Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Pckts]

(10-10-2019, 05:47 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:

(10-10-2019, 10:36 AM)Rishi Wrote:

(10-09-2019, 04:52 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote: Information which I have seen seem to suggest larger regions have tigers averaging close to 220kg, while smallee populations may be closer 120kg. The former is significantly larger than lions, most averaging (in South Africa) 190kg, whilst the latter seem more comparable to large jaguars.

Do tigers compare to lions in size? And how do Sundarban tigers and Sunda tigers compare in size to jaguars?

This part is absolutely correct. Among tiger subspecies (& even within itself incase of Bengal tigers) size varies drastically... with Terai/NE male Bengals possibly averaging at 500lbs, but rest slightly lower, varying regionally.
Sundarban's & Sumatra males average 300lbs at best. Malayans too, but they've had individuals recording as high as 400lbs.

Lions are much more homogeneous than that. With Okavango & Ngorongoro populations maybe as high as 450lbs, with the rest lower at 400lbs to 350lbs, but not less than that.

While the smallest recorded healthy adult male tiger was 110kg (Sundarban), the smallest lion(s) scaled at 140kg.

I inferred from the camera-trap images (but no known studies have been performed specifically on this) that prime location meta-populations in tigers are considerably larger at average than surplus ones moving out into the buffers... And for lions, measuring just the pride males will result in a much higher average than with all the vagabond adults moving around.

(10-10-2019, 06:27 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote: That's what I thought. Indeed, when I say South African lions, I mean the southernmost clade of the Sub-Saharan subspecies (P. l. melanochaita). These seem to be the largest lions alive today, however large lions are present all over Sub-Saharan Africa - to my knowledge, 272kg male was of Kenyan origin.

There is a 280kg record from fairly reliable source back in this thread. For now that is the confirmed largest.

I see. Although I've always seen lions mostly a bit higher than 350-400 (I'd probably assume them closer, the south, to 375-450 and P. l. leo 350-400) that was my original reaction to the Nepalese <500lb sample. That's truly massive for cats. I have always said though that the largest Bengal tigers should be technically considered the largest wild cats... by how much has always been my question.

Is this 500lb avg. reliable? 4 males is really small for a sample. I seen tons of 4 male samples averaging unusually high, even lions I've seen avg. similarly with such small samples. It seems as though it's all agreed upon that Sunda tigers seem mich smaller than these huge animals of India.

I've seen both in person and had a very hard time determining which was largest but when comparing the largest individuals of each species that I've seen, I gave the edge to the Tiger. I've also posted quite a few who've seen both as well in the size comparison thread who say the same as well as hunters, so overall I'd say Tigers still have slight edge when comparing at maximums. But overall the overlap is almost identical, just the way they carry it is slightly different. 

Although I haven't seen Terai Tigers who I'd give the edge over even Kanha Tigers which is where I saw the largest Male Tiger. Reply