WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
 (02-04-2018, 07:16 PM)Diamir2 Wrote: Interesting. T-3s weight of 200 kg at 60 months (5 yrs) is interesting. It would be nice to see the weights of tigers of different ages compared before and after they reached Prime. If T-3 was 200 kg at 5 years old, and 240 kgs at 10 years old, this seems to suggest that tigers don't start massively losing weight until after 10 years of age. Just curious though, what was the scale limit in that study? I can't access the paper for what ever reason.  *This image is copyright of its original author
The NTC successfully radio-collared a tiger for the first time in Bhutan
The National Tiger Center (NTC) based in Gelephu under the Department of Forest and Park Services (DoFPS) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests has successfully radio-collared a three-year old female tiger weighing 110 kilograms (kg) on February 09, 2018, in Royal Manas National Park (RMNP).  *This image is copyright of its original author "This is the first time a tiger has been radio-collared by a team of Bhutanese biologists and foresters led by Dr. Tshering Tempa, officials from NTC along with forest officials from RMNP, Nature Conservation Division (NCD), and Sarpang Forest Divison. The tiger collaring team has been in the forests of RMNP looking for tiger signs and monitoring their movements for almost a month. “We have imported trapping kits from the United State of America (USA) and used humane ways of snaring the tiger,” said Dr. Tempa. “We tested with our bare hands to confirm that the traps would not injure the cat,” he added. “As a tiger biologist, I am trained and we had conducted several drills to prepare ourselves.” The whole collaring process lasted about 45 minutes and the tiger was released back into the wilderness without any injuries. “We were a little nervous, but we are happy that everything went according to our plan,” said Dr. Tempa with a sigh of relief. To mark the auspicious milestone in tiger conversation in Bhutan, the tiger was named Tendrel Zangmo. Tendrel now sends her location every hour through the Global Positioning System (GPS) collar. This will be crucial to understand their movement pattern, identifying key corridors, and mitigating human-tiger conflicts. Bhutan is unique in that its tiger habitat is contiguous across the whole country and extends from lowland subtropical jungles all the way to subalpine forests. The highest altitude for tiger in the world was recorded in Wangchuck Centennial National Park at 4,400 masl (meters above sea level). Dr. Tempa, who heads the National Tiger Center, said that not much is known about the tigers in mountains in the tiger world and we will be a pioneer in providing this critical information to tiger science. This is the real break-through and the beginning of a new era of tiger conservation and monitoring in Bhutan. What is more satisfying is that it is a purely Bhutanese team that carried out the whole operation. The tiger is an apex predator and an umbrella species, which means ensuring their survival allows many species to live and flourish in its large shared habitat. However, threats to these beautiful cats still exist in the form of killing for profit or in retaliation, destruction of habitat for industries or subsistence. A thriving illicit global trade has drastically reduced tiger populations across its range. Today, fewer than 3,800 tigers exist in the wild, spread across 13 countries in Asia and the Russian Far East. This collaring project is funded by the Bhutan Foundation as part of a long-term project to conserve Bhutan’s mountain tigers." https://bhutanfound.org/ntc-successfully...me-bhutan/ http://www.kuenselonline.com/bhutan-coll...el-zangmo/  (02-21-2018, 09:19 AM)sanjay Wrote: As per my opinion, I think weight wise Bengal are heavier but Amur tigers are little bigger in dimension on an average I agree with Sanjay, from what I've read, the Amur Tiger is always quoted as being larger than any other cat in Captivity, but captivity and the wild are two very different things. Prey density and the higher number of individuals allow African Lions and Bengals to be the heaviest of all big cats, but if Amurs were able to thrive as compared to the aforementioned other two cats, I have little doubt that they could surpass both in weight. But I think Amurs live a much harsher lifestyle than the other two so individuals will have a large weight range throughout their life. Winter months would see much heavier cats compared to the summer months, you see this in the Lions and Tigers now but it'd be much more exaggerated in Amurs that would need to put on weight to maintain warmth. But all that being said, Amurs will never have the access to amount of prey that Lions and Bengals will, so I doubt that they could ever be as bulky or heavy when compared to the other two on average. 
Thank you for answering!
So the Bengal tiger is deemed the biggest subspecies indeeed. I always found it strange how even some big wildlife channels make the mistake of refering to the Siberian tiger as the biggest tiger. Since we're on the biggest subspecies topic, the Cape lion is thought to have been the biggest lion, right? (Do forgive my many questions, I'm very new to wildlife.)  (02-22-2018, 12:33 AM)Amayas Wrote: Thank you for answering! As concerns the biggest lions we rather evoke the Ngorongoro lions and the South African and Namibian lions... But the Cape lion doesn' t exist anymore. Exterminated at the beginning of the XXth century.  (02-22-2018, 12:33 AM)Amayas Wrote: Thank you for answering! a - Size A discussion about size starts with clarity. We first need to know what we want to know, that is. In big cats, size usually is a result of total length, standing height at the shoulder, weight and skull size. In order to answer questions about 'size', reliable measurements are needed. This means we need to know in what way a big cat was measured. In most cases, this question can't be answered. When we know what method was used, we need information about the one involved. The reason is it isn't easy to measure a big cat. They don't need to be well-trained, but experience in measuring department is important. Furthermore, we need to be sure that only adult big cats were measured and weighed. When you read the first paragraph again, you'll quickly conclude that measurements need to be taken with care. Same for conclusions. b - Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) In order to answer questions about size, we need to distinguish between India and Russia and between captive and wild tigers. India first. A century ago, those who had experience with wild tigers in what was then British India agreed that captive tigers were a mere shadow of their wild relatives. Today, things don't seem to be different in this respect. I saw a few true Indian tigers in circuses, but there are no Indian tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in European zoos. This means we need information from India to answer questions about size. I remember a post from a UK-based keeper in another forum some years ago. When asked about the size of captive Indian tigers, he referred to a study executed in Indian zoos by someone he knew. In the study, if I remember correctly, 19 male Indian tigers ranged between 386-436 pounds (175,09-197,77 kg.). Some time later I found more data in another study executed in Indian zoos. In that study, captive male Indian tigers more or less compared. The heaviest in that study was 210 kg. (464 pounds). If I was to conclude that captive male Indian tigers in Indian zoos average 400-410 pounds (181,44-185,98 kg.), chances are I could be quite close. Here's a bad scan of the study:  *This image is copyright of its original author The trainer of the three male Indian circus tigers I saw said they were about 200 kg. (441-442 pounds). My estimate was 420-430 pounds, but he could have been right as he was well-informed. All three males, well past their prime, were as fit as they come. The reason was exercise. Nearly all big cats I saw in circuses, although often quite old, were healthy. I saw two male tigers in another circus that could have been Panthera tigris tigris as well. They had been weighed shortly before I visited the trainer and averaged about 375 pounds (170,1 kg.). As to wild Indian tigers. A century and a half ago, adult male tigers shot in the Deccan averaged 402 pounds (182,35 kg.). Male tigers shot in Central India by Dunbar-Brander half a century later averaged about 420 pounds (190 kg.). In northern India, males shot by Sir John Hewett and his friends in the same period averaged about 435 pounds (197,32 kg.) and in northeastern India males shot in the last decades of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century averaged just over 460 pounds. Based on details provided by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar (northeastern India) and Sir John Hewett (northern India), I concluded that males in northeastern India could have been 455-460 pounds (206,39-208,66 kg.), whereas those in northern India most probably would have exceeded 475 (215,46 kg.). Males tigers in Nepal, however, most probably topped the list. There's not much about male tigers today. My guess is that Nepal male tigers still top the list. At least two wild males bottomed a 600-pound (272,16 kg.) scale, but the average of male tigers in northern India could be very close as they're no longer hunted. I've seen plenty of male tigers in central India that bottomed a 500-pound (226,80 kg.) scale, but they seem a bit shorter than tigers in northern India. Adult males in northeastern India, about as long as those in Central India, seem to be very robust. There's some evidence that tigers in that part of India hunt rhinos at times. All in all, I'd say that nothing has changed in the last century. Tigers, however, do seem a bit larger (heavier) than a century ago. The reason is quite many live in small, but well-stocked reserves. They also face a lot of competition, especially in central India. Most prime males easily exceed 500 pounds (226,80 kg.), but the average of all could be 440-460 pounds (199,58-208,66 kg.), maybe a bit more. There are, of course, regional differences. Based on what I have, I'd say that northern India and Nepal have the largest wild big cats today. With 'large', I mean total length and weight. Tigers in northeastern India, however, seem to have the biggest skulls. With 'big', I'm not referring to greatest total length, but to width and weight. Wild male Indian tigers could be about 10-12% heavier than their captive relatives, that is. The reason is that only the fittest and most able get to adulthood in wild India. Captive tigers don't have the opportunity to develop into big game specialists. c - Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) A decade ago, a table was published about wild Amur tigers captured in the period 1992-2005 roughly. Males averaged 294 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' and 176-177 kg. (about 389 pounds). The table was polluted to a degree in that 3-4 year old males and 'problem tigers' had been included, but more striking was the lack of large individuals and the limited amount of individual variation. In an email, however, Miquelle wrote that males averaged about 430 pounds. Not much later, a well-known Russian biologist and hunter, Kretzchmar, said he had seen prints of very large individuals. A few years ago, an all-Russian project was started. Some of the males they captured slightly exceeded 200 kg., but they too didn't compare to the giants shot in the first half of the 20th century. The question is if these 'giants' featuring in books written by a number of hunters really existed. A decade ago, biologists decided to go over all reports of Amur tigers they could find. Although most records were dismissed, they concluded that the 'historical average' of males could have been about 215 kg. (475 pounds). The criteria they used were valid, but that doesn't mean that exceptional Amur tigers were a myth. It means that those who reported about exceptional indivduals didn't produce enough to meet the threshold. Some, like Baikov, did, but not in every case. One large male he shot was accepted, but others were not. Most of the exceptional males he shot were dismissed. I'm not saying that the criteria used to get to an opinion were unsound, but they did produce strange results. Example. This male shot by Baikov in 1911 (11.7 'over curves' in total length and 560 pounds) qualified:  *This image is copyright of its original author whereas this tiger shot in 1943 (at east 300 kg.), in spite of the photograph and a desciption in a book published in 1993, didn't:  *This image is copyright of its original author According to one of the hunters present, W.J. Jankowski, this male was at least 300 kg. (662 pounds). In a book published in 1993, however, he wrote the tiger was at least 350 kg. (772 pounds). So what do we have on wild male Amur tigers? Baikov, over a century ago, thought most males (young adults included) ranged between 160-200 kg. (353-443 pounds), but some individuals he shot were much heavier. At least one of them was well over 700 pounds. The Jankowskis, half a century later, confirmed that exceptional males could exceed 300 kg. After 1970, biologists noticed a decline in size. Today, according to Miquelle, wild males average 430 pounds (195 kg.). If young adult males and problem tigers are included, however, the average drops to 389 pounds (176,45 kg.). Based on what I saw and have, captive male Amur tigers are the largest big cats by a margin. Some of our members dug in and posted a number of tables. The averages they found show that adult males average 215-220 kg. (475-487 pounds), maybe a bit less. If you have another look at the information above, you'll find that this is the 'historical weight' of wild male Amur tigers a century ago. d - Indian and Amur tigers compared Compared to wild male Indian tigers shot 150-100 years ago, wild male Amur tigers shot in the same period seemed to have been a bit longer and heavier. Every now and then, exceptional individuals exceeding 700 pounds were shot. If we include the total number of tigers in British India and northeastern Asia, my guess is that a hunter interested in exceptional individuals would have preferred to visit northeastern Asia. According to U. Karanth, adult male tigers captured in India, Nepal and Russia today more or less compare in size. Adult males range between 270-310 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' in all three regions. Male tigers in India and, in particular, Nepal, however, are significantly heavier than male tigers in Russia. In captive tigers, it's the other way round. Male Amur tigers are longer, taller, longer-skulled and heavier than male Indian tigers. In weight, they seem to compare to the 'historic average' of wild male tigers shot a century ago in Russia and northern China. I measured a number of skulls of captive Indian and Amur tigers. Skulls of Amur tigers are longer (greatest total length), but skulls of Indian tigers often are wider and a bit more robust. e - African Lion (Panthera leo) One of the few who, accuracywise, compared to Dunbar-Brander, Sir John Hewett and the Maharajah of Cooch Behar was Stevenson-Hamilton. The male lions he shot in South Africa (just under 9 feet in total length 'between pegs') were a bit shorter than tigers shot in most parts of India. Unfortunately, he only weighed 5 males, of which one was gorged. In weight, compared to male tigers shot in central parts of India (Dunbar Brander), these 5 lacked 34 pounds. If we use the average of male tigers shot in all four regions mentioned above 100-150 years ago (402, 420, 435 and 461), the difference is 43 pounds (429-386). Some years ago I read an article about Kruger lions. In one part of the region, males, as a result of a disease, averaged about 400 pounds. In the part that wasn't affected, they averaged about 200 kg. (442 pounds). In another study, males in the same region, corrected for stomach content, averaged 413-414 pounds (187,34-187,79 kg.). Unfortunately, we can't compare them to Indian tigers today, but if we use the conclusion on Indian tigers above (440-460 pounds, maybe a bit more), the difference between male tigers in central India and male lions in Kruger seems to compare with the difference a century ago. I always thought that Kalahari lions were a bit taller and longer than Kruger lions. In the past few years, information about the length and weight of Namibian lions was posted by one of our posters (The Lioness). Ten male lions averaged 199 kg. (440 pounds), but 8 of them were baited before they were weighed and these 8 thrived on domestic animals. The 2 males that lived in a large enclosure averaged just under 400 pounds (181,44 kg.). In total length measured 'over curves', 6 males averaged 297,4 cm. (range 246-335). The females were even more impressive. Five of them averaged 274,6 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' (just over 9 feet). As long as wild Amur tigresses, that is. Do the methods used to measure Amur tigers and Kalahari lions compare? I don't know. I do know the Kalahari lions are large animals. This male was 203 kg. (408 pounds):  *This image is copyright of its original author Skull size is another way to express size. Here's a table posted before. Although only a few skulls from animals shot in northern Africa were measured, they top the list (males and females):  *This image is copyright of its original author Does this mean that Atlas lions were large animals, larger than Kruger lions? Atlas lions disappeared in the forties and fifties of the last century. The last individuals could have been shot during the conflict in Algeria. I never found anything suggesting they outsized lions in other regions and was a bit surprised when I saw the table above. There is a thread about Atlas lions. The photographs I posted suggest Atlas lions could have been a bit smaller than average, but the males were large-skulled. In this respect, they could have compared to Indian lions (P. leo persica). Male lions in India average 360-370 pounds (163,30-167,83 kg.), but they have relatively large skulls: Atlas lion (Algeria, 1902):  *This image is copyright of its original author Subadult male London Zoo 1896:  *This image is copyright of its original author Northern Africa. Adult male:  *This image is copyright of its original author Captive male Indian lion:  *This image is copyright of its original author As to captive lions. There's no such thing as an 'African lion'. They range in size in different regions and individual variation is pronounced. The longest skull I measured was from Abessynia (now Ethiopia), but I also saw large skulls from Congo. V. Mazak (1983) thought an average male was about 170 kg. (375 pounds), but recent information suggests that 175-180 kg. (386-388 pounds) could be closer to the mark. If so, I'd say that an average captive male is a bit heavier. Some of our members produced a few tables. My guess is that an average adult captive male is closer to 420 pounds (190 kg.) than to 400. The reason is less competition for food, less famines and, foodwise, more opportunity to get to the potential. The heaviest I saw was a white male from a facility in South Africa. He was just over 600 pounds. Another male, measured by Dr. P. van Bree, was 300,7 cm. in total length 'between pegs'. This male was 280 kg. (618 pounds). His skull was just under 15 inches in greatest total length. f - Lions and tigers compared In total length, Nepal and northern India tigers top the list. Namibian lions could (not sure about the method used) come second, followed by Amur tigers and tigers in northeastern India. Namibian lions could be the tallest, but there's nothing about tigers in northern India and Nepal. Tigers in central and southern India are third. In weight, Nepal and northern India come first, followed by northeastern India. Central India third. Kruger lions have the longest skulls (too few skulls from northern Africa to get to an opinion), followed by Amur tigers. Tigers in northeastern India could have the widest and heaviest skulls, but there's nothing about Crater lions. In captive big cats, Amur tigers top all tables (height at the shoulder, total length and weight), but I'm not sure about skulls. Could be similar as in wild big cats in the end. Captive African lions could be a bit heavier (10-20 pounds) than captive Indian tigers. Exceptional lions almost compare to exceptional tigers, but tigers do it more often and they also top the list for absolutes. g - Trips to wild Africa, wild India and Russia Poster PC was in Africa and central India. He didn't see a lot of difference in males (male tigers a bit more muscular, but lions about as robust), but was quite impressed by the Indian females. There's a thread in which he posts about the things he saw. Recommended. If anyone is planning a trip, I would advice Kruger, Namibia, northern India, Nepal and Russia. My guess is the Russians are a bit underestimated. Things have changed in Russia. In a few years, Amur tigers will have 200 000 square km. at their disposal, which is unheard of today. Although they hunt deer and wild boars foremost, bears top the list in some regions in summer. In a recent study, biologists said they might have to adjust a few things in the bear department. h - Big cats compared to humans As to size. This photograph was posted by one of our mods (Rishi). It shows a male tiger that was collared in 2007 in central India. He almost bottomed a 500-pound scale. If you read reports about big cats of that weight, remember the photograph. A big cat of that weight is a very large animal:  *This image is copyright of its original author Male tiger found dead in Shadol, India (Nov. 2017):  *This image is copyright of its original author One more to finish the post. Northern India and bigger than the tigers above:  *This image is copyright of its original author
@peter Thank you so much for the detailed post. It's making things much clearer for me as beginner, thank you!
It also shows just how hard and ambiguous it is to study these creatures. Researchers definitely need more attention and funding. I love the last picture though. Tiger biceps never fail to impress!
I just spoke with someone who works for a Tiger Reserve
His Responses below: "The largest Tigers he's weighed are 345kgs and 13.3 feet and he also said he has one that weighed almost 400kg " When I asked if these were estimates or he weighed them on a scale he said a scale. Now I know these numbers seem crazy, I asked him for an image of the large Tigers and obliged with one of the largest looking males I have ever seen. The male is shown with a female and the female aged 6 and weighed almost 180kg "Thats my male infront of six years old age tigress almost 180 kgs now you can think of his size" and the male makes her look like a cub. Out of respect for his wishes I promised not to share the image in public since the images are from his camera trap and he doesn't want the location getting out. "But plz don't share i dont my tat tier to be poached i need his jeans" All I can say is that the reserve is in the Terai Arc area and he has many images of him working with wildlife on his FB page. There are a few of you I'd be willing to share the image with and the name of the person (DM me). But the others who I cannot, just know that I've been viewing big cats for a long time and I'd like to think that I'm a trustworthy person when it comes to information so trust me when I tell you that the person and tiger photo are very legit. Obviously this isn't "verified" per say and the numbers seem extreme but taking the source and the image into account, I'm not willing to completely disregard it.  (03-20-2018, 10:52 PM)Pckts Wrote: I just spoke with someone who works for a Tiger Reserve WOOOW!!!  This post should get more attention...Ok. Could you please PM me his name. I'd better follow him on FB.  
Thats some very rare information and I think must be cross verified from other sources as well. Pckts you have done amazing job, but I will say keep verifying them from different sources
Peter,
I respect a lot your commentaries but there are some things that I do not understand. We have now many confirmed weight of many wild Bengals and almost all of them - I think Gabbar, from Tadoba, is the only exception - easily crossed the 200kg barrier . For example, T-24 from Ranth was 240kg, subadult Bheema from Kanha was 225kg, etc. The list is long and I believe you have already seen it in Wildfact. So, tigers nowadays must be considerably bigger than before . Do you have some data comparing South and Central tigers ?? South reserves are very good, with nice prey density, why South tigers should be smaller ?? Is there any genetic explanation ? In my opinion, Central and South are equal and they might have a minimum average of 215-220kg, North 225-230kg and Northeast still bigger and stronger. Assam tigers look to be absolutely monsters !!! I still believe that there are some very large Siberians. Many captured animals were injured or sick. In the last russian census the scientists saw some very big footprints. I would not be surprised at all if wild Siberians in their prime are still as heavy as wild Bengals.  
Pckts says: I just spoke with someone who works for a Tiger Reserve
His Responses below: "The largest Tigers he's weighed are 345kgs and 13.3 feet and he also said he has one that weighed almost 400kg " 345 kg = 760.59 pounds. 400 kg = 881.85 pounds. I am interested in seeing where this leads. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |