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.
(11-02-2023, 10:58 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: Amazing! yet another beast from Uttarakhand. tfs @melon
I also did some digging and found that Chunakhan Eco Tourism centre is just 36km driving distance from Corbett and about 22km to the east is Haldwani.
*This image is copyright of its original author
on this map, where it says Corbett-Ramnagar and underneath where it says Boar river. that’s pretty much the area where this tiger originated from. Also, if i’m not mistaken @Ashutosh mentioned a while back that tigers from this region are just as impressive as their Eastern cousins and in the last couple of years. i was able to see it for myself. thanks to the growing population of tigers and increased tourism activity from this region.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Sitabani King
*This image is copyright of its original author
the famous Rajaji male from 2011 camera traps
Is it Chunakhan near the north or another Chunakhan in Jharkhand? Sometimes, the Chunakhan Monster is called Beast of Hazaribagh. Hazaribagh is in Jharkhand.
(01-14-2024, 09:54 PM)johnny rex Wrote: Still remember the Chunakhan tiger? Got this from Youtube. The skull is still housed today at the late Tootoo Imam's residence in India.
Compared to Branders 600lb estimated Tiger
5cm or 2'' longer than Branders
10cm or 4'' Taller at the shoulder
and using an Estimated Chest girth based off speculation 11cm or 4'' larger chest girth
Branders male had been feeding on Buffalo for quite some time so no doubt he wasn't an empty cat so lets just say for the estimations purposes Branders was 250-260kg Empty.
This male mentioned above would probably be around the 272-294kg empty range.
But that is based off of estimations and without proper backstory on the actual measuring protocol.
(11-09-2018, 10:21 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote: GuateGojira regarding food intake. What is your opinion of the Sunquist figures of food intake. The figures showing food consumption of 14-18.6 kg in a 24 hour period does not necessarily mean they consumed all that in one sitting, meaning that cats could have consumed only 7 kg in one feeding session, and consumed another 7 kg later on in the same day after it digested the previous meal. In other words, the 14 kg daily food intake figure could have consisted of several smaller meals meaning the figures for Sunquist being adjusted to 221 kg (minus 14 kg) could be completely void! In addition, what do you think the correct figure for Sunquist study should be, should we use the 221 kg adjusted figure, or the 235 kg?
I got the idea reading from Nat Geo
"It may take days for a tiger to finish eating its kill. Tigers have been known to eat up to 60 pounds (27 kilograms) of meat in one night, but more often they consume about 12 pounds (5 kilograms) during a meal. The cat eats until it's full, and then covers the carcass with leaves and dirt. When it's hungry again, the tiger comes back to feed some more, until the meat is gone."
@Kingtheropod, I am very surprised that you are asking me that question again, specially when you already know my answer. Did you remember that harsh debate with Waveriders about the food intake? Did you remember when I explained the method to bait a tiger in Nepal and why the figure of 14 kg is accurate and may be a little excesive to adjust?
Let me tell you again. I explained that baits are put between 6-7 pm and latter they are checked again at about 4 am of the next day (in some cases they were checked trought the night at Tiger Tops, as Dr McDougal took turist to see tigers eating baits in the night). This means that the baits are left in the field about 9-10 hours. Of course, there is no case showing a tiger killing a bait inmediatelly after the scientist leave it in the field. So assuming that the tiger manage to kill the bait at about 8 pm, this means that the tiger (male or female) had about 8 hours to eat. Now, tigers do not eat the prey inmediatelly after killing it, it grab its prey and move it to another place and latter it start to remouve all the hair before to start eating. Schaller says that after 1 1/2 -2 1/2 hours eating they stop and rest, maybe they can move to drink something and then return to the kill latter. This means that the tigers (male and female) do not eat constantly with out interruptions during the 8 hours, in fact, they probably eat about 6-7 hours in displaced periods, maybe less, and the other time they rest, drink, play or fight scavengers from the food, that is a normal sesion of feeding for a tiger.
Sunquist (1981) found that a tiger (male and female) may eat between 14-19 kg in 24 hours, from baits and also natural kills. However these figures are from undisturbed kills and were measured from several days. Figures of 30-35 kg for male and female tigers do exist, but these are exceptions, not the rule in any case. The tigers at baits only had about 7 hours to feed, maybe 8 in the best case, and Dr Sunquist himself describe that in all the captures they disturbed the tigers at the kills, and in an email he especifically said that he "don't ever remember been struck by the size of the stomach of any of the animals, suggesting that they had not yet eat their fill when captured".
So, tigers did not had 24 hours, nor even 12 hours to eat at baits, which means that the figures of 14-19 kg may be actually higher than the real food intake of the tigers in the captures at "disturbed kills". If a tiger eat an average of 19 kg in a day, this means that in 7-8 hours it may eat about 5.5-6.3 kg, which is close to the 6-7 kg that Sunquist (1981) estimated was the necesary daily intake for a female tiger, obviously will be more for a male. Even if we take the figure of 27 kg reported by Dr Schaller from only one male that he was able to measure, it means a food intake of 8-9 kg in the 7-8 hours when the tiger was able to eat undisturbed. Finally if we take the exceptional food intake of 35 kg reported by Dr McDougal, we can estimate a food intake of 10-12 kg for a large male, but this was an exceptional case and represent the maximum food intake, actually measured, reported in litterature. So we can see that about 8 kg for females and 10 kg for males will be a good food intake, assuming that the tiger did eat the 7-8 hours at the kill "undisturbed" (but the "real" feeding time could be much less). Also remember that tigers were captured in the morning and the search for the tigers started at about 5 am and it seems that tigers were found resting, not eating, at the baits, they were not gorged and the food intake was probably less than 11 kg in both males and females in the time that they were at the kills.
Please take in count that we are assuming that tigers killed the baits just a few hours after they were put in the field, which probably was not the case. So the figure of 14 kg to adjust the weight of the Nepalese tigers is actually slightly higher than the estimated "real" amount of food consumed by the tiger in the baits "undisturbed", and the figure of 19 kg will be excesive. I can say that the average figures of 221 kg for males and 130 kg for females "adjusted" seems reliable, but could be actually a little higher, maybe up to 227 kg for males.
I have questions I'm New to Wild Fact is that 388kg Bengal tiger and 384 kg Siberian tiger was reliable and they are really that heavy or just it's unreliable information?
(04-28-2022, 06:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the Smythsonian Tiger of 389kg also similarly had a tail like this, about an 86cm tail, then the rest of the head body length would be 235cm and a Tiger of that body length (if has the same proportions of an average Bengal Tiger) can mathematically reach upto 396kg.
Now, in the case of the 389kg specimen, the stomach content would have been around 15kg in my opinion. That means a weight of about 370-375kg and if the Tiger was even 225-230cm in head body but was proportionally taller or had a proportionally wider chest then the 389kg is possible. (perhaps not practical but possible)
All we know is the total length between pegs for that Tiger which was 322cm, the rest of the details are unknown so if more measurements were available, then it would have been possible to make better judgements but with a small tail or by being tall and bulky or by having both, the Tiger could have reached that weight for real.
People say that 389kg is impossible but it’s physically possible. If he had that sort of length with a very short tail then the Tiger can definitely support this weight.
We have a couple of other examples of big tigers and short tails:
The Bachelor of Powalgarh, for example, measured about 323 cm "over curves" and probably 310 cm "between pegs". We estimate a good size but the picture shows a true giant! Check it:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
This tiger certainly measured over 210 cm in head-body "between pegs", sadly we can't see its tail.
Other is the tiger of the Maharaha of Nepal that weighed 320 kg and total length of 328 cm over curves" (at least 311 cm "between pegs"), the incredibly realistic paint shows a short tail in relation with its overall size, check it:
*This image is copyright of its original author
This tiger is another candidate for over 210 cm in head body length "straight".
Now, these two giants are very bulky as we can see and reflect huge body masses, but what about the Smithsonian tiger, well.........
*This image is copyright of its original author
Certainly this tiger is not near the size of the Bachelor or the Nepalese giant, it looks more like an average sized one, and the reported size for its skull confirm it. Honestly it do not look gorged or anything like that so that statement can't be use to justify its huge mass, check this other picture too:
*This image is copyright of its original author
But with this photographic evidence we can see that there is something wrong with the weight of this tiger, even the reported length of 323 cm "between pegs" seems too much for this specimen, unless than its tail was very long (up to 114 cm in the maximum records (Brander, 1927)), in that case the length seems reliable as this tiger can be a little over 200 cm in head-body straight. So, while this tiger did existed, was certainly measured and obviously weighed, the weight was certainly incorrect, maybe the scale used was bad, or something happen but from my point of view this tiger can't weight over 300 kg, leave alone the 389 kg claimed.
Evidence suggest that the biggest tigers can reach 320-330 cm in total length (up to 221 cm in head-body confirmed) and weights between 260-290 kg "empty". The Smithsonian tiger while cover all the levels of reliability of Slaght et al. (2005) and can be clasiffied as "highly reliable" is an example when we also need to use the logic and not only the raw data, as this tiger, alghouth of a good size, it can't be of that enormous weight, from my point of view at least.
The tiger of 389 kg and the lion 313 kg reported by Guinness are not reliable and should not be used for comparison. That is my final word on this.
Yeah 389 kg tiger and 313 kg lion is absolutely overestimation
[attachment=11863 Wrote:
johnny rex pid='200435' dateline='1705423594']
(11-02-2023, 10:58 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: Amazing! yet another beast from Uttarakhand. tfs @melon
I also did some digging and found that Chunakhan Eco Tourism centre is just 36km driving distance from Corbett and about 22km to the east is Haldwani.
*This image is copyright of its original author
on this map, where it says Corbett-Ramnagar and underneath where it says Boar river. that’s pretty much the area where this tiger originated from. Also, if i’m not mistaken @Ashutosh mentioned a while back that tigers from this region are just as impressive as their Eastern cousins and in the last couple of years. i was able to see it for myself. thanks to the growing population of tigers and increased tourism activity from this region.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Sitabani King
*This image is copyright of its original author
the famous Rajaji male from 2011 camera traps
Is it Chunakhan near the north or another Chunakhan in Jharkhand? Sometimes, the Chunakhan Monster is called Beast of Hazaribagh. Hazaribagh is in Jharkhand.
This Chunakhan is near Hazaribagh in Jharkhand. I have been born and brought up in Ranchi, Jharkhand and as a child was a regular visitor of the Palamau and Hazaribagh areas of Jharkhand. As a correlation to confirm the same, one may read the text on the page. The names Manjho, Bulu and Sanjhalu are typical Chotanagpuri Adivasi Tribal/Santhal names. Also the village mentioned as Jarwadih points to this area as the suffix "dih" which generally means a mound or small water body is a very commonly prevalent name in the Easterrn hilly and plateau parts. eg Manduadih, Santhaldih etc. In fact I did a mapping around the town of Hazaribagh on Google Earth after reading this. From the centre of Hazaribagh town if one draws a line of Bearing 71.5 deg and Range 33 Kms one comes to a hilly and forested part with a small hill stream. The names Chunapathar waterfall and village Jarudih are there. Lat is 24 deg 5' 36.66" and Long 85 deg 40' 40.08". One may check it out.
Hazaribagh is a place once famous for its forests and Tigers in local, Bihari and Bengali litreature and lore. Infact the name Hazaribagh may have 2 origins. Hazari Bagh may mean a place of a thousand gardens ie hazar is thousand and bag means garden in Bengali, Hindi, local and most Indian Languages metamorphosed from Sanskrit. The other meaning is place of a thousand Tigers as Bagh is Hindi, Bengali, Assamese, Marathi etc word for Tiger from the Sanskrit Wyaghra or Byaghra for Tiger.
The latter seems more probable as the area is historically known as a forested wilderness since ancient times and still has remnants of that forest cover.
(09-01-2024, 01:20 PM)starlord92 Wrote: What percentage of muscle and fat do Bengal tigers and Siberian tigers actually have ? The more scientific research the better.
Hi! If you wish to know topics like this on big cats, there are more than enough threads on Pantherine felids (big cats). Feel free to ask your question there! As for your question, I hope this helps!
Muscular anatomy of the forelimb of tiger (Panthera tigris)LINK
Abstract
Dissection reports of large cats (family Felidae) have been published since the late 19th century. These reports generally describe the findings in words, show drawings of the dissection, and usually include some masses of muscles, but often neglect to provide muscle maps showing the precise location of bony origins and insertions. Although these early reports can be highly useful, the absence of visual depictions of muscle attachment sites makes it difficult to compare muscle origins and insertions in living taxa and especially to reconstruct muscle attachments in fossil taxa. Recently, more muscle maps have been published in the primary literature, but those for large cats are still limited. Here, we describe the muscular anatomy of the forelimb of the tiger (Panthera tigris), and compare muscle origins, insertions, and relative muscle masses to other felids to identify differences that may reflect functional adaptations. Our results reiterate the conservative nature of felid anatomy across body sizes and behavioral categories. We find that pantherines have relatively smaller shoulder muscle masses, and relatively larger muscles of the caudal brachium, pronators, and supinators than felines. The muscular anatomy of the tiger shows several modifications that may reflect an adaptation to terrestrial locomotion and a preference for large prey. These include in general a relatively large m. supraspinatus (shoulder flexion), an expanded origin for m. triceps brachii caput longum, and relatively large m. triceps brachii caput laterale (elbow extension), as well as relatively large mm. brachioradialis, abductor digiti I longus, and abductor digiti V. Muscle groups that are well developed in scansorial taxa are not well developed in the tiger, including muscles of the cranial compartment of the brachium and antebrachium, and m. anconeus. Overall, the musculature of the tiger strongly resembles that of the lion (Panthera leo), another large-bodied terrestrial large-prey specialist.
Advice for all forum users, especially new ones:
If you wish to know something or have questions on a certain animal (lets say Big Cats as they are the most popular) check the threads on them. Pantherine felids have their own dedicated subforums and multiple threads. Dont make a new thread for a single question or even information for that matter. Thank you and Enjoy reading WildFact!
I suggest @BA0701 or any other MOD to take these posts to any of the tiger threads you seem relevant.
Moved to the appropriate thread, and other moderation actions taken.
@starlord92 we do not permit the creation of new threads, without prior Moderator approval. I would ask that you take some time to familiarize yourself with our site rules, located here:
Can you estimate the weight of Chota Matkasur tiger from central India tadoba?
Hello @Caesartheape, and welcome to WildFact! We like to suggest, for our new members. that you peruse our rules section, and we also have a tutorial section that can help one understand how to accomplish certain things on the site. I fixed your links, and since they are Youtube "shorts" clips, there is a special method required for posting those, and there is a "how to" in the tutorial section for that as well. Once you have looked through those, look around, and get a feel for the site. There are many threads, which cover most topics related to wildlife, therefore we do not permit the creation of new threads without prior Mod approval. Feel free to contact any of the site Mods, any of us are always happy to help.
Other than that, we hope you enjoy the site, and look forward to your contributions!
Estimating big cat weights through videos is extremely difficult.
Even when you have these cats side by side to compare, as well as them with females and many statements from guides and people seeing them in person, you'd still only be able to make at best an educated guess that may still be quite off the real number.
Without any real weight or measurements to go of, like from another tiger he was seen with or something like that, it's almost just a guessing game.
So well, I guess I can play, from my perspective in these videos the tiger in question seems to be particularly short at the shoulder, but with a long body. His chest seems be of a good girth but I'm not entirely sure.
I'd estimate him at around 200kg, but as I said, an estimation like this is just a guess and might be far from reality. Without weighting him or at least measuring him, we can't know for sure.
After posting my question on WildFact, I did some research and talked to a few people.
I found out that Chota Matkasur weighed 163 kg when he was 1.5 years old and was almost the same size as his father, only Skinner.
I also spoke to a wildlife expert from Tadoba National Park who writes articles for the Times of India about tiger behavior. He is also a safari guide and has seen Chota Matkasur up close many times. According to him, Chota Matkasur weighs around 250 kg.
Additionally, the majority of safari guides from Tadoba suggest that he is the biggest tiger in the park.
After posting my question on WildFact, I did some research and talked to a few people.
I found out that Chota Matkasur weighed 163 kg when he was 1.5 years old and was almost the same size as his father, only Skinner.
I also spoke to a wildlife expert from Tadoba National Park who writes articles for the Times of India about tiger behavior. He is also a safari guide and has seen Chota Matkasur up close many times. According to him, Chota Matkasur weighs around 250 kg.
Additionally, the majority of safari guides from Tadoba suggest that he is the biggest tiger in the park.
I also think CM weighs about 250kg but nothing is certain without measuring.
(04-28-2022, 06:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the Smythsonian Tiger of 389kg also similarly had a tail like this, about an 86cm tail, then the rest of the head body length would be 235cm and a Tiger of that body length (if has the same proportions of an average Bengal Tiger) can mathematically reach upto 396kg.
Now, in the case of the 389kg specimen, the stomach content would have been around 15kg in my opinion. That means a weight of about 370-375kg and if the Tiger was even 225-230cm in head body but was proportionally taller or had a proportionally wider chest then the 389kg is possible. (perhaps not practical but possible)
All we know is the total length between pegs for that Tiger which was 322cm, the rest of the details are unknown so if more measurements were available, then it would have been possible to make better judgements but with a small tail or by being tall and bulky or by having both, the Tiger could have reached that weight for real.
People say that 389kg is impossible but it’s physically possible. If he had that sort of length with a very short tail then the Tiger can definitely support this weight.
We have a couple of other examples of big tigers and short tails:
The Bachelor of Powalgarh, for example, measured about 323 cm "over curves" and probably 310 cm "between pegs". We estimate a good size but the picture shows a true giant! Check it:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
This tiger certainly measured over 210 cm in head-body "between pegs", sadly we can't see its tail.
Other is the tiger of the Maharaha of Nepal that weighed 320 kg and total length of 328 cm over curves" (at least 311 cm "between pegs"), the incredibly realistic paint shows a short tail in relation with its overall size, check it:
*This image is copyright of its original author
This tiger is another candidate for over 210 cm in head body length "straight".
Now, these two giants are very bulky as we can see and reflect huge body masses, but what about the Smithsonian tiger, well.........
*This image is copyright of its original author
Certainly this tiger is not near the size of the Bachelor or the Nepalese giant, it looks more like an average sized one, and the reported size for its skull confirm it. Honestly it do not look gorged or anything like that so that statement can't be use to justify its huge mass, check this other picture too:
*This image is copyright of its original author
But with this photographic evidence we can see that there is something wrong with the weight of this tiger, even the reported length of 323 cm "between pegs" seems too much for this specimen, unless than its tail was very long (up to 114 cm in the maximum records (Brander, 1927)), in that case the length seems reliable as this tiger can be a little over 200 cm in head-body straight. So, while this tiger did existed, was certainly measured and obviously weighed, the weight was certainly incorrect, maybe the scale used was bad, or something happen but from my point of view this tiger can't weight over 300 kg, leave alone the 389 kg claimed.
Evidence suggest that the biggest tigers can reach 320-330 cm in total length (up to 221 cm in head-body confirmed) and weights between 260-290 kg "empty". The Smithsonian tiger while cover all the levels of reliability of Slaght et al. (2005) and can be clasiffied as "highly reliable" is an example when we also need to use the logic and not only the raw data, as this tiger, alghouth of a good size, it can't be of that enormous weight, from my point of view at least.
The tiger of 389 kg and the lion 313 kg reported by Guinness are not reliable and should not be used for comparison. That is my final word on this.
Hi everyone, the Monster of Chunakhan tiger shot by Iman (year unknown) certainly is massive, as big or bigger than the massive Bachelor of Powalgarh tiger shot by Jim Corbett in 1930. These are my 2 candidates for the biggest tigers known with supportive images, they must have weighed close to 300 kg?! The tigers weighed in 1980 M105 and 1984 M026 are probably as big, they maxed out the 600 Ib scale so 273 kg plus are the figures published, it's a pity they didn't have heavier scales!
The David Hasinger tiger From 1967 which is popularly mentioned as the longest and heaviest is not supported by the image, it looks like just a slightly bigger tiger than normal, at a guess less than 250 kg. It was weighted at a sugar mill and the scales were obviously faulty.
I have several more scientific books on carnivores and none mention this animal, all quote a John Hewitt tiger from around 1910 at 259 kg (often rounded to 260 kg) as the biggest tiger weighed, mentioned in his 1938 book Jungle Trails in Northern India. The Maharajah Cooch Bahar had scales too and his heaviest were 248 kg and 242 kg in 1908 and 1905. He mentions is biggest by far shot in 1890 before he had scales at an estimated 273 kg with a 137 cm chest. He doesn't have images of any of these tigers in his 1908 book Shooting in Cooch Bahar.
A A Dunbar Brander also had scales, the heaviest he weighed was 234 kg but he estimated the biggest he ever shot was 273 kg but he didn't have scales, he mentions they kept breaking in the Indian humidity so he stopped using them! Again no images. It's interesting in his 1923 book Wild Animals of Central India he quotes many enormous sizes of claimed tigers which he cannot credibly reconcile with, especially the huge lengths reported by respected British gentleman, dozens over 350 cm, yet his longest from 200 kills was 'only' 312 cm. I think it shows how honest the British gentleman sports hunter was in the era!
So I've got around 6 over 250 kg which seem credible but only 4 with images, all the biggest but none actually weighed frustratingly! I think the 313 kg lion shot in 1936 in South Africa could be credible too as the biggest lion, the scales were apparently checked afterwards due to the unusual weight of this cat. There are several other reports of lions over 250 kg with accompanying images, some recent. I have no reason to doubt these as the lions do look big in the images.
I particularly don't take such old hunter accounts seriously and doubt in the existance of any wild 300kg cats.
The biggest I think were the 288kg tiger and 287kg lion that Pckts talked about a while ago, and these probably had some 5-10kg of content, as this is not something it can be verified unless you rip the animal's belly open.
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
