WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
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  (01-24-2022, 01:12 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. 
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.  (01-24-2022, 03:47 AM)Pckts Wrote:(01-24-2022, 01:12 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. 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. (01-24-2022, 04:29 AM)Khan85 Wrote:Unfortunately over the curves leaves more room for error which is what we see here.(01-24-2022, 03:47 AM)Pckts Wrote:(01-24-2022, 01:12 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. (01-24-2022, 04:29 AM)Khan85 Wrote:(01-24-2022, 03:47 AM)Pckts Wrote:(01-24-2022, 01:12 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. 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... (01-24-2022, 02:06 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. 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   *This image is copyright of its original author the 218 kg male was p112 this guy if i recall @"khan85"
(01-24-2022, 07:24 AM)Khan85 Wrote:(01-24-2022, 02:06 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 know i just said IG. But looking at it the tiger was apparently not included like some other tigers.  (01-24-2022, 12:34 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
@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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 92 Guest(s) |