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.
(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh
There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.
I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.
I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.
*This image is copyright of its original author
As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.
Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.
(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh
There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.
I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.
I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.
*This image is copyright of its original author
As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.
Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.
(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh
There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.
I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.
I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.
*This image is copyright of its original author
As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.
Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.
I already said that the comparison would give an approximate result, there is no way to make a photo accurately match measurements taken on a lying, dead or sedated animal.
However, I have tried to do my best, the distance between the tip of Wagdoh's nose and the start of the tail is somewhat less than 10 squares, that is, less than 2 m, no matter how much we stretched the image, hardly it would come to occupy another box, so it may be true that there is a difference of a few centimeters in the animal, but for global vision purposes it would not change much.
As for the height at the level of the shoulders is not the one I invented, nor the size of the chest, it is the one that results from adjusting the length of the body to the length of 207 cm, remember that it is a real photograph of Wagdoh, not a drawing of mine. In any case, even if I reduce the size of our tiger a little, the height on the shoulders could drop from approximately 110 cm to 105, but no more. Length and height are associated, if I alter one, the other will also alter to the same extent.
(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh
There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.
I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.
I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.
*This image is copyright of its original author
As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.
Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.
(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh
There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.
I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.
I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.
*This image is copyright of its original author
As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.
Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.
I already said that the comparison would give an approximate result, there is no way to make a photo accurately match measurements taken on a lying, dead or sedated animal.
However, I have tried to do my best, the distance between the tip of Wagdoh's nose and the start of the tail is somewhat less than 10 squares, that is, less than 2 m, no matter how much we stretched the image, hardly it would come to occupy another box, so it may be true that there is a difference of a few centimeters in the animal, but for global vision purposes it would not change much.
As for the height at the level of the shoulders is not the one I invented, nor the size of the chest, it is the one that results from adjusting the length of the body to the length of 207 cm, remember that it is a real photograph of Wagdoh, not a drawing of mine. In any case, even if I reduce the size of our tiger a little, the height on the shoulders could drop from approximately 110 cm to 105, but no more. Length and height are associated, if I alter one, the other will also alter to the same extent.
Why?
The animals measurements are specified.
The height represented is 101cm and generally speaking these measurements are usually exaggerated. Unfortunate that the whole image shrinks when reducing his shoulder size to it's actual measurement.
(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh
There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.
I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.
I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.
*This image is copyright of its original author
As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.
Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.
I already said that the comparison would give an approximate result, there is no way to make a photo accurately match measurements taken on a lying, dead or sedated animal.
However, I have tried to do my best, the distance between the tip of Wagdoh's nose and the start of the tail is somewhat less than 10 squares, that is, less than 2 m, no matter how much we stretched the image, hardly it would come to occupy another box, so it may be true that there is a difference of a few centimeters in the animal, but for global vision purposes it would not change much.
As for the height at the level of the shoulders is not the one I invented, nor the size of the chest, it is the one that results from adjusting the length of the body to the length of 207 cm, remember that it is a real photograph of Wagdoh, not a drawing of mine. In any case, even if I reduce the size of our tiger a little, the height on the shoulders could drop from approximately 110 cm to 105, but no more. Length and height are associated, if I alter one, the other will also alter to the same extent.
Why?
The animals measurements are specified.
The height represented is 101cm and generally speaking these measurements are usually exaggerated. Unfortunate that the whole image shrinks when reducing his shoulder size to it's actual measurement.
I guess I am not explaining myself well, if I reduce the height of the shoulders to 101 cm, then the length of the body will be much less than 207 cm.
Simply the measures taken are not consistent with what the photograph tells us.
10-20-2022, 04:32 AM( This post was last modified: 10-20-2022, 11:05 AM by LonePredator )
(10-20-2022, 03:30 AM)JUJOMORE Wrote:
(10-19-2022, 10:43 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(10-19-2022, 03:19 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote:
(10-17-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(10-16-2022, 11:58 PM)JUJOMORE Wrote: About the size of Wagdoh
There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent.
I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality.
I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.
*This image is copyright of its original author
As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger.
Shoulder height is too high and body length is probably slightly longer as well but not as large a margin of error as height.. Remember body length is from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail when stretched or laid flat so in the image you show, you'll see a curvature in the spine and a slopped head, both of these would be straightened and a bit longer, nothing crazy though. The shoulder height should only be at the 100cm mark, not the 110cm mark where it's shown. Unfortunately it's unknown the protocols but exaggerating the height isn't the best option as height is most of the time exaggerated by people unless measured properly which is rare.
Chest size is a little big as well but it has more to do with the exaggerated shoulder size I'm sure.
I already said that the comparison would give an approximate result, there is no way to make a photo accurately match measurements taken on a lying, dead or sedated animal.
However, I have tried to do my best, the distance between the tip of Wagdoh's nose and the start of the tail is somewhat less than 10 squares, that is, less than 2 m, no matter how much we stretched the image, hardly it would come to occupy another box, so it may be true that there is a difference of a few centimeters in the animal, but for global vision purposes it would not change much.
As for the height at the level of the shoulders is not the one I invented, nor the size of the chest, it is the one that results from adjusting the length of the body to the length of 207 cm, remember that it is a real photograph of Wagdoh, not a drawing of mine. In any case, even if I reduce the size of our tiger a little, the height on the shoulders could drop from approximately 110 cm to 105, but no more. Length and height are associated, if I alter one, the other will also alter to the same extent.
Why?
The animals measurements are specified.
The height represented is 101cm and generally speaking these measurements are usually exaggerated. Unfortunate that the whole image shrinks when reducing his shoulder size to it's actual measurement.
I guess I am not explaining myself well, if I reduce the height of the shoulders to 101 cm, then the length of the body will be much less than 207 cm.
Simply the measures taken are not consistent with what the photograph tells us.
A photograph will never scale to correct proportions as per the official measurements of the specimen unless the Tiger is in a perfectly still pose in the said photograph. Here in the picture Wagdoh has a bent head (which instantly skews the bodylength) and also has bent frontlimbs and elbows (which instantly skews the shoulder height measurements)
Body length is taken by straightening the whole body including the head, neck and spine but the head is slightly bent in the picture which automatically means you can’t scale this as per the actual measured bodylength (which was measured in a different pose compared to this picture)
On top of that, shoulder height is typically measured by taking a straight normal length from shoulder to heel but in this picture neither of the forelimbs are straight nor perpendicular to the ground, both are heavily bent at angle (one in forward direction and one in backward direction) and even the elbows are slightly bent at an angle and not fully extended which automatically means you can’t get proper scaling as per his actual measured shoulder height figure by using this picture.
A picture (unless taken in the same pose as the pose in which the specimen’s measurements were taken) will pretty much never scale according to the official measurements of the given specimen.
Quote:Simply the measures taken are not consistent with what the photograph tells us.
Simply because the measurements were taken in a completely different pose than the pose in the photograph.
Simply put, this picture is taken in a completely different pose while Wagdoh’s body measurements were taken in a completely different pose which is why this picture will not scale according to his measurements.
And the measurements can’t be neglected or denied just by looking at a picture scaling like the one above.
However, it’s still a good way to get a rough visual feel ofthe sheer size of the specimen.
(10-20-2022, 11:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Simply put, this picture is taken in a completely different pose while Wagdoh’s body measurements were taken in a completely different pose which is why this picture will not scale according to his measurements.
And the measurements can’t be neglected or denied just by looking at a picture scaling like the one above.
However, it’s still a good way to get a rough visual feel ofthe sheer size of the specimen.
I know, I know, and I agree. I was the first to alert that a photograph cannot replace a tape measure. The infographic is only intended to give an approximate image of what it would appear in life.
But, despite all that, a shoulder height of 101 cm is not compatible with a body length of 207 cm, that rather corresponds to an animal of approx. 190 cm, the proportions are constant, with a certain margin of error, in living beings.
You can contrast what I say by looking, for example, at the infographics presented by Guate on pages 1 an 25 of this same topic to see the proportions. Even so, it is totally true that there are animals with bodies proportionally somewhat shorter or longer than others, but from a certain limit an obvious distortion occurs. Wagdoh was a large, bulky tiger but did not appear to be very long.
I enclose another infographic, with the image of the original photograph and another one distorted to adjust the height while maintaining the length. Which one do you think is more real?
(10-20-2022, 11:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Simply put, this picture is taken in a completely different pose while Wagdoh’s body measurements were taken in a completely different pose which is why this picture will not scale according to his measurements.
And the measurements can’t be neglected or denied just by looking at a picture scaling like the one above.
However, it’s still a good way to get a rough visual feel ofthe sheer size of the specimen.
I know, I know, and I agree. I was the first to alert that a photograph cannot replace a tape measure. The infographic is only intended to give an approximate image of what it would appear in life.
But, despite all that, a shoulder height of 101 cm is not compatible with a body length of 207 cm, that rather corresponds to an animal of approx. 190 cm, the proportions are constant, with a certain margin of error, in living beings.
You can contrast what I say by looking, for example, at the infographics presented by Guate on pages 1 an 25 of this same topic to see the proportions. Even so, it is totally true that there are animals with bodies proportionally somewhat shorter or longer than others, but from a certain limit an obvious distortion occurs. Wagdoh was a large, bulky tiger but did not appear to be very long.
I enclose another infographic, with the image of the original photograph and another one distorted to adjust the height while maintaining the length. Which one do you think is more real?
*This image is copyright of its original author
Maybe robably because the thickness of the heel pad is excluded and the height is only taken from shoulder to the heel or many other possibilities. But there’s no reason to question official measurements by looking a picture of an animal.
In one of your previous posts, you yourself posted a collection of measurements of male Tigers from Nepal where many male Tigers are 215cm (probably around 205 between pegs) and the height is only 100cm.
Ramsay Tiger was also over 230cm in HBL (between pegs) but the height was only 110cm. Some Brander and Cooch Behar Tigers also were long in bodylength but short in shoulder height.
All these records aren’t fake, are they? There’s a lot of factors that could be involved and you can’t deny official measurements by looking at pictures and editing them around.
(10-20-2022, 11:21 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Simply put, this picture is taken in a completely different pose while Wagdoh’s body measurements were taken in a completely different pose which is why this picture will not scale according to his measurements.
And the measurements can’t be neglected or denied just by looking at a picture scaling like the one above.
However, it’s still a good way to get a rough visual feel ofthe sheer size of the specimen.
I know, I know, and I agree. I was the first to alert that a photograph cannot replace a tape measure. The infographic is only intended to give an approximate image of what it would appear in life.
But, despite all that, a shoulder height of 101 cm is not compatible with a body length of 207 cm, that rather corresponds to an animal of approx. 190 cm, the proportions are constant, with a certain margin of error, in living beings.
You can contrast what I say by looking, for example, at the infographics presented by Guate on pages 1 an 25 of this same topic to see the proportions. Even so, it is totally true that there are animals with bodies proportionally somewhat shorter or longer than others, but from a certain limit an obvious distortion occurs. Wagdoh was a large, bulky tiger but did not appear to be very long.
I enclose another infographic, with the image of the original photograph and another one distorted to adjust the height while maintaining the length. Which one do you think is more real?
(07-13-2022, 01:18 AM)Charger01 Wrote: Some large tigers of 21st century.
Over the past year and a half, me as well as others have communicated with many scientists and forest officials from India and nearby countries. A large database for weights of Bengal Tigers has been compiled. Here, I am going to list and make remarks on some of these large tigers that have been documented by scientists and researchers and I have permission to talk about freely. Some of these have been confirmed twice. I will not add direct names of sources to avoid spam.
*(+) sign - exceeded / more than
Following is the list in ascending order:
1. M-125 aka "Madla" Weight: Exceeded 250 kg scale (adjusted minimum 220-230 kg+) Age: 8 - 8.5 Capture date: 12-01-2002 Location: Panna Tiger Reserve Region: Central India Remarks: Madla exceeded a scale of 250 kg used by Dr. Raghunandan Chundawat. This included around 10 kg weighing bed and est. 20 - 30 kg food. Minimum empty was estimated to be no less than 220 - 230 kg+
2. T-3 aka "Betal" Weight: 240 kg Age: 10 Capture date: 13-01-2013 Location: Panna Tiger Reserve Region: Central India Remarks: This tiger was captured multiple times. The weight was confirmed by Head of Forest Department in an email.
3. M-91 aka "Old King" Weight: Exceeded 250 kg scale (adjusted 240 kg+) Age: 6 - 6.5 Capture date: 11-04-1996 Location: Panna Tiger Reserve Region: Central India Remarks: After recovering, he regurgitated the food he had eaten before being darted. To eyes, M-91 appeared fully gorged with 25 - 30 kg meat but the amount in vomit was only 19 kg thus adjusted to 240 kg+ empty
4. MT-3 Weight: 243 kg Age: 4 Capture date: March of 2020 Location: Mukundra Tiger Reserve Region: Central-Western India Remarks: Originally from Ranthambore, he was darted after a maggot infection in his face which hindered him from hunting. A few months later, he died due to illness and it was found he lost over 52 kg in this period.
5. T-04 aka "Mara" Weight: 250 kg (empty or near empty?) Age: 2 - 3 Capture date: 29-01-1990 Location: Nagarahole National Park Region: Southern India Remarks: A young tiger that was attracted to bait but captured within 10 mins of taking it.
6. Unknown Weight: 250 kg empty Age: Adult Capture date: 2008 Location: Tezpur (near Kaziranga) Region: North-Eastern India Remarks: A very large (long and tall) tiger that was rescued after being stuck in a well after annual floods in the region.
7. Unknown Weight: 250 kg empty Age: Adult Capture date: 17-06-2021 Location: Valmiki Tiger Reserve Region: Terai Arc Remarks: This problem tiger was causing chaos in a village near Valmiki Tiger Reserve. He was said to be hungry for 4-5 days
8. Unknown Weight: 250 kg+ Age: 6 - 7 Capture date: 28-06-2022 Location: Dudhwa Tiger Reserve Region: Terai Arc Remarks: This tiger was accidently captured in a trap set up for another tiger. A "highly reliable" source confirmed this tiger weighed more than 250 kg.
9. T-24 aka "Ustad" Weight: 240 kg / 258 kg empty Age: 3 / 9 Capture date: 2009 / 16-05-2015 Location: Ranthambore National Park Region: Central - Western India Remarks: Ustad was moved to zoo for alleged attacks on humans.
10. "Poochkata" Weight: 285 kg gorged (adjusted 255 kg) Age: Adult Capture date: Unknown Location: Kanha Tiger Reserve Region: Central India Remarks: Weighed by Dr. Jhala of Wildlife Institute of India. He was gorged at the time of capture so adjusted value for 30 kg meat, resulting in c. 255 kg empty.
11. Unknown Weight: 260 kg Age: Adult Capture date: Unknown Location: Unknown Region: Central India Remarks: In the paper, "Field Guide for Ageing Tigers" by Dr. Jhala, a range of adult tiger weights is given as 200 - 260 kg and Dr. Jhala's unpublished data is quoted. This leads me to believe that this 260 kg tiger is an individual tiger, although I could be wrong. 12. Unknown Weight: 280 kg (adjusted 260 kg) Age: Adult Capture date: Unknown Location: Ranthambore National Park Region: Central-Western India Remarks: Large tiger that had recently eaten before being weighed. So adjusted value for 20 kg meat, resulting in c. 260 kg empty.
13. Unknown Weight: 280 kg (adjusted 270 - 280 kg) Age: Could be a young adult or adult Capture date: Unknown Location: - Region: Central India Remarks: The source could not comment on if the tiger was empty but confirmed that it was 100% not gorged, meaning the tiger had nothing noticeable amount food in him (little to non). Hence I adjust for 10 kg or less than 10 kg food, resulting in c. 270 kg+ empty, making him one of the biggest felids.
14. M-126 Weight: Exceeded scale of 272 kg Age: Adult Capture date: 1984 Location: Chitwan National Park Region: Terai Arc Remarks: A large tiger captured by Dr. Dinerstein and his team in 1984. The tiger exceeded a weighing scale of 272 kg.
15. M-105 aka "Sauraha" Weight: Exceeded scale of 272 kg Age: 11 Capture date: 1980 Location: Chitwan National Park Region: Terai Arc Remarks: One of the largest tigers of all time, Sauraha exceeded a scale of 272 kg on his 4th capture. As the researchers who captured him described, he was a walking hunk of rippling muscle without an ounce of fat.
The weight of the 7th tiger mentioned over here is an estimate.
*This image is copyright of its original author
"The tiger is healthy and has been released in division two of the Valmiki Tiger Reserve (VTR), Battiah, the lone tiger reserve in Bihar. The tiger was caught from the Chiraiya village in East Champaran district June 17 evening after being shot with a tranquilizer gun twice. Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Motihari, Prabhakar Jha said the tiger weighs around 250 kilograms and was healthy when caught."
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
