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 ---

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

India Khan85 Online
Animal admirer & Vegan
***
( This post was last modified: 01-24-2022, 01:46 AM by Khan85 )

Even if the measuring protocol was changed or the tiger was measured by different people, there is almost no way it causes a difference of 26 cm. Looking back at tiger measurements from Cooch Behar and Hewett the difference was at most 5-7 inches / 13-18 cm when measuring between perpendiculars and over the contours. Such large difference can only be caused if they suddenly decided to use some protocol like ALPRU they did with Namibian lions. Human error can cause a difference but nothing more than a few centimetres, not nearly a foot.
Reply

SpinoRex Offline
Banned

One thing is certain the numbers have some serious flaws, which isnt a suprise if you are making such a table without checking it several times. 

I got a reply from the scientist of Panna TR. His name is Sunal Kumar Roamin and most of you may know him already. He said they measured tigers over curves. The male he mentioned who weighed 218 kg isnt included in the table... he probably mean the 228 kg ig but im not sure.

*This image is copyright of its original author



@peter 

I recently found a interesting information about Siberian Tigers. This male tiger named M26 is quoted to be 250 kg and he is looking big



Reply

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

(01-24-2022, 01:42 AM)Khan85 Wrote: Even if the measuring protocol was changed or the tiger was measured by different people, there is almost no way it causes a difference of 26 cm. Looking back at tiger measurements from Cooch Behar and Hewett the difference was at most 5-7 inches / 13-18 cm when measuring between perpendiculars and over the contours. Such large difference can only be caused if they suddenly decided to use some protocol like ALPRU they did with Namibian lions. Human error can cause a difference but nothing more than a few centimetres, not nearly a foot.

That’s my point, it’s way too inconsistent unfortunately. Even measuring the same protocols doesn’t mean that the same measurements will be obtained. Everyone adds their own “technique” to the measuring process. But for P-111 you can pretty much guarantee he wasn’t measured exactly the same for each capture unfortunately. 

*This image is copyright of its original author


You can also see an error for his chest abdomen girth from capture 49.
Reply

Romania GreenForest Offline
Member
**

Looks like lot of research was done on PTR tigers. Unfortunately data was not put together properly, that virtually made it unusable.

If P111's chest girth was indeed 154cm, that is modern record. That would make his weight in the region of 280kg and above. According to PTR's ex-field director Sreenivasa, P111 and T3 reached 240kg.  And, notice none of the tiger reached the Madla's neck girth, upper canine record. Truly, the previous genetic stock were in different league.
2 users Like GreenForest's post
Reply

India Khan85 Online
Animal admirer & Vegan
***
( This post was last modified: 01-24-2022, 05:00 AM by Khan85 )

(01-24-2022, 04:17 AM)Pckts Wrote:
(01-24-2022, 01:42 AM)Khan85 Wrote: Even if the measuring protocol was changed or the tiger was measured by different people, there is almost no way it causes a difference of 26 cm. Looking back at tiger measurements from Cooch Behar and Hewett the difference was at most 5-7 inches / 13-18 cm when measuring between perpendiculars and over the contours. Such large difference can only be caused if they suddenly decided to use some protocol like ALPRU they did with Namibian lions. Human error can cause a difference but nothing more than a few centimetres, not nearly a foot.

That’s my point, it’s way too inconsistent unfortunately. Even measuring the same protocols doesn’t mean that the same measurements will be obtained. Everyone adds their own “technique” to the measuring process. But for P-111 you can pretty much guarantee he wasn’t measured exactly the same for each capture unfortunately. 

*This image is copyright of its original author


You can also see an error for his chest abdomen girth from capture 49.

Dr. Sunal Kumar says that these tigers were measured over contours. I believe the method they used must be similar to what Dr. Sunquist used in Chitwan.
Reply

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

(01-24-2022, 04:59 AM)Khan85 Wrote:
(01-24-2022, 04:17 AM)Pckts Wrote:
(01-24-2022, 01:42 AM)Khan85 Wrote: Even if the measuring protocol was changed or the tiger was measured by different people, there is almost no way it causes a difference of 26 cm. Looking back at tiger measurements from Cooch Behar and Hewett the difference was at most 5-7 inches / 13-18 cm when measuring between perpendiculars and over the contours. Such large difference can only be caused if they suddenly decided to use some protocol like ALPRU they did with Namibian lions. Human error can cause a difference but nothing more than a few centimetres, not nearly a foot.

That’s my point, it’s way too inconsistent unfortunately. Even measuring the same protocols doesn’t mean that the same measurements will be obtained. Everyone adds their own “technique” to the measuring process. But for P-111 you can pretty much guarantee he wasn’t measured exactly the same for each capture unfortunately. 

*This image is copyright of its original author


You can also see an error for his chest abdomen girth from capture 49.

Dr. Sunal Kumar says that these tigers were measured over contours. I believe the method they used must be similar to what Dr. Sunquist used in Chitwan.
Unfortunately over the curves leaves more room for error which is what we see here.
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

SpinoRex Offline
Banned

(01-24-2022, 04:59 AM)Khan85 Wrote:
(01-24-2022, 04:17 AM)Pckts Wrote:
(01-24-2022, 01:42 AM)Khan85 Wrote: Even if the measuring protocol was changed or the tiger was measured by different people, there is almost no way it causes a difference of 26 cm. Looking back at tiger measurements from Cooch Behar and Hewett the difference was at most 5-7 inches / 13-18 cm when measuring between perpendiculars and over the contours. Such large difference can only be caused if they suddenly decided to use some protocol like ALPRU they did with Namibian lions. Human error can cause a difference but nothing more than a few centimetres, not nearly a foot.

That’s my point, it’s way too inconsistent unfortunately. Even measuring the same protocols doesn’t mean that the same measurements will be obtained. Everyone adds their own “technique” to the measuring process. But for P-111 you can pretty much guarantee he wasn’t measured exactly the same for each capture unfortunately. 

*This image is copyright of its original author


You can also see an error for his chest abdomen girth from capture 49.

Dr. Sunal Kumar says that these tigers were measured over contours. I believe the method they used must be similar to what Dr. Sunquist used in Chitwan.

Hi,

i hope you can get some informations regarding that P111 Male. In the document and on the internet the contact details of the directors are published and additionally contact informations are found in the document as well . P212 was at a more likely adult age 190 kg as published before and Sunal was also giving a weight of 218 kg for a unknown male (he forgot the idea).

The female tiger P-213 has a chest of 136 cm and Abdomen girth of 104 cm. That just doesnt make sense and the males.... 154 cm is 100% possible for tigers. Good genetics and good conditioning (food, enviroment) and then you have it. But even though there are "early bloomers" its far too young to reach such dimensions i think. Also the numbers are so different.

Also looking at T3 he remained pretty much consistent. At 5-6 yo he was exactly 200 kg. 

Missing Infos and errors comparing with a more accurate document
Also the table HAS Errors in terms of weight and some arent included. The weight of P111 at 1 year and 9 month was 130 kg according to a other document, which proofs the chest girth CANT make sense. T3 as i said was weighed at 5yrs and weighed 200 kg but isnt included. the T6 female was at 3 years and 6 month NOT 144 kg but 105 kg. The T2 female reached at 3 years and 6 months whopping 150 kg. The female T1 weighed at 3 years and 6 months 140 kg. The female T5 isnt mentioned but was at 7 years 95 kg.

*This image is copyright of its original author



And here the info about P212 who weighed at 4.5 YO 190 kg. And unknown(He forgot the ID) male of 218 kg. 

My conversation & from a other WF user named Roflcopters. Note my conversation was 6 years later.

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author



The weights are saved. But measurements like Chest Girth, HBL Length, Shoulderheight are still a nice to have but the shoulderheight arent measured on a straight way...
Reply

India Khan85 Online
Animal admirer & Vegan
***
( This post was last modified: 01-24-2022, 11:49 AM by Khan85 )

(01-24-2022, 02:36 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: One thing is certain the numbers have some serious flaws, which isnt a suprise if you are making such a table without checking it several times. 

I got a reply from the scientist of Panna TR. His name is Sunal Kumar Roamin and most of you may know him already. He said they measured tigers over curves. The male he mentioned who weighed 218 kg isnt included in the table... he probably mean the 228 kg ig but im not sure.

*This image is copyright of its original author



@peter 

I recently found a interesting information about Siberian Tigers. This male tiger named M26 is quoted to be 250 kg and he is looking big




218 kg tiger is a different one. 228 kg P243 was collared in May 2021 but the 218 kg tiger is from a few yrs ago
Reply

Virgin Islands, U.S. Rage2277 Offline
animal enthusiast
*****


*This image is copyright of its original author
the 218 kg male was p112 this guy if i recall  @Khan85
1 user Likes Rage2277's post
Reply

SpinoRex Offline
Banned

(01-24-2022, 08:24 AM)Rage2277 Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
the 218 kg male was p112 this guy if i recall  @Khan85

Are you sure its this male tiger?
Reply

SpinoRex Offline
Banned

(01-24-2022, 07:54 AM)Khan85 Wrote:
(01-24-2022, 02:36 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: One thing is certain the numbers have some serious flaws, which isnt a suprise if you are making such a table without checking it several times. 

I got a reply from the scientist of Panna TR. His name is Sunal Kumar Roamin and most of you may know him already. He said they measured tigers over curves. The male he mentioned who weighed 218 kg isnt included in the table... he probably mean the 228 kg ig but im not sure.

*This image is copyright of its original author



@peter 

I recently found a interesting information about Siberian Tigers. This male tiger named M26 is quoted to be 250 kg and he is looking big




218 kg tiger is a different one. 228 kg P243 was collared in June 2021 but the 218 kg tiger is from a few yrs ago

I know i just said IG. But looking at it the tiger was apparently not included like some other tigers.
Reply

Virgin Islands, U.S. Rage2277 Offline
animal enthusiast
*****

(01-24-2022, 09:51 AM)SpinoRex Wrote:
(01-24-2022, 08:24 AM)Rage2277 Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
the 218 kg male was p112 this guy if i recall  @Khan85

Are you sure its this male tiger?

did some digging p112 aka T7 isn't the 218 kg male
1 user Likes Rage2277's post
Reply

Ashutosh Online
Contributor
*****

@Rage2277, P112 and T7 are different tigers. T7 is a founder tiger of Panna whereas P112 was the son of Tigress T1 and male T3 from the first litter.
Reply

Virgin Islands, U.S. Rage2277 Offline
animal enthusiast
*****
( This post was last modified: 01-24-2022, 01:16 PM by Rage2277 )

(01-24-2022, 01:04 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Rage2277, P112 and T7 are different tigers. T7 is a founder tiger of Panna whereas P112 was the son of Tigress T1 and male T3 from the first litter.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...DESH_INDIA check his ID here page 28
Reply

Ashutosh Online
Contributor
*****
( This post was last modified: 01-24-2022, 01:27 PM by Ashutosh )

@Rage2277, I know what you mean. This study is from 2012-13. Since then, they decided on new numbering to avoid confusion. You can see P111 is called T6, but actually T6 is now a female and a founding tigress. T7 was reintroduced in Panna in 2015 (after this study was published) and is considered a founding tiger. P112 is T3’s son.

New Panna nomenclature is founding tigers are named Tx (1-7) whereas all tigers born in Panna are Pxyz where x denotes mother y is the litter number while z is the cub number from that litter.

So, T7 is now solely the introduced male and P112 is referred as just that.

Here is an article about T7 (a tiger not from Panna) being reintroduced in Panna: The article also gives T7’s length as 9 feet 2 inches.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/bhopal/ba...M_amp.html
3 users Like Ashutosh's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
2 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