well known in past too, but this photo should make it easy to see how easy it is to fool people on purpose or by accident. I mean maybe not all hunters try to exaggerate prey size on purpose, maybe they just want to get all people in same photo. But the more distance there is in between the carcass and people, the bigger that carcass looks like. And of course it can be seen how the distance and angle of the camera in relation to the subject (carcass) has effect. So when seeing old photos it´s good to keep in mind how easy it´s to make something to look a lot bigger than it is in reality. Either on purpose or by accident.
09-18-2020, 01:14 PM( This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 01:22 PM by Scout )
(09-17-2020, 03:14 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-16-2020, 11:16 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-16-2020, 10:33 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 04:45 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 08:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?
Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.
We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.
Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens
Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc.
While discussing about that tiger shot in 1967 and which was said to be 857 lbs it´s good to know, that Guinness has changed their attitute towards that tiger, which is called "Smithsonian tiger" too. They too admit now, that weight is controversial and not certain. Of course for Guinness it´s a slow process, when they have accepted something in past, but they have corrected many other things with time too, because in past they accepted things with very little information to their Guinness Book of Records. This tiger is one of those "records", which wouldn´t be there at all, if someone would try to get it accepted today with so vague information as they managed to do 1967. That´s why also many tiger experts say, that it would need to be verified properly. Which is of course impossible at this point.
As far as I know, in photos that tiger doesn´t look anything too special and measurements aren´t extraordinary, which could be expected to back up claims of so big weight. Also it was weighed in some local sugar mill etc. and it seems that no-one knows today how that weighing was really done and was that scale reliable at all. Since it´s only such (claimed to be) "monster" and never seen before or after in India, I personally don´t take it seriously either. Some people do, but same people are very critical if same kind of vague case with so poor information is showed for some other species.
Anyway, also Guinness say it today, that it´s not clear how heavy that tiger was in reality. This problem seems to be with all "monster" big cats from past, all cases are quite vague and not documented properly at all. This is something, what I think is good to know for people reading these threads. As one biologist said to me, when discussing about tigers and lions and sizes: "Don´t believe all what you read".
Yep, that seems right. The tiger in the pics with Hassinger doesnt look freakishly big like an eight hundred pounder would look. Anyway, I was wondering the size of the tiger I linked above, he appears much bigger than the supposed 857lbs smithsonian tiger.
This one-
I did the reverse search, this tiger was shot by royals in Rajasthan's Comilla region
This should show it quite clearly why everyone should be careful when looking at photos. These tricks have been well known in past too, but this photo should make it easy to see how easy it is to fool people on purpose or by accident. I mean maybe not all hunters try to exaggerate prey size on purpose, maybe they just want to get all people in same photo. But the more distance there is in between the carcass and people, the bigger that carcass looks like. And of course it can be seen how the distance and angle of the camera in relation to the subject (carcass) has effect. So when seeing old photos it´s good to keep in mind how easy it´s to make something to look a lot bigger than it is in reality. Either on purpose or by accident.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Yeah, it does look like that it's another photography trick. Apparently, hunters are definitely less reliable than scientists. Well, whats the biggest photographed tiger from the wild? I think the ones from Kaziranga and central India
09-18-2020, 04:32 PM( This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 10:35 PM by Shadow )
(09-18-2020, 01:14 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-17-2020, 03:14 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-16-2020, 11:16 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-16-2020, 10:33 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 04:45 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 08:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-09-2020, 07:26 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?
Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.
We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.
Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens
Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc.
While discussing about that tiger shot in 1967 and which was said to be 857 lbs it´s good to know, that Guinness has changed their attitute towards that tiger, which is called "Smithsonian tiger" too. They too admit now, that weight is controversial and not certain. Of course for Guinness it´s a slow process, when they have accepted something in past, but they have corrected many other things with time too, because in past they accepted things with very little information to their Guinness Book of Records. This tiger is one of those "records", which wouldn´t be there at all, if someone would try to get it accepted today with so vague information as they managed to do 1967. That´s why also many tiger experts say, that it would need to be verified properly. Which is of course impossible at this point.
As far as I know, in photos that tiger doesn´t look anything too special and measurements aren´t extraordinary, which could be expected to back up claims of so big weight. Also it was weighed in some local sugar mill etc. and it seems that no-one knows today how that weighing was really done and was that scale reliable at all. Since it´s only such (claimed to be) "monster" and never seen before or after in India, I personally don´t take it seriously either. Some people do, but same people are very critical if same kind of vague case with so poor information is showed for some other species.
Anyway, also Guinness say it today, that it´s not clear how heavy that tiger was in reality. This problem seems to be with all "monster" big cats from past, all cases are quite vague and not documented properly at all. This is something, what I think is good to know for people reading these threads. As one biologist said to me, when discussing about tigers and lions and sizes: "Don´t believe all what you read".
Yep, that seems right. The tiger in the pics with Hassinger doesnt look freakishly big like an eight hundred pounder would look. Anyway, I was wondering the size of the tiger I linked above, he appears much bigger than the supposed 857lbs smithsonian tiger.
This one-
I did the reverse search, this tiger was shot by royals in Rajasthan's Comilla region
This should show it quite clearly why everyone should be careful when looking at photos. These tricks have been well known in past too, but this photo should make it easy to see how easy it is to fool people on purpose or by accident. I mean maybe not all hunters try to exaggerate prey size on purpose, maybe they just want to get all people in same photo. But the more distance there is in between the carcass and people, the bigger that carcass looks like. And of course it can be seen how the distance and angle of the camera in relation to the subject (carcass) has effect. So when seeing old photos it´s good to keep in mind how easy it´s to make something to look a lot bigger than it is in reality. Either on purpose or by accident.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Yeah, it does look like that it's another photography trick. Apparently, hunters are definitely less reliable than scientists. Well, whats the biggest photographed tiger from the wild? I think the ones from Kaziranga and central India
I don´t say, that it would be a trick on purpose. I wanted to point out how it can be seen, that people behind the tiger aren´t kneeling right next to it and how distance have effect making the object in front always looking relatively bigger than objects behind. Photos in which a trainer and big cat are leaning against each others give way better possibility to see the real size. These hunting photos tend to have always carcass in front in order to show it in the best possible way.
Also angle of the camera and objective can be used to make the thing in front to look bigger, so making estimations from photos can be tricky. I always try to look at certain details in order to avoid making too big conclusions from wrong reasons. I do think, that the tiger in the photo isn´t small by any means, but it has to be remembered that even an average tiger around 200 kg (male) is big dwarfing average people behind it. And if a tiger is one, which can be considered really big, over 250 kg, naturally it looks even bigger. In some photos from Kodiak bear hunting those people have managed to make bears to look as big as some hippos or rhinos :)
What comes to wild tigers, usually photos have nothing too good to compare with. So it´s also difficult thing to say with too much confidence, which particular tiger would deserve to be called the biggest or very big alone from some random photo. Often people who have seen those tigers have controversial opinions and many debates have been seen in different discussion forums. Also here. One famous tiger, which all seem to agree to be one of the biggest from India is Wagdoh in his prime. And if he is still alive, not small by any means even as an older "gentleman" nowadays. While there are many opinions, he has had reputation to be maybe the biggest tiger in India in last decades. You can be sure, that many disagree, but because we don´t have weight information it´s not possible to really know.
The following 1 user Likes Shadow's post:1 user Likes Shadow's post • Scout
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
