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.
(12-16-2019, 04:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the record tigers, a wide point of view:
Since I have started my study on tigers, I have manage to read several sources on tiger biology, ecology and evolution, and about tiger size, all except one (Dinerstein, 2003) says that Amur tigers were the biggest and quote incredible figures of over 300 kg. However it was in 2005 that Dr Slaght (an owl expert) and others published a chapter in the Amur tiger monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project and they concluded that all the figures over 260 kg in litterature were not reliable, quoted without backup or simple imposible to verify. The best example is the figure of a tiger hunted by Baikov, the male was of 325 kg and is quoted by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but the team decided that was not reliable as they could not found the original source. At the end, they downgraded the Amur tiger and now is considered second in size to the Bengal tiger, with a maximum reliable weight of 254 kg. Some sources still quote the Amur tiger as the biggest, but to the "initiated circles" that is no longer a realiable fact.
Now, what happen with the Bengal tiger, the new king of tigers? Well, if we use the sources of Mazák (1981), Sunquist (2010), Karanth (2013) and Hunter (2015), they all conclude that the male Bengal tiger, in mainland, weight between 180 to 260 kg (Karanth (2013) put a lower figure of 175 kg, but that is because he is including all South Asia and that figure came from an Indochinese tiger quoted by Pocock (1939)), with the current record of 261 kg for a Nepalese tiger. However, the correct information is that two males captured in Nepal (M105 and M126) weighed over 272 kg and the calculated figure of 261 kg is bases in a chest girth equation; personally I calculated that "empty belly" those males weighed no less than 260 kg, and that is the current figure accepted as the normal maximum for the Bengal tiger.
But, that is the maximum that the tiger from the Indian subcontinent can reach? Apparently that is not the case. There are some records that shows tigers of over 600 lb and more, much more! The following list summarize the males that I could get from litterature, of tigers clasified as "exceptional" for they huge size. Take in count that while I put the top figure for males at 272 kg, this is based in the two Nepalese male tigers and that probably they had some stomach content, other male hunted in Gwalior weighed 590 lb (268 kg) and although it was attracted with a bait, the animal was searched and hunted the entire day, and based in the fact that the tiger did not eat during those more than 10 hours of hunt, the animal was practically "empty" when they hunt them (Singh,1959). Here is the list of the records from India and Nepal, is not a particularly long one:
1 - 272 kg (600 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, in 1914. The total length was reported at 11 ft and 6.5 in (352 cm), obvioulsy taken "over curves" (Singh, 1970).
2 - 276 kg (608 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by the Kumar of Bikaner, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 2 in (310 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
3 - 281 kg (620 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by H. H. Sir Mahabat Khan Nawab, no date was mentioned. The total length was reported at 10 ft 3 in (313 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Vernay, 1930).
4 - 292 kg (645 lb) male hunted in Kumaon by E. H. Morbey, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 6 in (320 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
5 - 318 kg (700 lb) male hunted in Central Provinces by Captain M. D. Goring-Jones, probably before 1907. Total length reported as 9 ft 11.5 in (304 cm), probably taken "between pegs" (tail of 94 cm), skull of 362 mm X 267 mm and a weight of 5.2 lb (Rowland Ward, 1907).
6 - 320 kg (720 lb) male hunted in Chitwan, Nepal, by the Maharaha Joodha of Nepal. Total length reported as 10 ft 9 in (328 cm) taken "round the curves" (Smythies, 1942).
This list exhaust all the huge tigers in my database, if some one here have more records, feel free to post them. Appart from tigers 2 and 4, I have the original sources from the records.
From a list of 173 male Bengal tigers, 7 of them are clasified as "exceptional" and one of them is the Smithsonian tiger of 389 kg, which I no longer believe is entirely reiable. The other 166 males are the ones that I used for my normal list. These 7 males represent only about 4% of the sample, which shows how rare are animals of these dimentions. However, are these tigers really imposible to exist?
If we take this range of sizes, between 272 to 320 kg, there is a diference between 12 and 60 kg from the current highest figure of 260 kg. However, at least the tigers 3 and 6 are described as has been actually weighed, while those of Rowland Ward are still open to aceptance, as the males 2, 4 and 5 only appear in this series of books. Tiger 1 was just reported by Colonel Singh, but he did not saw it. There is other fact, the tigers from Gwalior were all hunted by dignataries and royalness, and were all probably baited, as the hunt for the tiger of 590 lb describe. We know that male tigers can eat up to 34 kg in one sit (Tamang, 1982), but in a normal bait they can eat between 14 to 19 kg (Sunquist, 1981). So, what happen if we adjust those "huge" males:
1 - 272 - 14-19 kg = 253 - 258 kg -- or as low as 238 kg (-34 kg).
2 - 276 - 14-19 kg = 257 - 262 kg -- or as low as 242 kg (-34 kg).
3 - 281 - 14-19 kg = 262 - 267 kg -- or as low as 247 kg (-34 kg).
4 - 292 - 14-19 kg = 273 - 278 kg -- or as low as 258 kg (-34 kg).
5 - 318 - 14-19 kg = 299 - 304 kg -- or as low as 284 kg (-34 kg).
6 - 320 - 14-19 kg = 301 - 306 kg -- or as low as 286 kg (-34 kg).
Under this conception, we can estimate that IF all these male tigers were baited, the empty belly weight could be between 255 to 303 kg, still exceptional but not completelly out of question, and if the tigers were fully gorged, which was probably not the case, these males could weight between 238 to 286 kg, lower but closer figures to the current record. Now, taking in count that the males 3 and 6 were actually weighed and vouched by persons that we can quote as real experts, the figures of 264 kg and 303 kg for these two males "empty belly" is completelly plausible and open the door to the corroboration that tigers up to 300 kg could exist.
Now, we know that the acceptance of these records will be always open to debate as none of them came from a first hand source and those that were actually witnessed are the male of 590 lb from Gwalior (Singh, 1959) and the two males from Chitwan of over 600 lb (Dinerstein, 2003). In this form we could concluded that "empty belly", a male tiger in the Indian subcontinent weight somewhat more than 260 kg and can reach up to 300 kg in exceptional cases.
Now, knowing how rare are the big tigers and checking all the posibilities about the existence of exceptionally big tigers, how plausible is the existence of a tiger of over 340 kg in modern times?
There are many conversations with experts in these says, but just a few speak of exceptional specimens out of the normal high figures of 250 - 260 kg, an example is one reported by @Pantherinae with Reuben Matthews about a lion called "Ceasar" in East Africa that apparently weighed "about 284 kg" and now we have other conversation of @Pckts with Wasif Jamshed that mention a tiger of "more than 340 kg". To be honest, from a list of 71 male lions in East Africa, 184 male lions in Southern Africa, 9 from West and North Africa and 11 from India, 275 male lion in total, none reched the 260 kg "empty". So if the figure of "about 284 kg" result to be real, it definitelly include stomach content (the male lion of 272 kg from Kenia was not completelly empty and was a cattle eater and consequently abnormally bulky).
Now, what about the tigers, we have a list of 173 male tigers in India and Nepal, and none of them, appart from the tiger of the Smithsonian, surpass the 320 kg, so is really hard to accept the existence of a tiger of 340 kg, specilaly in modern days. The source which is expert Wasif Jamshed should be credible, but like @Shadow pointed out, his motivations for not disclusing the details are not quite logic. If we accept this tiger, we will like to know if it was "empty belly" or if included some stomach content. For the moment, I am still skeptical with this figure, but let's see if someone can confirm it or not, after all this is the main goal of Wildfact, to uncover the true facts of nature.
Wow... impressive. 340kg does seem a bit of a stretch, but anything is possible so I wouldn't totally count any of these weights out so long as they can be bolstered. I also did not hear Caesar was said to be so big but then again estimates are just that.
Caesar was weighed not estimated after a hippo meal he said. He said first that Caesar weighed 289 kg then 284 kg because he wasn’t 100% sure. He was unable to cantact the guy that had weighed Caesar as he no longer worked there.
That’s the info I got from it. But Caesar was huge and I think everyone that has seen him would agree that he was abnormaly large and bulky to be a lion.
(12-16-2019, 04:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the record tigers, a wide point of view:
Since I have started my study on tigers, I have manage to read several sources on tiger biology, ecology and evolution, and about tiger size, all except one (Dinerstein, 2003) says that Amur tigers were the biggest and quote incredible figures of over 300 kg. However it was in 2005 that Dr Slaght (an owl expert) and others published a chapter in the Amur tiger monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project and they concluded that all the figures over 260 kg in litterature were not reliable, quoted without backup or simple imposible to verify. The best example is the figure of a tiger hunted by Baikov, the male was of 325 kg and is quoted by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but the team decided that was not reliable as they could not found the original source. At the end, they downgraded the Amur tiger and now is considered second in size to the Bengal tiger, with a maximum reliable weight of 254 kg. Some sources still quote the Amur tiger as the biggest, but to the "initiated circles" that is no longer a realiable fact.
Now, what happen with the Bengal tiger, the new king of tigers? Well, if we use the sources of Mazák (1981), Sunquist (2010), Karanth (2013) and Hunter (2015), they all conclude that the male Bengal tiger, in mainland, weight between 180 to 260 kg (Karanth (2013) put a lower figure of 175 kg, but that is because he is including all South Asia and that figure came from an Indochinese tiger quoted by Pocock (1939)), with the current record of 261 kg for a Nepalese tiger. However, the correct information is that two males captured in Nepal (M105 and M126) weighed over 272 kg and the calculated figure of 261 kg is bases in a chest girth equation; personally I calculated that "empty belly" those males weighed no less than 260 kg, and that is the current figure accepted as the normal maximum for the Bengal tiger.
But, that is the maximum that the tiger from the Indian subcontinent can reach? Apparently that is not the case. There are some records that shows tigers of over 600 lb and more, much more! The following list summarize the males that I could get from litterature, of tigers clasified as "exceptional" for they huge size. Take in count that while I put the top figure for males at 272 kg, this is based in the two Nepalese male tigers and that probably they had some stomach content, other male hunted in Gwalior weighed 590 lb (268 kg) and although it was attracted with a bait, the animal was searched and hunted the entire day, and based in the fact that the tiger did not eat during those more than 10 hours of hunt, the animal was practically "empty" when they hunt them (Singh,1959). Here is the list of the records from India and Nepal, is not a particularly long one:
1 - 272 kg (600 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, in 1914. The total length was reported at 11 ft and 6.5 in (352 cm), obvioulsy taken "over curves" (Singh, 1970).
2 - 276 kg (608 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by the Kumar of Bikaner, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 2 in (310 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
3 - 281 kg (620 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by H. H. Sir Mahabat Khan Nawab, no date was mentioned. The total length was reported at 10 ft 3 in (313 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Vernay, 1930).
4 - 292 kg (645 lb) male hunted in Kumaon by E. H. Morbey, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 6 in (320 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
5 - 318 kg (700 lb) male hunted in Central Provinces by Captain M. D. Goring-Jones, probably before 1907. Total length reported as 9 ft 11.5 in (304 cm), probably taken "between pegs" (tail of 94 cm), skull of 362 mm X 267 mm and a weight of 5.2 lb (Rowland Ward, 1907).
6 - 320 kg (720 lb) male hunted in Chitwan, Nepal, by the Maharaha Joodha of Nepal. Total length reported as 10 ft 9 in (328 cm) taken "round the curves" (Smythies, 1942).
This list exhaust all the huge tigers in my database, if some one here have more records, feel free to post them. Appart from tigers 2 and 4, I have the original sources from the records.
From a list of 173 male Bengal tigers, 7 of them are clasified as "exceptional" and one of them is the Smithsonian tiger of 389 kg, which I no longer believe is entirely reiable. The other 166 males are the ones that I used for my normal list. These 7 males represent only about 4% of the sample, which shows how rare are animals of these dimentions. However, are these tigers really imposible to exist?
If we take this range of sizes, between 272 to 320 kg, there is a diference between 12 and 60 kg from the current highest figure of 260 kg. However, at least the tigers 3 and 6 are described as has been actually weighed, while those of Rowland Ward are still open to aceptance, as the males 2, 4 and 5 only appear in this series of books. Tiger 1 was just reported by Colonel Singh, but he did not saw it. There is other fact, the tigers from Gwalior were all hunted by dignataries and royalness, and were all probably baited, as the hunt for the tiger of 590 lb describe. We know that male tigers can eat up to 34 kg in one sit (Tamang, 1982), but in a normal bait they can eat between 14 to 19 kg (Sunquist, 1981). So, what happen if we adjust those "huge" males:
1 - 272 - 14-19 kg = 253 - 258 kg -- or as low as 238 kg (-34 kg).
2 - 276 - 14-19 kg = 257 - 262 kg -- or as low as 242 kg (-34 kg).
3 - 281 - 14-19 kg = 262 - 267 kg -- or as low as 247 kg (-34 kg).
4 - 292 - 14-19 kg = 273 - 278 kg -- or as low as 258 kg (-34 kg).
5 - 318 - 14-19 kg = 299 - 304 kg -- or as low as 284 kg (-34 kg).
6 - 320 - 14-19 kg = 301 - 306 kg -- or as low as 286 kg (-34 kg).
Under this conception, we can estimate that IF all these male tigers were baited, the empty belly weight could be between 255 to 303 kg, still exceptional but not completelly out of question, and if the tigers were fully gorged, which was probably not the case, these males could weight between 238 to 286 kg, lower but closer figures to the current record. Now, taking in count that the males 3 and 6 were actually weighed and vouched by persons that we can quote as real experts, the figures of 264 kg and 303 kg for these two males "empty belly" is completelly plausible and open the door to the corroboration that tigers up to 300 kg could exist.
Now, we know that the acceptance of these records will be always open to debate as none of them came from a first hand source and those that were actually witnessed are the male of 590 lb from Gwalior (Singh, 1959) and the two males from Chitwan of over 600 lb (Dinerstein, 2003). In this form we could concluded that "empty belly", a male tiger in the Indian subcontinent weight somewhat more than 260 kg and can reach up to 300 kg in exceptional cases.
Now, knowing how rare are the big tigers and checking all the posibilities about the existence of exceptionally big tigers, how plausible is the existence of a tiger of over 340 kg in modern times?
There are many conversations with experts in these says, but just a few speak of exceptional specimens out of the normal high figures of 250 - 260 kg, an example is one reported by @Pantherinae with Reuben Matthews about a lion called "Ceasar" in East Africa that apparently weighed "about 284 kg" and now we have other conversation of @Pckts with Wasif Jamshed that mention a tiger of "more than 340 kg". To be honest, from a list of 71 male lions in East Africa, 184 male lions in Southern Africa, 9 from West and North Africa and 11 from India, 275 male lion in total, none reched the 260 kg "empty". So if the figure of "about 284 kg" result to be real, it definitelly include stomach content (the male lion of 272 kg from Kenia was not completelly empty and was a cattle eater and consequently abnormally bulky).
Now, what about the tigers, we have a list of 173 male tigers in India and Nepal, and none of them, appart from the tiger of the Smithsonian, surpass the 320 kg, so is really hard to accept the existence of a tiger of 340 kg, specilaly in modern days. The source which is expert Wasif Jamshed should be credible, but like @Shadow pointed out, his motivations for not disclusing the details are not quite logic. If we accept this tiger, we will like to know if it was "empty belly" or if included some stomach content. For the moment, I am still skeptical with this figure, but let's see if someone can confirm it or not, after all this is the main goal of Wildfact, to uncover the true facts of nature.
Wow... impressive. 340kg does seem a bit of a stretch, but anything is possible so I wouldn't totally count any of these weights out so long as they can be bolstered. I also did not hear Caesar was said to be so big but then again estimates are just that.
Caesar was weighed not estimated after a hippo meal he said. He said first that Caesar weighed 289 kg then 284 kg because he wasn’t 100% sure. He was unable to cantact the guy that had weighed Caesar as he no longer worked there.
That’s the info I got from it. But Caesar was huge and I think everyone that has seen him would agree that he was abnormaly large and bulky to be a lion.
One guy claimed Caesar was weighed but I have not seen anyone confirm this nor have I seen any evidence to back that claim.
(12-16-2019, 04:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the record tigers, a wide point of view:
Since I have started my study on tigers, I have manage to read several sources on tiger biology, ecology and evolution, and about tiger size, all except one (Dinerstein, 2003) says that Amur tigers were the biggest and quote incredible figures of over 300 kg. However it was in 2005 that Dr Slaght (an owl expert) and others published a chapter in the Amur tiger monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project and they concluded that all the figures over 260 kg in litterature were not reliable, quoted without backup or simple imposible to verify. The best example is the figure of a tiger hunted by Baikov, the male was of 325 kg and is quoted by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but the team decided that was not reliable as they could not found the original source. At the end, they downgraded the Amur tiger and now is considered second in size to the Bengal tiger, with a maximum reliable weight of 254 kg. Some sources still quote the Amur tiger as the biggest, but to the "initiated circles" that is no longer a realiable fact.
Now, what happen with the Bengal tiger, the new king of tigers? Well, if we use the sources of Mazák (1981), Sunquist (2010), Karanth (2013) and Hunter (2015), they all conclude that the male Bengal tiger, in mainland, weight between 180 to 260 kg (Karanth (2013) put a lower figure of 175 kg, but that is because he is including all South Asia and that figure came from an Indochinese tiger quoted by Pocock (1939)), with the current record of 261 kg for a Nepalese tiger. However, the correct information is that two males captured in Nepal (M105 and M126) weighed over 272 kg and the calculated figure of 261 kg is bases in a chest girth equation; personally I calculated that "empty belly" those males weighed no less than 260 kg, and that is the current figure accepted as the normal maximum for the Bengal tiger.
But, that is the maximum that the tiger from the Indian subcontinent can reach? Apparently that is not the case. There are some records that shows tigers of over 600 lb and more, much more! The following list summarize the males that I could get from litterature, of tigers clasified as "exceptional" for they huge size. Take in count that while I put the top figure for males at 272 kg, this is based in the two Nepalese male tigers and that probably they had some stomach content, other male hunted in Gwalior weighed 590 lb (268 kg) and although it was attracted with a bait, the animal was searched and hunted the entire day, and based in the fact that the tiger did not eat during those more than 10 hours of hunt, the animal was practically "empty" when they hunt them (Singh,1959). Here is the list of the records from India and Nepal, is not a particularly long one:
1 - 272 kg (600 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, in 1914. The total length was reported at 11 ft and 6.5 in (352 cm), obvioulsy taken "over curves" (Singh, 1970).
2 - 276 kg (608 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by the Kumar of Bikaner, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 2 in (310 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
3 - 281 kg (620 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by H. H. Sir Mahabat Khan Nawab, no date was mentioned. The total length was reported at 10 ft 3 in (313 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Vernay, 1930).
4 - 292 kg (645 lb) male hunted in Kumaon by E. H. Morbey, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 6 in (320 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
5 - 318 kg (700 lb) male hunted in Central Provinces by Captain M. D. Goring-Jones, probably before 1907. Total length reported as 9 ft 11.5 in (304 cm), probably taken "between pegs" (tail of 94 cm), skull of 362 mm X 267 mm and a weight of 5.2 lb (Rowland Ward, 1907).
6 - 320 kg (720 lb) male hunted in Chitwan, Nepal, by the Maharaha Joodha of Nepal. Total length reported as 10 ft 9 in (328 cm) taken "round the curves" (Smythies, 1942).
This list exhaust all the huge tigers in my database, if some one here have more records, feel free to post them. Appart from tigers 2 and 4, I have the original sources from the records.
From a list of 173 male Bengal tigers, 7 of them are clasified as "exceptional" and one of them is the Smithsonian tiger of 389 kg, which I no longer believe is entirely reiable. The other 166 males are the ones that I used for my normal list. These 7 males represent only about 4% of the sample, which shows how rare are animals of these dimentions. However, are these tigers really imposible to exist?
If we take this range of sizes, between 272 to 320 kg, there is a diference between 12 and 60 kg from the current highest figure of 260 kg. However, at least the tigers 3 and 6 are described as has been actually weighed, while those of Rowland Ward are still open to aceptance, as the males 2, 4 and 5 only appear in this series of books. Tiger 1 was just reported by Colonel Singh, but he did not saw it. There is other fact, the tigers from Gwalior were all hunted by dignataries and royalness, and were all probably baited, as the hunt for the tiger of 590 lb describe. We know that male tigers can eat up to 34 kg in one sit (Tamang, 1982), but in a normal bait they can eat between 14 to 19 kg (Sunquist, 1981). So, what happen if we adjust those "huge" males:
1 - 272 - 14-19 kg = 253 - 258 kg -- or as low as 238 kg (-34 kg).
2 - 276 - 14-19 kg = 257 - 262 kg -- or as low as 242 kg (-34 kg).
3 - 281 - 14-19 kg = 262 - 267 kg -- or as low as 247 kg (-34 kg).
4 - 292 - 14-19 kg = 273 - 278 kg -- or as low as 258 kg (-34 kg).
5 - 318 - 14-19 kg = 299 - 304 kg -- or as low as 284 kg (-34 kg).
6 - 320 - 14-19 kg = 301 - 306 kg -- or as low as 286 kg (-34 kg).
Under this conception, we can estimate that IF all these male tigers were baited, the empty belly weight could be between 255 to 303 kg, still exceptional but not completelly out of question, and if the tigers were fully gorged, which was probably not the case, these males could weight between 238 to 286 kg, lower but closer figures to the current record. Now, taking in count that the males 3 and 6 were actually weighed and vouched by persons that we can quote as real experts, the figures of 264 kg and 303 kg for these two males "empty belly" is completelly plausible and open the door to the corroboration that tigers up to 300 kg could exist.
Now, we know that the acceptance of these records will be always open to debate as none of them came from a first hand source and those that were actually witnessed are the male of 590 lb from Gwalior (Singh, 1959) and the two males from Chitwan of over 600 lb (Dinerstein, 2003). In this form we could concluded that "empty belly", a male tiger in the Indian subcontinent weight somewhat more than 260 kg and can reach up to 300 kg in exceptional cases.
Now, knowing how rare are the big tigers and checking all the posibilities about the existence of exceptionally big tigers, how plausible is the existence of a tiger of over 340 kg in modern times?
There are many conversations with experts in these says, but just a few speak of exceptional specimens out of the normal high figures of 250 - 260 kg, an example is one reported by @Pantherinae with Reuben Matthews about a lion called "Ceasar" in East Africa that apparently weighed "about 284 kg" and now we have other conversation of @Pckts with Wasif Jamshed that mention a tiger of "more than 340 kg". To be honest, from a list of 71 male lions in East Africa, 184 male lions in Southern Africa, 9 from West and North Africa and 11 from India, 275 male lion in total, none reched the 260 kg "empty". So if the figure of "about 284 kg" result to be real, it definitelly include stomach content (the male lion of 272 kg from Kenia was not completelly empty and was a cattle eater and consequently abnormally bulky).
Now, what about the tigers, we have a list of 173 male tigers in India and Nepal, and none of them, appart from the tiger of the Smithsonian, surpass the 320 kg, so is really hard to accept the existence of a tiger of 340 kg, specilaly in modern days. The source which is expert Wasif Jamshed should be credible, but like @Shadow pointed out, his motivations for not disclusing the details are not quite logic. If we accept this tiger, we will like to know if it was "empty belly" or if included some stomach content. For the moment, I am still skeptical with this figure, but let's see if someone can confirm it or not, after all this is the main goal of Wildfact, to uncover the true facts of nature.
Wow... impressive. 340kg does seem a bit of a stretch, but anything is possible so I wouldn't totally count any of these weights out so long as they can be bolstered. I also did not hear Caesar was said to be so big but then again estimates are just that.
Caesar was weighed not estimated after a hippo meal he said. He said first that Caesar weighed 289 kg then 284 kg because he wasn’t 100% sure. He was unable to cantact the guy that had weighed Caesar as he no longer worked there.
That’s the info I got from it. But Caesar was huge and I think everyone that has seen him would agree that he was abnormaly large and bulky to be a lion.
Still that is very vague source. Someone weighed that lion at some time, but no available information to know more. Now also said, that weighed just after meal and we all know what lions can look like after a good meal :) For me some of them look like almost exploding soon, belly stretched like a balloon.
Of course it´s interesting to hear about possible weights, but for me this tiger case and Caesar create more questions than giving answers. I try to ask again about that tiger, the person I managed to contact concerning tiger weight is quite busy. My hope to get more information in 1-2 days was for sure too optimistic.
What comes to Caesar, I have managed to find a report and photos concerning the case, when he was medically treated, but there was no mention about possible weighing or weight. Difficult to understand what would be so big secret in his weight, especially after his death. If he was weighed by some organization, maybe they could be contacted?
(12-16-2019, 04:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the record tigers, a wide point of view:
Since I have started my study on tigers, I have manage to read several sources on tiger biology, ecology and evolution, and about tiger size, all except one (Dinerstein, 2003) says that Amur tigers were the biggest and quote incredible figures of over 300 kg. However it was in 2005 that Dr Slaght (an owl expert) and others published a chapter in the Amur tiger monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project and they concluded that all the figures over 260 kg in litterature were not reliable, quoted without backup or simple imposible to verify. The best example is the figure of a tiger hunted by Baikov, the male was of 325 kg and is quoted by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but the team decided that was not reliable as they could not found the original source. At the end, they downgraded the Amur tiger and now is considered second in size to the Bengal tiger, with a maximum reliable weight of 254 kg. Some sources still quote the Amur tiger as the biggest, but to the "initiated circles" that is no longer a realiable fact.
Now, what happen with the Bengal tiger, the new king of tigers? Well, if we use the sources of Mazák (1981), Sunquist (2010), Karanth (2013) and Hunter (2015), they all conclude that the male Bengal tiger, in mainland, weight between 180 to 260 kg (Karanth (2013) put a lower figure of 175 kg, but that is because he is including all South Asia and that figure came from an Indochinese tiger quoted by Pocock (1939)), with the current record of 261 kg for a Nepalese tiger. However, the correct information is that two males captured in Nepal (M105 and M126) weighed over 272 kg and the calculated figure of 261 kg is bases in a chest girth equation; personally I calculated that "empty belly" those males weighed no less than 260 kg, and that is the current figure accepted as the normal maximum for the Bengal tiger.
But, that is the maximum that the tiger from the Indian subcontinent can reach? Apparently that is not the case. There are some records that shows tigers of over 600 lb and more, much more! The following list summarize the males that I could get from litterature, of tigers clasified as "exceptional" for they huge size. Take in count that while I put the top figure for males at 272 kg, this is based in the two Nepalese male tigers and that probably they had some stomach content, other male hunted in Gwalior weighed 590 lb (268 kg) and although it was attracted with a bait, the animal was searched and hunted the entire day, and based in the fact that the tiger did not eat during those more than 10 hours of hunt, the animal was practically "empty" when they hunt them (Singh,1959). Here is the list of the records from India and Nepal, is not a particularly long one:
1 - 272 kg (600 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, in 1914. The total length was reported at 11 ft and 6.5 in (352 cm), obvioulsy taken "over curves" (Singh, 1970).
2 - 276 kg (608 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by the Kumar of Bikaner, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 2 in (310 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
3 - 281 kg (620 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by H. H. Sir Mahabat Khan Nawab, no date was mentioned. The total length was reported at 10 ft 3 in (313 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Vernay, 1930).
4 - 292 kg (645 lb) male hunted in Kumaon by E. H. Morbey, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 6 in (320 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
5 - 318 kg (700 lb) male hunted in Central Provinces by Captain M. D. Goring-Jones, probably before 1907. Total length reported as 9 ft 11.5 in (304 cm), probably taken "between pegs" (tail of 94 cm), skull of 362 mm X 267 mm and a weight of 5.2 lb (Rowland Ward, 1907).
6 - 320 kg (720 lb) male hunted in Chitwan, Nepal, by the Maharaha Joodha of Nepal. Total length reported as 10 ft 9 in (328 cm) taken "round the curves" (Smythies, 1942).
This list exhaust all the huge tigers in my database, if some one here have more records, feel free to post them. Appart from tigers 2 and 4, I have the original sources from the records.
From a list of 173 male Bengal tigers, 7 of them are clasified as "exceptional" and one of them is the Smithsonian tiger of 389 kg, which I no longer believe is entirely reiable. The other 166 males are the ones that I used for my normal list. These 7 males represent only about 4% of the sample, which shows how rare are animals of these dimentions. However, are these tigers really imposible to exist?
If we take this range of sizes, between 272 to 320 kg, there is a diference between 12 and 60 kg from the current highest figure of 260 kg. However, at least the tigers 3 and 6 are described as has been actually weighed, while those of Rowland Ward are still open to aceptance, as the males 2, 4 and 5 only appear in this series of books. Tiger 1 was just reported by Colonel Singh, but he did not saw it. There is other fact, the tigers from Gwalior were all hunted by dignataries and royalness, and were all probably baited, as the hunt for the tiger of 590 lb describe. We know that male tigers can eat up to 34 kg in one sit (Tamang, 1982), but in a normal bait they can eat between 14 to 19 kg (Sunquist, 1981). So, what happen if we adjust those "huge" males:
1 - 272 - 14-19 kg = 253 - 258 kg -- or as low as 238 kg (-34 kg).
2 - 276 - 14-19 kg = 257 - 262 kg -- or as low as 242 kg (-34 kg).
3 - 281 - 14-19 kg = 262 - 267 kg -- or as low as 247 kg (-34 kg).
4 - 292 - 14-19 kg = 273 - 278 kg -- or as low as 258 kg (-34 kg).
5 - 318 - 14-19 kg = 299 - 304 kg -- or as low as 284 kg (-34 kg).
6 - 320 - 14-19 kg = 301 - 306 kg -- or as low as 286 kg (-34 kg).
Under this conception, we can estimate that IF all these male tigers were baited, the empty belly weight could be between 255 to 303 kg, still exceptional but not completelly out of question, and if the tigers were fully gorged, which was probably not the case, these males could weight between 238 to 286 kg, lower but closer figures to the current record. Now, taking in count that the males 3 and 6 were actually weighed and vouched by persons that we can quote as real experts, the figures of 264 kg and 303 kg for these two males "empty belly" is completelly plausible and open the door to the corroboration that tigers up to 300 kg could exist.
Now, we know that the acceptance of these records will be always open to debate as none of them came from a first hand source and those that were actually witnessed are the male of 590 lb from Gwalior (Singh, 1959) and the two males from Chitwan of over 600 lb (Dinerstein, 2003). In this form we could concluded that "empty belly", a male tiger in the Indian subcontinent weight somewhat more than 260 kg and can reach up to 300 kg in exceptional cases.
Now, knowing how rare are the big tigers and checking all the posibilities about the existence of exceptionally big tigers, how plausible is the existence of a tiger of over 340 kg in modern times?
There are many conversations with experts in these says, but just a few speak of exceptional specimens out of the normal high figures of 250 - 260 kg, an example is one reported by @Pantherinae with Reuben Matthews about a lion called "Ceasar" in East Africa that apparently weighed "about 284 kg" and now we have other conversation of @Pckts with Wasif Jamshed that mention a tiger of "more than 340 kg". To be honest, from a list of 71 male lions in East Africa, 184 male lions in Southern Africa, 9 from West and North Africa and 11 from India, 275 male lion in total, none reched the 260 kg "empty". So if the figure of "about 284 kg" result to be real, it definitelly include stomach content (the male lion of 272 kg from Kenia was not completelly empty and was a cattle eater and consequently abnormally bulky).
Now, what about the tigers, we have a list of 173 male tigers in India and Nepal, and none of them, appart from the tiger of the Smithsonian, surpass the 320 kg, so is really hard to accept the existence of a tiger of 340 kg, specilaly in modern days. The source which is expert Wasif Jamshed should be credible, but like @Shadow pointed out, his motivations for not disclusing the details are not quite logic. If we accept this tiger, we will like to know if it was "empty belly" or if included some stomach content. For the moment, I am still skeptical with this figure, but let's see if someone can confirm it or not, after all this is the main goal of Wildfact, to uncover the true facts of nature.
Wow... impressive. 340kg does seem a bit of a stretch, but anything is possible so I wouldn't totally count any of these weights out so long as they can be bolstered. I also did not hear Caesar was said to be so big but then again estimates are just that.
Caesar was weighed not estimated after a hippo meal he said. He said first that Caesar weighed 289 kg then 284 kg because he wasn’t 100% sure. He was unable to cantact the guy that had weighed Caesar as he no longer worked there.
That’s the info I got from it. But Caesar was huge and I think everyone that has seen him would agree that he was abnormaly large and bulky to be a lion.
Still that is very vague source. Someone weighed that lion at some time, but no available information to know more. Now also said, that weighed just after meal and we all know what lions can look like after a good meal :) For me some of them look like almost exploding soon, belly stretched like a balloon.
Of course it´s interesting to hear about possible weights, but for me this tiger case and Caesar create more questions than giving answers. I try to ask again about that tiger, the person I managed to contact concerning tiger weight is quite busy. My hope to get more information in 1-2 days was for sure too optimistic.
What comes to Caesar, I have managed to find a report and photos concerning the case, when he was medically treated, but there was no mention about possible weighing or weight. Difficult to understand what would be so big secret in his weight, especially after his death. If he was weighed by some organization, maybe they could be contacted?
Reuben Mathews, who is the one who claimed it has no connection to any organization, he's simply a photographer and guide.
Here is Caesar next a Land Cruiser
*This image is copyright of its original author
and him being treated
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I saw no scales during the procedure so I doubt they even weighed him.
(12-16-2019, 04:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the record tigers, a wide point of view:
Since I have started my study on tigers, I have manage to read several sources on tiger biology, ecology and evolution, and about tiger size, all except one (Dinerstein, 2003) says that Amur tigers were the biggest and quote incredible figures of over 300 kg. However it was in 2005 that Dr Slaght (an owl expert) and others published a chapter in the Amur tiger monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project and they concluded that all the figures over 260 kg in litterature were not reliable, quoted without backup or simple imposible to verify. The best example is the figure of a tiger hunted by Baikov, the male was of 325 kg and is quoted by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but the team decided that was not reliable as they could not found the original source. At the end, they downgraded the Amur tiger and now is considered second in size to the Bengal tiger, with a maximum reliable weight of 254 kg. Some sources still quote the Amur tiger as the biggest, but to the "initiated circles" that is no longer a realiable fact.
Now, what happen with the Bengal tiger, the new king of tigers? Well, if we use the sources of Mazák (1981), Sunquist (2010), Karanth (2013) and Hunter (2015), they all conclude that the male Bengal tiger, in mainland, weight between 180 to 260 kg (Karanth (2013) put a lower figure of 175 kg, but that is because he is including all South Asia and that figure came from an Indochinese tiger quoted by Pocock (1939)), with the current record of 261 kg for a Nepalese tiger. However, the correct information is that two males captured in Nepal (M105 and M126) weighed over 272 kg and the calculated figure of 261 kg is bases in a chest girth equation; personally I calculated that "empty belly" those males weighed no less than 260 kg, and that is the current figure accepted as the normal maximum for the Bengal tiger.
But, that is the maximum that the tiger from the Indian subcontinent can reach? Apparently that is not the case. There are some records that shows tigers of over 600 lb and more, much more! The following list summarize the males that I could get from litterature, of tigers clasified as "exceptional" for they huge size. Take in count that while I put the top figure for males at 272 kg, this is based in the two Nepalese male tigers and that probably they had some stomach content, other male hunted in Gwalior weighed 590 lb (268 kg) and although it was attracted with a bait, the animal was searched and hunted the entire day, and based in the fact that the tiger did not eat during those more than 10 hours of hunt, the animal was practically "empty" when they hunt them (Singh,1959). Here is the list of the records from India and Nepal, is not a particularly long one:
1 - 272 kg (600 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, in 1914. The total length was reported at 11 ft and 6.5 in (352 cm), obvioulsy taken "over curves" (Singh, 1970).
2 - 276 kg (608 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by the Kumar of Bikaner, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 2 in (310 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
3 - 281 kg (620 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by H. H. Sir Mahabat Khan Nawab, no date was mentioned. The total length was reported at 10 ft 3 in (313 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Vernay, 1930).
4 - 292 kg (645 lb) male hunted in Kumaon by E. H. Morbey, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 6 in (320 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
5 - 318 kg (700 lb) male hunted in Central Provinces by Captain M. D. Goring-Jones, probably before 1907. Total length reported as 9 ft 11.5 in (304 cm), probably taken "between pegs" (tail of 94 cm), skull of 362 mm X 267 mm and a weight of 5.2 lb (Rowland Ward, 1907).
6 - 320 kg (720 lb) male hunted in Chitwan, Nepal, by the Maharaha Joodha of Nepal. Total length reported as 10 ft 9 in (328 cm) taken "round the curves" (Smythies, 1942).
This list exhaust all the huge tigers in my database, if some one here have more records, feel free to post them. Appart from tigers 2 and 4, I have the original sources from the records.
From a list of 173 male Bengal tigers, 7 of them are clasified as "exceptional" and one of them is the Smithsonian tiger of 389 kg, which I no longer believe is entirely reiable. The other 166 males are the ones that I used for my normal list. These 7 males represent only about 4% of the sample, which shows how rare are animals of these dimentions. However, are these tigers really imposible to exist?
If we take this range of sizes, between 272 to 320 kg, there is a diference between 12 and 60 kg from the current highest figure of 260 kg. However, at least the tigers 3 and 6 are described as has been actually weighed, while those of Rowland Ward are still open to aceptance, as the males 2, 4 and 5 only appear in this series of books. Tiger 1 was just reported by Colonel Singh, but he did not saw it. There is other fact, the tigers from Gwalior were all hunted by dignataries and royalness, and were all probably baited, as the hunt for the tiger of 590 lb describe. We know that male tigers can eat up to 34 kg in one sit (Tamang, 1982), but in a normal bait they can eat between 14 to 19 kg (Sunquist, 1981). So, what happen if we adjust those "huge" males:
1 - 272 - 14-19 kg = 253 - 258 kg -- or as low as 238 kg (-34 kg).
2 - 276 - 14-19 kg = 257 - 262 kg -- or as low as 242 kg (-34 kg).
3 - 281 - 14-19 kg = 262 - 267 kg -- or as low as 247 kg (-34 kg).
4 - 292 - 14-19 kg = 273 - 278 kg -- or as low as 258 kg (-34 kg).
5 - 318 - 14-19 kg = 299 - 304 kg -- or as low as 284 kg (-34 kg).
6 - 320 - 14-19 kg = 301 - 306 kg -- or as low as 286 kg (-34 kg).
Under this conception, we can estimate that IF all these male tigers were baited, the empty belly weight could be between 255 to 303 kg, still exceptional but not completelly out of question, and if the tigers were fully gorged, which was probably not the case, these males could weight between 238 to 286 kg, lower but closer figures to the current record. Now, taking in count that the males 3 and 6 were actually weighed and vouched by persons that we can quote as real experts, the figures of 264 kg and 303 kg for these two males "empty belly" is completelly plausible and open the door to the corroboration that tigers up to 300 kg could exist.
Now, we know that the acceptance of these records will be always open to debate as none of them came from a first hand source and those that were actually witnessed are the male of 590 lb from Gwalior (Singh, 1959) and the two males from Chitwan of over 600 lb (Dinerstein, 2003). In this form we could concluded that "empty belly", a male tiger in the Indian subcontinent weight somewhat more than 260 kg and can reach up to 300 kg in exceptional cases.
Now, knowing how rare are the big tigers and checking all the posibilities about the existence of exceptionally big tigers, how plausible is the existence of a tiger of over 340 kg in modern times?
There are many conversations with experts in these says, but just a few speak of exceptional specimens out of the normal high figures of 250 - 260 kg, an example is one reported by @Pantherinae with Reuben Matthews about a lion called "Ceasar" in East Africa that apparently weighed "about 284 kg" and now we have other conversation of @Pckts with Wasif Jamshed that mention a tiger of "more than 340 kg". To be honest, from a list of 71 male lions in East Africa, 184 male lions in Southern Africa, 9 from West and North Africa and 11 from India, 275 male lion in total, none reched the 260 kg "empty". So if the figure of "about 284 kg" result to be real, it definitelly include stomach content (the male lion of 272 kg from Kenia was not completelly empty and was a cattle eater and consequently abnormally bulky).
Now, what about the tigers, we have a list of 173 male tigers in India and Nepal, and none of them, appart from the tiger of the Smithsonian, surpass the 320 kg, so is really hard to accept the existence of a tiger of 340 kg, specilaly in modern days. The source which is expert Wasif Jamshed should be credible, but like @Shadow pointed out, his motivations for not disclusing the details are not quite logic. If we accept this tiger, we will like to know if it was "empty belly" or if included some stomach content. For the moment, I am still skeptical with this figure, but let's see if someone can confirm it or not, after all this is the main goal of Wildfact, to uncover the true facts of nature.
Wow... impressive. 340kg does seem a bit of a stretch, but anything is possible so I wouldn't totally count any of these weights out so long as they can be bolstered. I also did not hear Caesar was said to be so big but then again estimates are just that.
Caesar was weighed not estimated after a hippo meal he said. He said first that Caesar weighed 289 kg then 284 kg because he wasn’t 100% sure. He was unable to cantact the guy that had weighed Caesar as he no longer worked there.
That’s the info I got from it. But Caesar was huge and I think everyone that has seen him would agree that he was abnormaly large and bulky to be a lion.
Still that is very vague source. Someone weighed that lion at some time, but no available information to know more. Now also said, that weighed just after meal and we all know what lions can look like after a good meal :) For me some of them look like almost exploding soon, belly stretched like a balloon.
Of course it´s interesting to hear about possible weights, but for me this tiger case and Caesar create more questions than giving answers. I try to ask again about that tiger, the person I managed to contact concerning tiger weight is quite busy. My hope to get more information in 1-2 days was for sure too optimistic.
What comes to Caesar, I have managed to find a report and photos concerning the case, when he was medically treated, but there was no mention about possible weighing or weight. Difficult to understand what would be so big secret in his weight, especially after his death. If he was weighed by some organization, maybe they could be contacted?
Reuben Mathews, who is the one who claimed it has no connection to any organization, he's simply a photographer and guide.
Here is Caesar next a Land Cruiser
*This image is copyright of its original author
and him being treated
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I saw no scales during the procedure so I doubt they even weighed him.
That was not the incident where he was weighed. I think it was when his testicles where treated, but this is not the same incident.
(12-16-2019, 04:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the record tigers, a wide point of view:
Since I have started my study on tigers, I have manage to read several sources on tiger biology, ecology and evolution, and about tiger size, all except one (Dinerstein, 2003) says that Amur tigers were the biggest and quote incredible figures of over 300 kg. However it was in 2005 that Dr Slaght (an owl expert) and others published a chapter in the Amur tiger monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project and they concluded that all the figures over 260 kg in litterature were not reliable, quoted without backup or simple imposible to verify. The best example is the figure of a tiger hunted by Baikov, the male was of 325 kg and is quoted by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but the team decided that was not reliable as they could not found the original source. At the end, they downgraded the Amur tiger and now is considered second in size to the Bengal tiger, with a maximum reliable weight of 254 kg. Some sources still quote the Amur tiger as the biggest, but to the "initiated circles" that is no longer a realiable fact.
Now, what happen with the Bengal tiger, the new king of tigers? Well, if we use the sources of Mazák (1981), Sunquist (2010), Karanth (2013) and Hunter (2015), they all conclude that the male Bengal tiger, in mainland, weight between 180 to 260 kg (Karanth (2013) put a lower figure of 175 kg, but that is because he is including all South Asia and that figure came from an Indochinese tiger quoted by Pocock (1939)), with the current record of 261 kg for a Nepalese tiger. However, the correct information is that two males captured in Nepal (M105 and M126) weighed over 272 kg and the calculated figure of 261 kg is bases in a chest girth equation; personally I calculated that "empty belly" those males weighed no less than 260 kg, and that is the current figure accepted as the normal maximum for the Bengal tiger.
But, that is the maximum that the tiger from the Indian subcontinent can reach? Apparently that is not the case. There are some records that shows tigers of over 600 lb and more, much more! The following list summarize the males that I could get from litterature, of tigers clasified as "exceptional" for they huge size. Take in count that while I put the top figure for males at 272 kg, this is based in the two Nepalese male tigers and that probably they had some stomach content, other male hunted in Gwalior weighed 590 lb (268 kg) and although it was attracted with a bait, the animal was searched and hunted the entire day, and based in the fact that the tiger did not eat during those more than 10 hours of hunt, the animal was practically "empty" when they hunt them (Singh,1959). Here is the list of the records from India and Nepal, is not a particularly long one:
1 - 272 kg (600 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, in 1914. The total length was reported at 11 ft and 6.5 in (352 cm), obvioulsy taken "over curves" (Singh, 1970).
2 - 276 kg (608 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by the Kumar of Bikaner, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 2 in (310 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
3 - 281 kg (620 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by H. H. Sir Mahabat Khan Nawab, no date was mentioned. The total length was reported at 10 ft 3 in (313 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Vernay, 1930).
4 - 292 kg (645 lb) male hunted in Kumaon by E. H. Morbey, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 6 in (320 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
5 - 318 kg (700 lb) male hunted in Central Provinces by Captain M. D. Goring-Jones, probably before 1907. Total length reported as 9 ft 11.5 in (304 cm), probably taken "between pegs" (tail of 94 cm), skull of 362 mm X 267 mm and a weight of 5.2 lb (Rowland Ward, 1907).
6 - 320 kg (720 lb) male hunted in Chitwan, Nepal, by the Maharaha Joodha of Nepal. Total length reported as 10 ft 9 in (328 cm) taken "round the curves" (Smythies, 1942).
This list exhaust all the huge tigers in my database, if some one here have more records, feel free to post them. Appart from tigers 2 and 4, I have the original sources from the records.
From a list of 173 male Bengal tigers, 7 of them are clasified as "exceptional" and one of them is the Smithsonian tiger of 389 kg, which I no longer believe is entirely reiable. The other 166 males are the ones that I used for my normal list. These 7 males represent only about 4% of the sample, which shows how rare are animals of these dimentions. However, are these tigers really imposible to exist?
If we take this range of sizes, between 272 to 320 kg, there is a diference between 12 and 60 kg from the current highest figure of 260 kg. However, at least the tigers 3 and 6 are described as has been actually weighed, while those of Rowland Ward are still open to aceptance, as the males 2, 4 and 5 only appear in this series of books. Tiger 1 was just reported by Colonel Singh, but he did not saw it. There is other fact, the tigers from Gwalior were all hunted by dignataries and royalness, and were all probably baited, as the hunt for the tiger of 590 lb describe. We know that male tigers can eat up to 34 kg in one sit (Tamang, 1982), but in a normal bait they can eat between 14 to 19 kg (Sunquist, 1981). So, what happen if we adjust those "huge" males:
1 - 272 - 14-19 kg = 253 - 258 kg -- or as low as 238 kg (-34 kg).
2 - 276 - 14-19 kg = 257 - 262 kg -- or as low as 242 kg (-34 kg).
3 - 281 - 14-19 kg = 262 - 267 kg -- or as low as 247 kg (-34 kg).
4 - 292 - 14-19 kg = 273 - 278 kg -- or as low as 258 kg (-34 kg).
5 - 318 - 14-19 kg = 299 - 304 kg -- or as low as 284 kg (-34 kg).
6 - 320 - 14-19 kg = 301 - 306 kg -- or as low as 286 kg (-34 kg).
Under this conception, we can estimate that IF all these male tigers were baited, the empty belly weight could be between 255 to 303 kg, still exceptional but not completelly out of question, and if the tigers were fully gorged, which was probably not the case, these males could weight between 238 to 286 kg, lower but closer figures to the current record. Now, taking in count that the males 3 and 6 were actually weighed and vouched by persons that we can quote as real experts, the figures of 264 kg and 303 kg for these two males "empty belly" is completelly plausible and open the door to the corroboration that tigers up to 300 kg could exist.
Now, we know that the acceptance of these records will be always open to debate as none of them came from a first hand source and those that were actually witnessed are the male of 590 lb from Gwalior (Singh, 1959) and the two males from Chitwan of over 600 lb (Dinerstein, 2003). In this form we could concluded that "empty belly", a male tiger in the Indian subcontinent weight somewhat more than 260 kg and can reach up to 300 kg in exceptional cases.
Now, knowing how rare are the big tigers and checking all the posibilities about the existence of exceptionally big tigers, how plausible is the existence of a tiger of over 340 kg in modern times?
There are many conversations with experts in these says, but just a few speak of exceptional specimens out of the normal high figures of 250 - 260 kg, an example is one reported by @Pantherinae with Reuben Matthews about a lion called "Ceasar" in East Africa that apparently weighed "about 284 kg" and now we have other conversation of @Pckts with Wasif Jamshed that mention a tiger of "more than 340 kg". To be honest, from a list of 71 male lions in East Africa, 184 male lions in Southern Africa, 9 from West and North Africa and 11 from India, 275 male lion in total, none reched the 260 kg "empty". So if the figure of "about 284 kg" result to be real, it definitelly include stomach content (the male lion of 272 kg from Kenia was not completelly empty and was a cattle eater and consequently abnormally bulky).
Now, what about the tigers, we have a list of 173 male tigers in India and Nepal, and none of them, appart from the tiger of the Smithsonian, surpass the 320 kg, so is really hard to accept the existence of a tiger of 340 kg, specilaly in modern days. The source which is expert Wasif Jamshed should be credible, but like @Shadow pointed out, his motivations for not disclusing the details are not quite logic. If we accept this tiger, we will like to know if it was "empty belly" or if included some stomach content. For the moment, I am still skeptical with this figure, but let's see if someone can confirm it or not, after all this is the main goal of Wildfact, to uncover the true facts of nature.
Wow... impressive. 340kg does seem a bit of a stretch, but anything is possible so I wouldn't totally count any of these weights out so long as they can be bolstered. I also did not hear Caesar was said to be so big but then again estimates are just that.
Caesar was weighed not estimated after a hippo meal he said. He said first that Caesar weighed 289 kg then 284 kg because he wasn’t 100% sure. He was unable to cantact the guy that had weighed Caesar as he no longer worked there.
That’s the info I got from it. But Caesar was huge and I think everyone that has seen him would agree that he was abnormaly large and bulky to be a lion.
Still that is very vague source. Someone weighed that lion at some time, but no available information to know more. Now also said, that weighed just after meal and we all know what lions can look like after a good meal :) For me some of them look like almost exploding soon, belly stretched like a balloon.
Of course it´s interesting to hear about possible weights, but for me this tiger case and Caesar create more questions than giving answers. I try to ask again about that tiger, the person I managed to contact concerning tiger weight is quite busy. My hope to get more information in 1-2 days was for sure too optimistic.
What comes to Caesar, I have managed to find a report and photos concerning the case, when he was medically treated, but there was no mention about possible weighing or weight. Difficult to understand what would be so big secret in his weight, especially after his death. If he was weighed by some organization, maybe they could be contacted?
No I know, I just told the info I had been told(he was weighed). He was going to find the guy he knew, but couldn’t find the guy.
So I don’t think it’s a secret.
Just quoted the info I had.
(12-16-2019, 04:52 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the record tigers, a wide point of view:
Since I have started my study on tigers, I have manage to read several sources on tiger biology, ecology and evolution, and about tiger size, all except one (Dinerstein, 2003) says that Amur tigers were the biggest and quote incredible figures of over 300 kg. However it was in 2005 that Dr Slaght (an owl expert) and others published a chapter in the Amur tiger monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project and they concluded that all the figures over 260 kg in litterature were not reliable, quoted without backup or simple imposible to verify. The best example is the figure of a tiger hunted by Baikov, the male was of 325 kg and is quoted by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) but the team decided that was not reliable as they could not found the original source. At the end, they downgraded the Amur tiger and now is considered second in size to the Bengal tiger, with a maximum reliable weight of 254 kg. Some sources still quote the Amur tiger as the biggest, but to the "initiated circles" that is no longer a realiable fact.
Now, what happen with the Bengal tiger, the new king of tigers? Well, if we use the sources of Mazák (1981), Sunquist (2010), Karanth (2013) and Hunter (2015), they all conclude that the male Bengal tiger, in mainland, weight between 180 to 260 kg (Karanth (2013) put a lower figure of 175 kg, but that is because he is including all South Asia and that figure came from an Indochinese tiger quoted by Pocock (1939)), with the current record of 261 kg for a Nepalese tiger. However, the correct information is that two males captured in Nepal (M105 and M126) weighed over 272 kg and the calculated figure of 261 kg is bases in a chest girth equation; personally I calculated that "empty belly" those males weighed no less than 260 kg, and that is the current figure accepted as the normal maximum for the Bengal tiger.
But, that is the maximum that the tiger from the Indian subcontinent can reach? Apparently that is not the case. There are some records that shows tigers of over 600 lb and more, much more! The following list summarize the males that I could get from litterature, of tigers clasified as "exceptional" for they huge size. Take in count that while I put the top figure for males at 272 kg, this is based in the two Nepalese male tigers and that probably they had some stomach content, other male hunted in Gwalior weighed 590 lb (268 kg) and although it was attracted with a bait, the animal was searched and hunted the entire day, and based in the fact that the tiger did not eat during those more than 10 hours of hunt, the animal was practically "empty" when they hunt them (Singh,1959). Here is the list of the records from India and Nepal, is not a particularly long one:
1 - 272 kg (600 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, in 1914. The total length was reported at 11 ft and 6.5 in (352 cm), obvioulsy taken "over curves" (Singh, 1970).
2 - 276 kg (608 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by the Kumar of Bikaner, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 2 in (310 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
3 - 281 kg (620 lb) male hunted in Gwalior by H. H. Sir Mahabat Khan Nawab, no date was mentioned. The total length was reported at 10 ft 3 in (313 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Vernay, 1930).
4 - 292 kg (645 lb) male hunted in Kumaon by E. H. Morbey, probably before 1928. The total length was reported as 10 ft 6 in (320 cm), probably taken "over curves" but also posible also "between pegs" (Wood, 1978).
5 - 318 kg (700 lb) male hunted in Central Provinces by Captain M. D. Goring-Jones, probably before 1907. Total length reported as 9 ft 11.5 in (304 cm), probably taken "between pegs" (tail of 94 cm), skull of 362 mm X 267 mm and a weight of 5.2 lb (Rowland Ward, 1907).
6 - 320 kg (720 lb) male hunted in Chitwan, Nepal, by the Maharaha Joodha of Nepal. Total length reported as 10 ft 9 in (328 cm) taken "round the curves" (Smythies, 1942).
This list exhaust all the huge tigers in my database, if some one here have more records, feel free to post them. Appart from tigers 2 and 4, I have the original sources from the records.
From a list of 173 male Bengal tigers, 7 of them are clasified as "exceptional" and one of them is the Smithsonian tiger of 389 kg, which I no longer believe is entirely reiable. The other 166 males are the ones that I used for my normal list. These 7 males represent only about 4% of the sample, which shows how rare are animals of these dimentions. However, are these tigers really imposible to exist?
If we take this range of sizes, between 272 to 320 kg, there is a diference between 12 and 60 kg from the current highest figure of 260 kg. However, at least the tigers 3 and 6 are described as has been actually weighed, while those of Rowland Ward are still open to aceptance, as the males 2, 4 and 5 only appear in this series of books. Tiger 1 was just reported by Colonel Singh, but he did not saw it. There is other fact, the tigers from Gwalior were all hunted by dignataries and royalness, and were all probably baited, as the hunt for the tiger of 590 lb describe. We know that male tigers can eat up to 34 kg in one sit (Tamang, 1982), but in a normal bait they can eat between 14 to 19 kg (Sunquist, 1981). So, what happen if we adjust those "huge" males:
1 - 272 - 14-19 kg = 253 - 258 kg -- or as low as 238 kg (-34 kg).
2 - 276 - 14-19 kg = 257 - 262 kg -- or as low as 242 kg (-34 kg).
3 - 281 - 14-19 kg = 262 - 267 kg -- or as low as 247 kg (-34 kg).
4 - 292 - 14-19 kg = 273 - 278 kg -- or as low as 258 kg (-34 kg).
5 - 318 - 14-19 kg = 299 - 304 kg -- or as low as 284 kg (-34 kg).
6 - 320 - 14-19 kg = 301 - 306 kg -- or as low as 286 kg (-34 kg).
Under this conception, we can estimate that IF all these male tigers were baited, the empty belly weight could be between 255 to 303 kg, still exceptional but not completelly out of question, and if the tigers were fully gorged, which was probably not the case, these males could weight between 238 to 286 kg, lower but closer figures to the current record. Now, taking in count that the males 3 and 6 were actually weighed and vouched by persons that we can quote as real experts, the figures of 264 kg and 303 kg for these two males "empty belly" is completelly plausible and open the door to the corroboration that tigers up to 300 kg could exist.
Now, we know that the acceptance of these records will be always open to debate as none of them came from a first hand source and those that were actually witnessed are the male of 590 lb from Gwalior (Singh, 1959) and the two males from Chitwan of over 600 lb (Dinerstein, 2003). In this form we could concluded that "empty belly", a male tiger in the Indian subcontinent weight somewhat more than 260 kg and can reach up to 300 kg in exceptional cases.
Now, knowing how rare are the big tigers and checking all the posibilities about the existence of exceptionally big tigers, how plausible is the existence of a tiger of over 340 kg in modern times?
There are many conversations with experts in these says, but just a few speak of exceptional specimens out of the normal high figures of 250 - 260 kg, an example is one reported by @Pantherinae with Reuben Matthews about a lion called "Ceasar" in East Africa that apparently weighed "about 284 kg" and now we have other conversation of @Pckts with Wasif Jamshed that mention a tiger of "more than 340 kg". To be honest, from a list of 71 male lions in East Africa, 184 male lions in Southern Africa, 9 from West and North Africa and 11 from India, 275 male lion in total, none reched the 260 kg "empty". So if the figure of "about 284 kg" result to be real, it definitelly include stomach content (the male lion of 272 kg from Kenia was not completelly empty and was a cattle eater and consequently abnormally bulky).
Now, what about the tigers, we have a list of 173 male tigers in India and Nepal, and none of them, appart from the tiger of the Smithsonian, surpass the 320 kg, so is really hard to accept the existence of a tiger of 340 kg, specilaly in modern days. The source which is expert Wasif Jamshed should be credible, but like @Shadow pointed out, his motivations for not disclusing the details are not quite logic. If we accept this tiger, we will like to know if it was "empty belly" or if included some stomach content. For the moment, I am still skeptical with this figure, but let's see if someone can confirm it or not, after all this is the main goal of Wildfact, to uncover the true facts of nature.
Wow... impressive. 340kg does seem a bit of a stretch, but anything is possible so I wouldn't totally count any of these weights out so long as they can be bolstered. I also did not hear Caesar was said to be so big but then again estimates are just that.
Caesar was weighed not estimated after a hippo meal he said. He said first that Caesar weighed 289 kg then 284 kg because he wasn’t 100% sure. He was unable to cantact the guy that had weighed Caesar as he no longer worked there.
That’s the info I got from it. But Caesar was huge and I think everyone that has seen him would agree that he was abnormaly large and bulky to be a lion.
Still that is very vague source. Someone weighed that lion at some time, but no available information to know more. Now also said, that weighed just after meal and we all know what lions can look like after a good meal :) For me some of them look like almost exploding soon, belly stretched like a balloon.
Of course it´s interesting to hear about possible weights, but for me this tiger case and Caesar create more questions than giving answers. I try to ask again about that tiger, the person I managed to contact concerning tiger weight is quite busy. My hope to get more information in 1-2 days was for sure too optimistic.
What comes to Caesar, I have managed to find a report and photos concerning the case, when he was medically treated, but there was no mention about possible weighing or weight. Difficult to understand what would be so big secret in his weight, especially after his death. If he was weighed by some organization, maybe they could be contacted?
No I know, I just told the info I had been told(he was weighed). He was going to find the guy he knew, but couldn’t find the guy.
So I don’t think it’s a secret.
Just quoted the info I had.
Yes I understand, that you wrote what was said. But when information is that vague, it can´t be considered as too reliable. Even if real now it was said, that after eating, so he was possibly gorged. It would be very interesting if this information and source could be double checked and possibly get some accurate information. If this person who mentioned this really know someone who was present when that weighing happened, it´s odd if not able to find out someone he knows even with time.
But of course that organization which was doing that treatment could be contacted and asked if any information available. If that is all (what was shared before) it´s practically just speculating. Something more concrete would be very welcome if possible.
12-21-2019, 03:57 PM( This post was last modified: 12-21-2019, 03:58 PM by Shadow )
I got reply again concerning this possible "very big tiger", but this expert said that he simply don´t know about this case (possibly 345 kg tiger). At least not yet. He mentioned, that with full belly a tiger can have up to 40 kg extra weight. I mention this because there seem to be some different kind of opinions about it. I assume that this number is for very big male tigers, while estimations about 30 kg or so are for smaller/average individuals.
Some things stayed unclear, because this person has been busy, but he told that he checks his data sheets and then tells about that biggest tiger he had darted and weighed. I will put that information then here, that tiger is from Kanha tiger reserve.
One thing about big cats when gorged, I noticed one excellent photo to demonstrate it and why it´s quite relevant to know if weighed big cat has been in "normal" condition or just eaten all he/she is able to. Or even "half gorged"... I present now Osahabu (often hanging around with famous Earless) after zebra kill, there you can see a lion who is truly enjoying life
(12-21-2019, 03:57 PM)Shadow Wrote: I got reply again concerning this possible "very big tiger", but this expert said that he simply don´t know about this case (possibly 345 kg tiger). At least not yet. He mentioned, that with full belly a tiger can have up to 40 kg extra weight. I mention this because there seem to be some different kind of opinions about it. I assume that this number is for very big male tigers, while estimations about 30 kg or so are for smaller/average individuals.
Some things stayed unclear, because this person has been busy, but he told that he checks his data sheets and then tells about that biggest tiger he had darted and weighed. I will put that information then here, that tiger is from Kanha tiger reserve.
One thing about big cats when gorged, I noticed one excellent photo to demonstrate it and why it´s quite relevant to know if weighed big cat has been in "normal" condition or just eaten all he/she is able to. Or even "half gorged"... I present now Osahabu (often hanging around with famous Earless) after zebra kill, there you can see a lion who is truly enjoying life
*This image is copyright of its original author
No surprise there, Kanha Tigers are very large.
In regards to gorged or not, he nor anyone else can make that assumption since they weren't there nor is it likely that any cat is captured directly after gorging themself unless a bait was used.
So no actual weight was given by him or individual Tiger?
(12-21-2019, 03:57 PM)Shadow Wrote: I got reply again concerning this possible "very big tiger", but this expert said that he simply don´t know about this case (possibly 345 kg tiger). At least not yet. He mentioned, that with full belly a tiger can have up to 40 kg extra weight. I mention this because there seem to be some different kind of opinions about it. I assume that this number is for very big male tigers, while estimations about 30 kg or so are for smaller/average individuals.
Some things stayed unclear, because this person has been busy, but he told that he checks his data sheets and then tells about that biggest tiger he had darted and weighed. I will put that information then here, that tiger is from Kanha tiger reserve.
One thing about big cats when gorged, I noticed one excellent photo to demonstrate it and why it´s quite relevant to know if weighed big cat has been in "normal" condition or just eaten all he/she is able to. Or even "half gorged"... I present now Osahabu (often hanging around with famous Earless) after zebra kill, there you can see a lion who is truly enjoying life
*This image is copyright of its original author
No surprise there, Kanha Tigers are very large.
In regards to gorged or not, he nor anyone else can make that assumption since they weren't there nor is it likely that any cat is captured directly after gorging themself unless a bait was used.
So no actual weight was given by him or individual Tiger?
He didn´t make assumptions, he just mentioned how much a tiger can have stomach content. He didn´t actually use the word gorged but full stomach. What comes to this case which started discussion he didn´t say anything, just that if true this tiger would be really huge even if full stomach, which is obvious. But at this point this person is unable to say anything because he had no information whatsoever about this case before I wrote and asked.
He said, that he checks his data sheets and then give exact weight etc. I will write more right away when I get more information and what I can quote from his emails. This might feel like unnecessary cautious, but since this is public forum I want to be sure, that it´s ok to quote and he wrote about other things too, not only about some weights.
To be fair, here one gorged tiger too to show how it looks like. I think that fur pattern makes it more difficult to notice when tigers have been gorging, but this tigress Ladli is a good example to check what it looks like. From 0:57 forward. I don´t know if should feel sorry for her or laugh when looking how difficult it is right after eating so much Anyway easy to see, that also tigers are able to eat a lot when they have possibility to do so. At 1:04 she is on her side and that belly...
12-31-2019, 04:55 AM( This post was last modified: 12-31-2019, 04:55 AM by GuateGojira )
Short note: Tiger food intake.
Incredible as it is, the information about tiger food intake is very few, and was actually recorded only in TWO places: Kanha and Chitwan.
In Kanha, India, Schaller (1967) made a report of tiger consumption in pages 298 to 300. A summary of that report is here:
* 2 tigresses ate 89 lbs, 44.5 lbs each of them.
* 1 tigress ate 40 lbs with 1 small cub.
* A male tiger (the only one in his study) ate 53 - 58 lbs in a day.
* 2 tigresses and 4 cubs (1 year old) ate 33 lbs.
* The tigress with 4 cubs ate 50 lbs.
* 2 tigresses amd 4 cubs ate 25 lbs each.
* The tigress with the 4 cubs eat 22 pounds per day, based in several baits.
The conclution of Schaller was that tigers can eat 40 to 60 lbs (18 to 27 kg) in a night, more in a large male. However his sample was small, included only one male and for some reason ignore the data of the tigerss with 4 cubs that he says that consumed 22 lbs (10 kg) per day, based in "several baits".
After that, Sunquist (1981) and Tamang (1982) in Chitwan NP, Nepal, provide us the information of actual tiger consumption based in 38 baits and natural kills. They conclution was that the average consumption for male and female tigers was between 14 to 18.6 kg in a day, with a range of 11 to 34 kg in a day. The figure of 35 kg reported by McDougal (1977) seems vague and more like an estimation, but is not imposible to reach for a tiger.
Based on this, Karanth (2001-2013) mention that the consumption of tigers can be between 15 - 35 kg, and this figure is often quoted. Incredible, while the higher figures are copied as they are, the lower figures are ignored.
Now, where it came the figure of "up to 45 kg"? Thapar guide us in his book "Tiger: the ultimate guide" of 2004, when in page 125 mentions: "According to Charles McDougal, an adult tiger can consume thirty-five kilograms of meat at a single sitting. Mel Sunquist thinks the figure may be even higher. He argues that the maximum amount a tiger can eat in twenty-four hours is about one fifth of its own body weight, which for a large male translate into forty-five kilograms. I have seen a tiger consume an entire chital -about thirty kilograms of meat- at one meal."
Where Dr Sunquist mentioned that? Interestingly, is in the book "Wild Cats of the World" of 2002, page No. 351, where he mention this. However we must be carefull as this is just a guess, not a real figure. Just like the often quoted prase that "tigers have a 10% of success killing", which his also only a guess and a one that is no longer accepted as reliable (Sunquist, 2010; Karanth, 2013). But this is not the first time that someone guess about the food consumption of tigers, Guggisberg (1975) summarize the reports of old hunters about tiger consumption, he mentions that Locke puts the amount at 18 kg, Sanderson at 30 kg and Baikov between 30 to 50 kg. However there is no evidence that these reports were actually reliable as none of them described if they weighed any prey before and after consuption, which is the only form to calculate how much the tiger weighed.
Finally, Chundawat (2018) give a very good example of the errors of calculating the food consuption "per eye" in page 215: "We estimated that on a regular basis he (speaking of male M-91) could eat over 25 - 30 kg in one sitting, lasting 4-6 hours. This estimate was calculated from an average of what each field-team member though the amount in kilos was, that had been eaten. When we tranquillized M-91 for radio-collaring, we had located him over a kill with a full belly. During recover, he vomited and emptied out his belly. I'm loathe to say this, but the volume was so large that we weighed the meat he regurgitated. It was 19 kg. Contrary to his otherwise timid behaviour, we regularly located M-91 on sambar and nilgai kills (if within the pak) and found that he was not disturbed by our approach."
Here we can see that the field members estimated the consumtion of this tiger between 25 - 30 kg, but when they located on a kill he was with a full belly and when he vomited all the stomach content it resulted that it was 19 kg, not even near the estimated amount of the field members! In this case we can confirm that figures of Sunquist (14 - 19 kg) and the figures of up to 34 kg came from meals of about 24 hours, not the 4 - 6 hours that tigers can eat in disturbed baits. Also remember that the male M-91 was huge, in fact, he is the largest male tiger captured in Panna (confirmed in the pages with pictures at color between page 246 and 247), not M-125 (Madla male), and his figure of 240 kg+ is already adjusted for stomach content.
So, we can conclude that while tigers can gorge themselves, the figures recorded shows that tigers can normally eat between 10 to 34 kg, with average figures between 14 to 19 kg in a day. Also, we can see the problem in "guessing" the food intake of a large cat, which can lead the great exagerations.
@GuateGojira just to confirm, we never got any data from hairyfoot right? I remember he was said to be even bigger than Madla, but only one image was ever produced from the Emerald Forest documentary. An incredibly impressive one at that.
(12-31-2019, 08:11 AM)Sully Wrote: @GuateGojira just to confirm, we never got any data from hairyfoot right? I remember he was said to be even bigger than Madla, but only one image was ever produced from the Emerald Forest documentary. An incredibly impressive one at that.
Confirmed, "Hairyfoot" was bigger than "Madla", but he was never captured. Certainly in the league of 240-260 kg of the large tigers. Dr Chundawat saw it a few times, but only one picture was produced and with a cammera trap.
Only two males were captured in Panna, M-91 and M-125 (A.K.A. Madla). Other males were observed but was not posible to capture them, principally because of goverment preasures and burocratic issues.
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
