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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---
You can now embed video from Imgur site. Click here to read the details.

  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

Finland Shadow Offline
Contributor
*****
( This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 11:05 PM by Shadow )

(09-18-2020, 01:44 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-17-2020, 03:44 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-16-2020, 11:46 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-16-2020, 11:03 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 05:15 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-11-2020, 09:02 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-09-2020, 07:56 PM)Scout Wrote: By the way, is there any way to estimate a tiger's weight by measurements of chest girth and body length?

Yes, and is actually easy to do. The problem is that we need a relative good sample to make it. For example the Biologist that worked in the Smithsonian/Nepalese Tiger Project made an equation based in the few specimens avaiable, but they did not published it. Other example are the Biologist of the Siberian Tiger Project which do the same and they did published it.

We can try to do it with the sample of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar as is the only large sample available, but may take time. What we need to stablish is if there relation between the chest girth and weight and after that we create the formula that describe it.

Okay, thanks Guate. I wanted to know this because there were two tigers, one shot by Ramsay in late 1800s that measured 366cms and another one by Hardinge, 350cms. I think they were said to be unreliable, but based on the described proportions, they seemed to be huge specimens

Also, what do you say about this specimen right here? I think this is another pic of the 857lbs monster shot in 1967, with some other people. Just by looking at the pic, this guy is huge and that too without any photography tricks, like low angle, etc. 

While discussing about that tiger shot in 1967 and which was said to be 857 lbs it´s good to know, that Guinness has changed their attitute towards that tiger, which is called "Smithsonian tiger" too. They too admit now, that weight is controversial and not certain. Of course for Guinness it´s a slow process, when they have accepted something in past, but they have corrected many other things with time too, because in past they accepted things with very little information to their Guinness Book of Records. This tiger is one of those "records", which wouldn´t be there at all, if someone would try to get it accepted today with so vague information as they managed to do 1967. That´s why also many tiger experts say, that it would need to be verified properly. Which is of course impossible at this point.

As far as I know, in photos that tiger doesn´t look anything too special and measurements aren´t extraordinary, which could be expected to back up claims of so big weight. Also it was weighed in some local sugar mill etc. and it seems that no-one knows today how that weighing was really done and was that scale reliable at all. Since it´s only such (claimed to be) "monster" and never seen before or after in India, I personally don´t take it seriously either. Some people do, but same people are very critical if same kind of vague case with so poor information is showed for some other species.

Anyway, also Guinness say it today, that it´s not clear how heavy that tiger was in reality. This problem seems to be with all "monster" big cats from past, all cases are quite vague and not documented properly at all. This is something, what I think is good to know for people reading these threads. As one biologist said to me, when discussing about tigers and lions and sizes: "Don´t believe all what you read".

Yep, that seems right. The tiger in the pics with Hassinger doesnt look freakishly big like an eight hundred pounder would look. Anyway, I was wondering the size of the tiger I linked above, he appears much bigger than the supposed 857lbs smithsonian tiger. 

This one- 

I did the reverse search, this tiger was shot by royals in Rajasthan's Comilla region

This should show it quite clearly why everyone should be careful when looking at photos. These tricks have been well known in past too, but this photo should make it easy to see how easy it is to fool people on purpose or by accident. I mean maybe not all hunters try to exaggerate prey size on purpose, maybe they just want to get all people in same photo. But the more distance there is in between the carcass and people, the bigger that carcass looks like. And of course it can be seen how the distance and angle of the camera in relation to the subject (carcass) has effect. So when seeing old photos it´s good to keep in mind how easy it´s to make something to look a lot bigger than it is in reality. Either on purpose or by accident.


*This image is copyright of its original author

Yeah, it does look like that it's another photography trick. Apparently, hunters are definitely less reliable than scientists. Well, whats the biggest photographed tiger from the wild? I think the ones from Kaziranga and central India

I don´t say, that it would be a trick on purpose. I wanted to point out how it can be seen, that people behind the tiger aren´t kneeling right next to it and how distance have effect making the object in front always looking relatively bigger than objects behind. Photos in which a trainer and big cat are leaning against each others give way better possibility to see the real size. These hunting photos tend to have always carcass in front in order to show it in the best possible way. 

Also angle of the camera and objective can be used to make the thing in front to look bigger, so making estimations from photos can be tricky. I always try to look at certain details in order to avoid making too big conclusions from wrong reasons. I do think, that the tiger in the photo isn´t small by any means, but it has to be remembered that even an average tiger around 200 kg (male) is big dwarfing average people behind it. And if a tiger is one, which can be considered really big, over 250 kg, naturally it looks even bigger. In some photos from Kodiak bear hunting those people have managed to make bears to look as big as some hippos or rhinos :)

What comes to wild tigers, usually photos have nothing too good to compare with. So it´s also difficult thing to say with too much confidence, which particular tiger would deserve to be called the biggest or very big alone from some random photo. Often people who have seen those tigers have controversial opinions and many debates have been seen in different discussion forums. Also here. One famous tiger, which all seem to agree to be one of the biggest from India is Wagdoh in his prime. And if he is still alive, not small by any means even as an older "gentleman" nowadays. While there are many opinions, he has had reputation to be maybe the biggest tiger in India in last decades. You can be sure, that many disagree, but because we don´t have weight information it´s not possible to really know.
1 user Likes Shadow's post
Reply

Germany Yusuf Offline
Banned

@GuateGojira 

Is this true? I mean the claim....

*This image is copyright of its original author


They said that the Tiger from Brander were gorged.
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

(09-22-2020, 09:30 PM)Yusuf Wrote: @GuateGojira 

Is this true? I mean the claim....

*This image is copyright of its original author


They said that the Tiger from Brander were gorged.

From Brander's actual book

Wild Animals in C. India

A.A. Dunbar Brander

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author


*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 have a challenge for you if you're up for it?
You should see if you can find a 600lb Lion with body measurements and we can compare him to the 600lb'er Brander mentions. 
Make sure you do your best to find not only the animal but information on how it was obtained and the protocol used.
3 users Like Pckts's post
Reply

Scout Offline
Banned
( This post was last modified: 09-24-2020, 12:27 PM by Scout )

There is no doubt that these Kaziranga males are huge. Just compare them to these cows they catch. Just gigantic

https://youtu.be/DOtSnxrwcKc

https://youtu.be/XH7jB1Ky9sk


 First one is KTZ-085, now renamed to KAZI-53. Second one is KAZI-59, popularly known as "Shere Khan".

For comparison, here is what the size of cows would have been (definitely not adult tho)
   

No doubt that Kaziranga tigers would be biggest, both in max weight and average
2 users Like Scout's post
Reply

Scout Offline
Banned
( This post was last modified: 09-24-2020, 12:52 PM by Scout )

(09-22-2020, 09:30 PM)Yusuf Wrote: @GuateGojira 

Is this true? I mean the claim....

*This image is copyright of its original author


They said that the Tiger from Brander were gorged.

Now, Brander's data is real and reliable, but im pretty sure that there were many subadults. 
These subadults were yet to put on a lot of muscle mass and bulk. 

Here is a paper from Dr. Yadvendradev Jhala, he is a leading big cats expert from India
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ing_Tigers

According to this paper, the weight of tigers varies as following with age - 

Juveniles - 1 to 2 yo = 50-120kgs
Subadults - 2 to 3 yo = 130-170kgs
Young adults - 3.5 to 5yo, They keep on accumulating mass
Adults - 6 yo and above = 200-260kgs

   

   

   

   

   

   


Hence its very much possible that there were subadults in his data
2 users Like Scout's post
Reply

Scout Offline
Banned

By the way, how is this comparison? 

   


From left
1. Waghdoh, one of the biggest tigers from India
2. Shere Khan aka KAZI-59 from Kaziranga
3. B2, another heavyweight from Bandhavgarh
Reply

India Ashutosh Offline
Senior Member
****

@Scout, I am sorry but none of those tigers are in the exceptional category, they are impressive but not exceptional in terms of size. Waghdoh has never been classified as the biggest tiger in India.

If you are looking for the exceptional ones, you have the enormous male from Rajaji, hairyfoot from Panna, Kaziranga male shifted to Manas, A few other Kaziranga males like Kzt 085, kzt 083, kzt 023 and couple of really big ones from Terai. Pictures of all the above mentioned males are available on wildfact itself.
2 users Like Ashutosh's post
Reply

Scout Offline
Banned
( This post was last modified: 09-24-2020, 03:52 PM by Scout )

(09-24-2020, 01:56 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Scout, I am sorry but none of those tigers are in the exceptional category, they are impressive but not exceptional in terms of size. Waghdoh has never been classified as the biggest tiger in India.

If you are looking for the exceptional ones, you have the enormous male from Rajaji, hairyfoot from Panna, Kaziranga male shifted to Manas, A few other Kaziranga males like Kzt 085, kzt 083, kzt 023 and couple of really big ones from Terai. Pictures of all the above mentioned males are available on wildfact itself.

Im pretty sure that Waghdoh hasnt gained his reputation for nothing. Its true that we have no weight information, but he is big otherwise why would people say he is big?

And same goes for KAZI-59
Here he can be seen hunting cows - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7jB1Ky9sk

Just as big as KTZ-085 here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOtSnxrwcKc

KAZI-59
 
   


KTZ-085 for comparison - 

   
1 user Likes Scout's post
Reply

India Rishi Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 09-24-2020, 04:11 PM by Rishi )

(09-24-2020, 03:40 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 01:56 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Scout, I am sorry but none of those tigers are in the exceptional category, they are impressive but not exceptional in terms of size. Waghdoh has never been classified as the biggest tiger in India.

If you are looking for the exceptional ones, you have the enormous male from Rajaji, hairyfoot from Panna, Kaziranga male shifted to Manas, A few other Kaziranga males like Kzt 085, kzt 083, kzt 023 and couple of really big ones from Terai. Pictures of all the above mentioned males are available on wildfact itself.

Im pretty sure that Waghdoh hasnt gained his reputation for nothing. Its true that we have no weight information, but he is big otherwise why would people say he is big?

And same goes for KAZI-59
Here he can be seen hunting cows - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7jB1Ky9sk

Just as big as KTZ-085 here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOtSnxrwcKc

Please don't share same link multiple times... And not only they were at different distances from their respective preys, unless we can confirm those cows where of same size we can't compare fairly, can we?

Wagdoh is(was) actually very stocky & stout. People who have seen many tigers that can compare him to other famous males, have told that he's big but not as big as many of his peers.
And recently we got a photo of him crossing railway line, by which his body length measured out to be less than 6ft (I think it's in this thread only).
2 users Like Rishi's post
Reply

Scout Offline
Banned

(09-24-2020, 04:07 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 03:40 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 01:56 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Scout, I am sorry but none of those tigers are in the exceptional category, they are impressive but not exceptional in terms of size. Waghdoh has never been classified as the biggest tiger in India.

If you are looking for the exceptional ones, you have the enormous male from Rajaji, hairyfoot from Panna, Kaziranga male shifted to Manas, A few other Kaziranga males like Kzt 085, kzt 083, kzt 023 and couple of really big ones from Terai. Pictures of all the above mentioned males are available on wildfact itself.

Im pretty sure that Waghdoh hasnt gained his reputation for nothing. Its true that we have no weight information, but he is big otherwise why would people say he is big?

And same goes for KAZI-59
Here he can be seen hunting cows - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7jB1Ky9sk

Just as big as KTZ-085 here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOtSnxrwcKc

Please don't share same link multiple times... And not only they were at different distances from their respective preys, unless we can confirm those cows where of same size we can't compare fairly, can we?

Wagdoh is(was) actually very stocky & stout. People who have seen many tigers that can compare him to other famous males, have told that he's big but not as big as many of his peers.
And recently we got a photo of him crossing railway line, by which his body length measured out to be less than 6ft (I think it's in this thread only).
What do you suggest for Waghdoh's weight? I would say 520-550lbs
Reply

Finland Shadow Offline
Contributor
*****
( This post was last modified: 09-24-2020, 05:31 PM by Shadow )

(09-24-2020, 04:07 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 03:40 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 01:56 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Scout, I am sorry but none of those tigers are in the exceptional category, they are impressive but not exceptional in terms of size. Waghdoh has never been classified as the biggest tiger in India.

If you are looking for the exceptional ones, you have the enormous male from Rajaji, hairyfoot from Panna, Kaziranga male shifted to Manas, A few other Kaziranga males like Kzt 085, kzt 083, kzt 023 and couple of really big ones from Terai. Pictures of all the above mentioned males are available on wildfact itself.

Im pretty sure that Waghdoh hasnt gained his reputation for nothing. Its true that we have no weight information, but he is big otherwise why would people say he is big?

And same goes for KAZI-59
Here he can be seen hunting cows - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7jB1Ky9sk

Just as big as KTZ-085 here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOtSnxrwcKc

Please don't share same link multiple times... And not only they were at different distances from their respective preys, unless we can confirm those cows where of same size we can't compare fairly, can we?

Wagdoh is(was) actually very stocky & stout. People who have seen many tigers that can compare him to other famous males, have told that he's big but not as big as many of his peers.
And recently we got a photo of him crossing railway line, by which his body length measured out to be less than 6ft (I think it's in this thread only).

Since there is so much speculation of sizes from photos, which are pretty useless usually, imo, I put here some remarks to think about.

So this railway photo concerning Wagdoh.

First, it´s very difficult to make exact estimation even from this photo since it´s so 2-dimensional, it´s quite impossible to know from where should be measured distance between rails so, that it would be at same level exactly as Wagdoh is. But I tried to do it so, that it would be at least approximately right. So when I measured that distance between inner sides of rails, which is Indian standard 1676 mm and after it measuring body without tail for obvious reasons, I got result 1892 mm. Obviously if he would be measured between the pegs as usually, he would be more stretched, imo, and length would be more than that.

Then again as I have drawn above, this kind of 2-dimensional photo has problems and can make an illusion of the position. If Wagdoh is here even slightly so, that backside further than head, he looks a bit shorter than he is. That red line above is on my screen 26 mm and line below is 25 mm. Still that slightly longer line would look shorter in photo if taken from direction which is marked with black arrow. So longer would look shorter.

Based on this photo body lenght of Wagdoh could be anything in between maybe 180-210 cm, if he would be measured properly while tranquilazed.

I´m very critical to all photos shared with claims of "huge" this and that if there isn´t something really good to compare with. Estimations can be made, but usually those are rough. Huge can be in reality average, just a nice photo showing muscles good.

Then again this photo is good in that way, that some other poster included that photo of Wagdoh in his prime side by side. He is now 17 years old if I remember right(?). So when people have seen him for instance 4-5 years ago, they haven´t seen him in his prime not to mention if some people have seen him during last 1-2 years and then saying, that "oh, he is small in comparison with this and that tiger". 

People tend to have short memory and without a doubt reputation of Wagdoh is based on his size in his prime condition. Without seeing him right next to some other big one, it´s quite impossible to say too good estimations who is bigger or smaller so, that someone could be 100% sure. Also in Wildfact posters have had many arguments concerning it, that which tiger is bigger than some other. And both sides very sure, that being right and other poster wrong. One reason why I prefer to see studies and confirmed measurements and weights.

What comes to Wagdoh, even though there is no tiger which could be called the biggest tiger of India without a doubt, Wagdoh has been often called maybe the biggest tiger of India etc. I haven´t seen anyone proving otherwise in any reliable way, of course it can´t be proven that there wouldn´t have been some bigger tiger. It depends from whom is asked as far as I have seen. 

Anyway here is the photo to show what I meant and why I´m very cautious with photos.

Attached Files Image(s)
   
1 user Likes Shadow's post
Reply

India Ashutosh Offline
Senior Member
****
( This post was last modified: 09-24-2020, 05:16 PM by Ashutosh )

@Scout, you need to remember that tigers from Central India gain their reputation because of various and continuous  sightings as compared to Kaziranga or Terai. Now, Waghdoh is an impressive male, no doubt. His neck and shoulder are massive and the facial injury lends such a menacing look to him. So, back in late 2000s, he was called largest tiger you could see because he was in the tourist zone in Tadoba (which is a very good park for tiger sightings).

I will give you two comparable examples. The photos below are of the famous Rajaji male from the same time as Waghdoh in his absolute prime and of another unknown male from Terai. Other than these photos, most people (not scientists working with WII) don’t have much information on them, and I highly doubt many people have even seen them. So, no one is going to call any of them the largest tiger in India especially if people can’t find them. But, be a judge for yourself:

   

   
3 users Like Ashutosh's post
Reply

India Rishi Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators

(09-24-2020, 05:08 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 04:07 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 03:40 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 01:56 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Scout, I am sorry but none of those tigers are in the exceptional category, they are impressive but not exceptional in terms of size. Waghdoh has never been classified as the biggest tiger in India.

If you are looking for the exceptional ones, you have the enormous male from Rajaji, hairyfoot from Panna, Kaziranga male shifted to Manas, A few other Kaziranga males like Kzt 085, kzt 083, kzt 023 and couple of really big ones from Terai. Pictures of all the above mentioned males are available on wildfact itself.

Im pretty sure that Waghdoh hasnt gained his reputation for nothing. Its true that we have no weight information, but he is big otherwise why would people say he is big?

And same goes for KAZI-59
Here he can be seen hunting cows - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7jB1Ky9sk

Just as big as KTZ-085 here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOtSnxrwcKc

Please don't share same link multiple times... And not only they were at different distances from their respective preys, unless we can confirm those cows where of same size we can't compare fairly, can we?

Wagdoh is(was) actually very stocky & stout. People who have seen many tigers that can compare him to other famous males, have told that he's big but not as big as many of his peers.
And recently we got a photo of him crossing railway line, by which his body length measured out to be less than 6ft (I think it's in this thread only).

Since there is so much speculation of sizes from photos, which are pretty useless usually, imo, I put here some remarks to think about.

So this railway photo concerning Wagdoh.

First, it´s very difficult to make exact estimation even from this photo since it´s so 2-dimensional, it´s quite impossible to know from where should be measured distance between rails so, that it would be at same level exactly as Wagdoh is. But I tried to do it so, that it would be at least approximately right. So when I measured that distance between inner sides of rails, which is Indian standard 1676 mm and after it measuring body without tail for obvious reasons, I got result 1892 mm. Obviously if he would be measured between the pegs as usually, he would be more stretched, imo and he could be longer.

Then again as I have drawn above, this kind of 2-dimensional photo has problems and can make an illusion of the position. If Wagdoh is here even slightly so, that backside further than head, he looks a bit shorter than he is. That red line above is on my screen 26 mm and line below is 25 mm. Still that slightly longer line would look shorter in photo if taken from direction which is marked with black arrow. So longer would look shorter.

Based on this photo body lenght of Wagdoh could be anything in between maybe 180-210 cm, if he would be measured properly while tranquilazed.

I´m very critical to all photos shared with claims of "huge" this and that if there isn´t something really good to compare with. Estimations can be made, but usually those are rough. Huge can be in reality average, just a nice photo showing muscles good.

Then again this photo is good in that way, that some other poster included that photo of Wagdoh in his prime side by side. He is now 17 years old if I remember right(?). So when people have seen him for instance 4-5 years ago, they haven´t seen him in his prime not to mention if some people have seen him during last 1-2 years and then saying, that "oh, he is small in comparison with this and that tiger". 

People tend to have short memory and without a doubt reputation of Wagdoh is base on his size in his prime condition. Without seeing him right next to some other big one, it´s quite impossible to say too good estimations who is bigger or smaller so, that someone could be 100% sure. Also in Wildfact posters have had many arguments concerning it, that which tiger is bigger than some other. And both sides very sure, that being right and other poster right. One reason why I prefer to see studies and confirmed measurements and weights.

What comes to Wagdoh, even though there is no tiger which could be called the biggest tiger of India without a doubt, Wagdoh has been often called maybe the biggest tiger of India etc. I haven´t seen anyone proving otherwise in any reliable way, of course it can´t be proven that there wouldn´t have been some bigger tiger. It depends from whom is asked as far as I have seen. 

Anyway here is the photo to show what I meant and why I´m very cautious with photos.

Yeah, but you gotta work with what you've got, right?

Thankfully most of the time they tend to cross roads & raillines at right angle... Not a big fan of those.
Reply

Finland Shadow Offline
Contributor
*****

(09-24-2020, 05:14 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 05:08 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 04:07 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 03:40 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 01:56 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Scout, I am sorry but none of those tigers are in the exceptional category, they are impressive but not exceptional in terms of size. Waghdoh has never been classified as the biggest tiger in India.

If you are looking for the exceptional ones, you have the enormous male from Rajaji, hairyfoot from Panna, Kaziranga male shifted to Manas, A few other Kaziranga males like Kzt 085, kzt 083, kzt 023 and couple of really big ones from Terai. Pictures of all the above mentioned males are available on wildfact itself.

Im pretty sure that Waghdoh hasnt gained his reputation for nothing. Its true that we have no weight information, but he is big otherwise why would people say he is big?

And same goes for KAZI-59
Here he can be seen hunting cows - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7jB1Ky9sk

Just as big as KTZ-085 here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOtSnxrwcKc

Please don't share same link multiple times... And not only they were at different distances from their respective preys, unless we can confirm those cows where of same size we can't compare fairly, can we?

Wagdoh is(was) actually very stocky & stout. People who have seen many tigers that can compare him to other famous males, have told that he's big but not as big as many of his peers.
And recently we got a photo of him crossing railway line, by which his body length measured out to be less than 6ft (I think it's in this thread only).

Since there is so much speculation of sizes from photos, which are pretty useless usually, imo, I put here some remarks to think about.

So this railway photo concerning Wagdoh.

First, it´s very difficult to make exact estimation even from this photo since it´s so 2-dimensional, it´s quite impossible to know from where should be measured distance between rails so, that it would be at same level exactly as Wagdoh is. But I tried to do it so, that it would be at least approximately right. So when I measured that distance between inner sides of rails, which is Indian standard 1676 mm and after it measuring body without tail for obvious reasons, I got result 1892 mm. Obviously if he would be measured between the pegs as usually, he would be more stretched, imo and he could be longer.

Then again as I have drawn above, this kind of 2-dimensional photo has problems and can make an illusion of the position. If Wagdoh is here even slightly so, that backside further than head, he looks a bit shorter than he is. That red line above is on my screen 26 mm and line below is 25 mm. Still that slightly longer line would look shorter in photo if taken from direction which is marked with black arrow. So longer would look shorter.

Based on this photo body lenght of Wagdoh could be anything in between maybe 180-210 cm, if he would be measured properly while tranquilazed.

I´m very critical to all photos shared with claims of "huge" this and that if there isn´t something really good to compare with. Estimations can be made, but usually those are rough. Huge can be in reality average, just a nice photo showing muscles good.

Then again this photo is good in that way, that some other poster included that photo of Wagdoh in his prime side by side. He is now 17 years old if I remember right(?). So when people have seen him for instance 4-5 years ago, they haven´t seen him in his prime not to mention if some people have seen him during last 1-2 years and then saying, that "oh, he is small in comparison with this and that tiger". 

People tend to have short memory and without a doubt reputation of Wagdoh is base on his size in his prime condition. Without seeing him right next to some other big one, it´s quite impossible to say too good estimations who is bigger or smaller so, that someone could be 100% sure. Also in Wildfact posters have had many arguments concerning it, that which tiger is bigger than some other. And both sides very sure, that being right and other poster right. One reason why I prefer to see studies and confirmed measurements and weights.

What comes to Wagdoh, even though there is no tiger which could be called the biggest tiger of India without a doubt, Wagdoh has been often called maybe the biggest tiger of India etc. I haven´t seen anyone proving otherwise in any reliable way, of course it can´t be proven that there wouldn´t have been some bigger tiger. It depends from whom is asked as far as I have seen. 

Anyway here is the photo to show what I meant and why I´m very cautious with photos.

Yeah, but you gotta work with what you've got, right?

Thankfully most of the time they tend to cross roads & raillines at right angle... Not a big fan of those.

Yes, estimations can be made and it´s kind of fun too. Sometimes there are some really good photos, I still want to point how difficult it is in reality and how there are things which can have relatively big effect and many don´t think about. Photos are always tricky and that´s why I try to avoid making too big conclusions to one direction or another based on some random photos. Rough estimations are usually the best what can be made without measurement tape and scale.
Reply

Germany Yusuf Offline
Banned

(09-24-2020, 12:51 PM)Scout Wrote:
(09-22-2020, 09:30 PM)Yusuf Wrote: @GuateGojira 

Is this true? I mean the claim....

*This image is copyright of its original author


They said that the Tiger from Brander were gorged.

Now, Brander's data is real and reliable, but im pretty sure that there were many subadults. 
These subadults were yet to put on a lot of muscle mass and bulk. 

Here is a paper from Dr. Yadvendradev Jhala, he is a leading big cats expert from India
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ing_Tigers

According to this paper, the weight of tigers varies as following with age - 

Juveniles - 1 to 2 yo = 50-120kgs
Subadults - 2 to 3 yo = 130-170kgs
Young adults - 3.5 to 5yo, They keep on accumulating mass
Adults - 6 yo and above = 200-260kgs














Hence its very much possible that there were subadults in his data

Personally i dont agree that a adult male tiger has a minimum weight of 200 kg... . Many tigers weighed 180 kg and they were adult. Even from Terrai or Nepal one Tiger was 400 lbs and was claimed as NORMAL SIZE FOR A MALE. (Probably he mean the dimensions).

According to Mazák, the average weight of Indian male tigers should fluctuate around 190 kg. (The most reliable max weights are a 258 kg male bengal tiger reported by mazak)
Mazák, 1983 (S. 178 ff.)


Best Regards.
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB