Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Pckts]

(10-14-2022, 01:56 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-14-2022, 01:50 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(10-14-2022, 01:34 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-14-2022, 01:08 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(10-14-2022, 12:27 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote:

(10-12-2022, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: A though about this situation:

Just like in the lion section, I only see here speculation after speculation. How is possible that an useless debate about the reliability of a weight, change to one about a reliability of size, and then about reliability on sources and now about which park has bigger tigers???

People, we have a document that shows the size of the animal and its weight, plus extra details, this is the first time that we actually have it and that is great. About the weight, it seems that this is the same case as the lion from Kenya, as Waghdoh became a cattle eater, and this demostrate that eating cattle did increase the weight and fat amount of the cats (both of them were fat). However, there are important differences, like the fact that the Kenya lion was post prime but not as old as the tiger (10 years agains 16-17 years, based in they ID cards), so it is impresive that a cat so old still kept that frame. So, weight is logic and been from an oficial document is reliable, period.

About the body size, I don't know why you are obsesed about it, ignoring the fact that the measurements were taken in a carcases that had about two days decomposing. We know that these animals are measured over the curves following a straight line as possible, but even then it will be a slightly underestimation as the body was already stiff and in decomposition status. So, it they do not match is not the end of the world. In fact, I remember Dr Bertram that once he says that is practically impossible to get an accurate size of a living animal, and that it will depend of the position of the specimen, so taking this in count plus the stiffness of the carcass, those body measurements are suggestive and ussefull, but is irrelevant to try to refute or defend them. For me, they are reliable and are added to the records.

Sources, that is the pain in the head of each investigator and can be problematic in the case when they do not want to be quoted. In this case, we reached a moment when we have more than 40 males reported in modern days (after 1974, when scientific captures happened), but interestingly only about 20 are from 100% published and confirmed sources. However, it is interesting that we have reached the same sample as the modern Amur tigers and now we can make a fair comparison between them without the need to use the hunting records (Karanth's and Yamaguchi's dream! ). In few words, we no longer need the hunting records as the main source of size, now that we have a good database of modern specimens. We must understand that while we can use personal communications as sources, they are going to be allways debatable, specially if contradict the official published data (this data is the KEY to use the personall communications, and I have examples for this....). So, if you ask me for a table with all the 40+ records, I will put it with no name/namesake as this include unverified reports, but if you ask me a table with only the confirmed weights I will definitelly put my name on it as is based in confirmed data. 

Finally, the size of tigers in the parks. That is the most sad parts of this "debate". We have only little pieces of the big frame and certainly the personal perception of a photographers is not going to be 100% accurate, so there is no form to say that tigers from "x" park are bigger/smaller than those from "y" park. In fact, I have saw several hunting/scientific records of tigers all over India and the difference is minimum between them. I support what GreenForest said:

"If Jhala, Bilal Habib publish their full research, we can settle this debate. I think we are close to get full weights of central indian tigers. As @Roflcopters said, every park has mix of small, medium, big size tigers just like humans. Their weight range can vary from 180kg to 300kg. It depends on genetics and food availability. So no point in calling one reserve tigers are superior than others."

So, I hope we can just finish this nonesense and focus in get more data, tables are almoust ready and information fo modern and even old records are still rising, so I think that we are in a good moment when we can stablish good databases for the future.

Greetings to all.

Ps: Sorry I still don't finish the post about the tigers of Dr Karanth, but I can tell that it is important data, just like what happen with the Panna tigers database.

guate can you tell me , whats the exact protocol used in measuring height of panna tigers p111 and p243 which result in 127 and 128cm, kanha tiger mv2 125cm and what would be their height in straight line then .

In such cases, they probably measured from the scapula to the end of the longest length of the paw while in normal cases they should measure from the scapula to the heel.

Now, considering the width of the paw is around 14cm so the length should be 18-24cm. So if I had to guess, I would say the real height of the 127cm male was about 105cm.

WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then .

All height measurements are taken in straight line. The only difference is that some are taken in straight line from scapula to the heel while others are taken from scapula to the farthest end of the paw.

And yes, I’m also sure that Wagdoh’s height was measured the normal way (scapula to the heel)

https://wildtigerhealthcentre.org/wp-con...edited.pdf , shoulder height of samba 36 inch aka 91cm surprised me , he looked tall with tigress , may be lost some height too , wagdoh also seemed taller in prime , he also looked shrinked , wagdoh should be 7-8cm taller in prime too i think ...

Shoulder height cannot shrink, length can minimally.
The vertebrae in the spine are cushioned and as you grow older these “cushions” deteriorate and the spine presses against itself. Humans lose around an inch and actually have 2 more vertebrae than tigers. Generally speaking old age shrinkage is minimal and humans are bipedal so gravity naturally compresses our spine while Big cats dont experience the same effects. Reply