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 ---
Changes in forum policies, read this thread for more detail.

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

United States BlakeW39 Offline
Member
**

(10-11-2019, 11:10 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 02:22 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 07:59 PM)Rishi Wrote: Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.

The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.

Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.

I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).

I was referring to all subspecies, of both species... which i clearly mentioned. It's better not to pick & choose.

"Un-conventional" lion subspecies refer to the recent suggestions that onlines belong to two general subspecies Northern (Asiatic, Barbary & West-African) & Southern (East-African, South-African, Southwest-African). @BorneanTiger can point you towards the detailed posts he made on this topic, if you don't already know.

And no, I can't give you 1 specific page number. You have gotta go through the whole thread, it's a a short one & the data is stored all over it.
Ideally you should go through the tiger population's threads (Terai, Central India, South India, Eastern & Western Ghats, Northeast, Himalayas, West, Sundarban) too.

Because 95% of the very little publicly available & reliable modern tiger weights are from Central or South India, I repeat, the northern tigers' possible average weight was an estimation based on their physique compared to the ones whose weights are known. Could be higher or lower, from population to population.

On top of that only young-adults are collared in India & almost no healthy tigers get tranquilised. Weighing of stranded or problem tigers sedated for capture & release is uncommon. Even if done, that data is rarely released.
We know next to nothing about weight of prime specimens.

(10-11-2019, 11:46 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.


Thanks, I'll look through. And yes I'm aware of the research done on those lion subspecies (that's what I was referencing). Which was why I chose the larger of the two to compare to large tigers, I like to compare smaller tigers to large jaguars since the range is so great. Using a whole species for comparison fades the usefulness of an average weight. But this is interesting, I'll look into some of the stuff you guys got here - thanks.

(10-11-2019, 11:46 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.


I'm confused man, what's fact..? That 2% of tigers are weighed or that 220kg males are existant? lol well I'm not sure any of this is fact as you'd call it... speculation and theorization, even if accurate at that.
1 user Likes BlakeW39's post
Reply

Finland Shadow Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 10-12-2019, 01:30 PM by Shadow )

(10-11-2019, 05:35 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 11:10 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 02:22 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 07:59 PM)Rishi Wrote: Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.

The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.

Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.

I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).

I was referring to all subspecies, of both species... which i clearly mentioned. It's better not to pick & choose.

"Un-conventional" lion subspecies refer to the recent suggestions that onlines belong to two general subspecies Northern (Asiatic, Barbary & West-African) & Southern (East-African, South-African, Southwest-African). @BorneanTiger can point you towards the detailed posts he made on this topic, if you don't already know.

And no, I can't give you 1 specific page number. You have gotta go through the whole thread, it's a a short one & the data is stored all over it.
Ideally you should go through the tiger population's threads (Terai, Central India, South India, Eastern & Western Ghats, Northeast, Himalayas, West, Sundarban) too.

Because 95% of the very little publicly available & reliable modern tiger weights are from Central or South India, I repeat, the northern tigers' possible average weight was an estimation based on their physique compared to the ones whose weights are known. Could be higher or lower, from population to population.

On top of that only young-adults are collared in India & almost no healthy tigers get tranquilised. Weighing of stranded or problem tigers sedated for capture & release is uncommon. Even if done, that data is rarely released.
We know next to nothing about weight of prime specimens.

(10-11-2019, 11:46 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.


Thanks, I'll look through. And yes I'm aware of the research done on those lion subspecies (that's what I was referencing). Which was why I chose the larger of the two to compare to large tigers, I like to compare smaller tigers to large jaguars since the range is so great. Using a whole species for comparison fades the usefulness of an average weight. But this is interesting, I'll look into some of the stuff you guys got here - thanks.

(10-11-2019, 11:46 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.


I'm confused man, what's fact..? That 2% of tigers are weighed or that 220kg males are existant? lol well I'm not sure any of this is fact as you'd call it... speculation and theorization, even if accurate at that.

What comes to weighings of the big cats and other animals, it´s same with all. It´s not easy or without risks to sedate wild animals and then weigh them. 2% of tigers, might be same or even less with lions... I don´t think, that even 1% have been weighed. Biggest bears... there are maybe 1-2 times, when wild Kodiak bears have been weighed. So in this way tigers or lions are nothing special. Lately there have been discussions about rainforest leopards, not much good information really about those either. 

It is as it is. So there might be (and without a doubt are) many big representatives of different species which have never been weighed. There have been many photos and videos about tigers and lions showing impressive individuals, but we will never know their exact size or weight, many are gone already. Like the famous lion Caesar, considered as biggest ever in Maasai Mara by many. But all what we have are "guesstimations".
3 users Like Shadow's post
Reply

Roflcopters Offline
Modern Tiger Expert
*****

I was being generous with the 2% claim, I have a few friends that work with WCS, WWF India and WII. they all tell me how it is. If it’s not a large funded program. experts would hardly consider weighing tigers. It sucks, we don’t know the weights of some of the biggest subspecies of Bengals. mainly the Assam and Terai population. a well seasoned male from any of those areas could be 250kg in their prime.
2 users Like Roflcopters's post
Reply

Ashutosh Offline
Senior Member
****

@Roflcopters, forget weighing, but most of the tigers you see pictured (they are shy as it is) are only from buffer zones of most national parks. Unless the forest officials release images of animals from the core area, most will never even know what tigers lived there and core areas are much more likely to have lots of herbivores and better prey base for predators as it is better protected.

Weighing tigers is not really a serious consideration when it comes to conservation and is down the list of priorities because of the risks involved in darting them (to humans and tigers). So, you are definitely being generous with 2%. Madla was a minimum 250 kilos tiger(the contraption could only weigh upto 250 kilos) and we know that Hairy foot was bigger than Madla. So, the 250 kilos tigers are definitely out there. Sadly, Panna lost two lineages to poaching.

Personally, I think Bengal tigers in most of their habitat are yet to recover their sizes because poaching took away the biggest specimens and robbed us of their progenies. Of course over time, you will start seeing tigers again back to the size they evolved to be.
4 users Like Ashutosh's post
Reply

Roflcopters Offline
Modern Tiger Expert
*****

Yes 100%, you nailed it.
1 user Likes Roflcopters's post
Reply

Finland Shadow Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 10-13-2019, 01:57 AM by Shadow )

(10-12-2019, 10:39 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: @Roflcopters, forget weighing, but most of the tigers you see pictured (they are shy as it is) are only from buffer zones of most national parks. Unless the forest officials release images of animals from the core area, most will never even know what tigers lived there and core areas are much more likely to have lots of herbivores and better prey base for predators as it is better protected.

Weighing tigers is not really a serious consideration when it comes to conservation and is down the list of priorities because of the risks involved in darting them (to humans and tigers). So, you are definitely being generous with 2%. Madla was a minimum 250 kilos tiger(the contraption could only weigh upto 250 kilos) and we know that Hairy foot was bigger than Madla. So, the 250 kilos tigers are definitely out there. Sadly, Panna lost two lineages to poaching.

Personally, I think Bengal tigers in most of their habitat are yet to recover their sizes because poaching took away the biggest specimens and robbed us of their progenies. Of course over time, you will start seeing tigers again back to the size they evolved to be.

That´s interesting way to put it. I mean "to the size they evolved to be". After all difference between weights known today and for instance 100-150 years ago isn´t that big. Major difference is, that back then some hunters reported some weights and sizes, which were more or less unbelievable when looking at common sizes and weights. Those cases seem to be more or less controversial. Question is, that are those cases exaggerations by hunters etc. or maybe some individuals have had same kind of disorder as people who suffer from acromegaly. 

But what are tigers evolved to be... looks like, that in between 200-300 kg when talking about males, imo. And 300 kg is really big one, not seen too often nowadays and also rare in "good old days". When seeing big boys like Wagdoh, question is, that are there many bigger ones? No matter where they live. Many opinions, but difficult to say.
2 users Like Shadow's post
Reply

BorneanTiger Offline
Senior Member
****
( This post was last modified: 10-12-2019, 11:14 PM by BorneanTiger )

(10-11-2019, 02:22 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 08:03 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 06:17 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 11:06 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-09-2019, 05:22 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, 06:57 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.


Tigers are the largest cats. I've never questioned the tigers 'status' as the largest of the felines - that is, that tigers are larger than lions when considering upper weights. I have however always wondered by how much.

Some seem to be of the opinion that tigers are the largest cats but lions are a very close second, and that large lions generally fall into the same size range as large tigers. That tigers and lions are the massive cats, with all others falling comfortably below them. This seems to be the opinion of you and @BorneanTiger . The opposing view is that tigers are much larger than lions, and lions fall behind tigers by close to 100lbs - that this general rule applies to lions and tigers generally. I'm interested in seeing which is true.

(10-10-2019, 07:59 PM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 06:17 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 11:06 AM)Rishi Wrote: 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.

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.

Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.

The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.


Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.

I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).

This might sound ridiculous, but if you accept records set by individuals that gorged their bellies by consuming Bovinæ (the subfamily of ungulates within the family of Bovidæ that includes buffaloes and cattle) to know what the difference is at the upper extreme in the wilderness, then the heaviest wild tiger measured was not an Amur tiger with an unconfirmed weight of 384 kg (847 lbs), but a Bengal tiger in northern India with a recorded weight of 388.7 kg (857 lbs), but this was after it ate a buffalo calf, without which it might have weighed at least 317 kg (715 lbs), so it's similar to the case of 2 Southern lions in Tanzania allegedly weighing 700 and 800 pounds (317.52 and 362.87 kg) after killing 244 cattle and 3 donkeys, and you're probably looking at a difference of 57 pounds (25.85 kg) at the upper extreme between a Bengal tiger and Southern lion, but partly as mentioned by Brakefield, these weights may be considered to have been inflated because their bellies were gorged, and a lion and tiger can technically eat so much so as to weigh about 1,000 pounds (453.49 kg), as shown by captive individuals like Siberian tiger Jaipur (which weighed 465 kg or 1,025 lbs), an African lion that killed a man in 2004, and another lion called 'Samson'.
3 users Like BorneanTiger's post
Reply

Ashutosh Offline
Senior Member
****
( This post was last modified: 10-13-2019, 01:07 AM by Ashutosh )

I don’t mean to be rude @BorneanTiger, but, I don’t think a tiger can eat 70 kilos of meat in one sitting!! I know they have large appetites, but that is just ludicrous. For a tiger weighing 315 kilos, 70 kilos accounts for 22.22% of it’s body weight. They have been known to eat about 15% of their body weight but 22% is about 50% off the mark. A more acceptable figure would be that tiger having eaten close to 45-50 kilos (that would still make it a humongous tiger by the way), just not a 389 kilo wild tiger!
2 users Like Ashutosh's post
Reply

BorneanTiger Offline
Senior Member
****
( This post was last modified: 10-13-2019, 11:00 AM by BorneanTiger )

(10-13-2019, 01:02 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: I don’t mean to be rude @BorneanTiger, but, I don’t think a tiger can eat 70 kilos of meat in one sitting!! I know they have large appetites, but that is just ludicrous. For a tiger weighing 315 kilos, 70 kilos accounts for 22.22% of it’s body weight. They have been known to eat about 15% of their body weight but 22% is about 50% off the mark. A more acceptable figure would be that tiger having eaten close to 45-50 kilos (that would still make it a humongous tiger by the way), just not a 389 kilo wild tiger!

Like I said, it can sound ridiculous that a tiger would get so fat and heavy after eating a buffalo calf, but if we go by the example of the 2 Tanzanian lions that reportedly slaughtered 244 cattle and 3 donkeys, or the reports of Barbary lions which got extremely fat by feeding on domestic sheep or goats, then a more logical explanation would be that Hassinger's Bengal tiger had been feeding heavily on domestic bovines (buffaloes or cattle) or other livestock over a period of time. Being confined to places with barriers, domestic livestock would have no way of escaping a predator that enters their territory, so they would be more susceptible to being taken down by predators in large numbers over time, compared to their free-ranging relatives in the wild, which by comparison have plenty of space to escape predators, so it's no wonder that farmers in the developing world, from Latin America to Africa to Asia, are likely to take measures, whether legal or illegal, to prevent predators like jaguars, lions and tigers from taking their livestock, which can include killing them: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46095118
Reply

GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
( This post was last modified: 10-15-2019, 03:02 AM by GuateGojira )

Average weight of the male tiger (Panthera tigris) at species level:

I will try to clarify this issue of the weights with the tigers.

With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few.  Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over  200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which  is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.

I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:

Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.

Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg. 

I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.

The figure of 272 kg+ was stablished by the two big males from Chitwan, Nepal, males tigers 105-Sauraha and 126. Interestingly, while only 4 males were captured in that area between 1974 to 1980, 2 of them are already heavier than any tiger or lion in the wild recorded by scientists (the male of 272 kg in Kenya was a cattle killer and consequently very bulky and at some point abnormal), which suggest that most of the males in that area reached big weights. They calculated weights "empty belly" are of at least 260 kg, and Smith et al. (1983) presented a figure of 261 kg, which is the one quoted in modern books.  

Dr Jhala says that the tigers in Ranthambore NP are among the largest in India, but it seems that he have just captured 8 specimens (other source says 10) in the area between 2007 and 2009: 3 adult males, 1 adult female, 3 subadult males and 1 subadult female. From the 3 adult males, we know the weight of two males: T10-Darra with 220 kg and T-24-Ustad with 240 kg; the other male T12-Tikkoo is still not clear, but people that saw him estimated that it could not weight less than 200 kg. The area of Kumaon and Gwalior presented huge tigers in the old records, in fact 4 of the exceptional males came from that area (272, 276, 282 and 292 kg, respectivelly), and we must not forget that the modern tigers that live in Ranthambore are decendents of a population reintroduced from Gwalior (Thapar et al., 2013). 

About the Amur tigers, we have less information, however, with the few old and verified old records and the modern scientific records we can present figures of 216.5 kg (n=10, range: 164 - 254 kg) for males in old records and 190 kg (n=23, range: 155- 212 kg) for the modern ones. The overall average using all the weights will be of 203 kg for the entire subspecies/population.  

The Caspian tigers are calculated to be as large as the Bengal ones, but the few skulls available suggest a smaller size. The only three weights from males records a figure of 197 kg (range: 170 - 240 kg). One skull is said to have measured 385 mm in total length (Heptner & Sludskii, 1992) but a follow investigation suggested that the other measurements presented suggest a specimen much more smaller and that probably the skull was measured over the bone, saldly the skull is lost forever (Mazák, 2013).

The Indochinese tiger was about the same than the Caspian tiger, if not slightly longer based in the skulls. The biggest skull from a Caspian tiger was of 369 mm while a new skull apparently from Malaysia (based in DNA) was  of 370 mm. In the weight department very few figures are available in litterature, with just three males: one of 173.3 kg (Pocock, 1939), other of 182 kg (Mazák, 2013) and a big one of 259 kg (Bazé, 1957). Modern records are available thanks to the scientists working in Thailand at this moment, and based in 4 males (with 5 captures) the average weight is of 182 kg (range: 164 - 209 kg), about the same body mass than modern Amur tigers. So using the modern records plus the old records we got an average figure of 193.5 kg (n=8, range: 164 - 259 kg).

The South China tiger is the smallest of the mainland tigers, if we take them as a single subspecies, and only lives in captivity. Slagth et al. (2005) present a a list of captive specimens and the males from this population had an average weight of 130.7 kg (n=13, no range). A list of wild specimens from hunting records shows an aveage of 152 kg (n=8, range: 108 - 190 kg). The biggest specimens seems to be from the northern are and the smallest ones from the southern, se there was a cline in the weight of this population. I don't have figures from the tigers that are in semi-wild status in South Africa, but I guess that they are heavier than those in China zoos and maybe clouse to those from the old wild records.

Finally, the only other subspecies/population from which we have body mass records is the Sumatran tiger, the smallest tiger in modern days. Using modern scientific records we have an average weight for males of 127 kg (n=4, range: 98-148 kg). That sample also includes a male of 75 kg, it says tha was adult and in good health, but certainly there is an error in that figures. The smallest captive adult male recorded by Slaght et al. (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009=) is of 91 kg and came from a sample of 21 speciments, and also Mazák (2013) which recorded weights of wild and capivte specimens reported that the smallest male was of 100 kg. So the figure of "75 kg" came probably when the animals was first captured and probably in not a good shape, or there was a typo. Using old hunting records, the average weight for Sumatran male tigers is of 119.3 kg (n=6, range: 104 - 140 kg), and using all the records for this subspecies we get to 122.8 kg (n=10, range: 104 - 148 kg). There is a record of a male of 180 kg but if that is accurate it will be exceptional. Also @peter measured a skull from a male of 350 mm in greatest length, which suggest that in the past big males existed in the island. There is also other record from a captured male of 130 kg posted here by a member but as we don't have the main source of it, I did not included the records in the modern records.

About the Malayan tigers, we don't have reliable weights from the wild in the old records. I found only one records of a male of 120 kg, but other news reports shows males of up to 170 kg, which will be not out of question. The figures showed by a report on Malayan tiger conservation as just estimations and reach a maximum of 130 kg. Slagth et al, (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009)) present a list of weights of "Indochinese - Corbetti" tigers but in fact this weights are from Malayan tigers in captivity, the average weight for males is 120.6 kg (n=6, range: 109 - 132 kg), this is closer to the Sumatran tigers than to the mainland ones. Reliable measurements from old records give average lengths as large as the South China and Indochinese tigers (Locke, 1954), and the skulls reported are big, with an average greatest length of 339 mm - n=4 (J. H. Mazák, 2008) and now we have a new skull of 370 mm. This suggest that in the past the Malayan tigers were as big as South China tigers (average greatest skull length of 334.7 mm (n=10, range: 318 - 348) and in some case even as big as the Indochinese tigers. I had not calculated yet the average weight of this population based in the skull size, but certainly if we use the average figures from modern captive specimens, we will get a very low average weight for the tigers species, a one that will not reflect the real weight of the species in time.

For Java and Bali tigers, the situation is worst. We only have two weights for Javanese tigers and none for the Bali tigers. For Javanese male tigers, we have one wild male of 141 kg and other from captivity of 110 kg. The average of these two specimens will be 125.5 kg, which is slighly more than those from Sumatra and this is accurate as the skulls fromthe male tigers in Java and bigger than those from the other two islands. However, the weight of 141 belongs to an animal with a skull length of 331 mm, whcih is just a little over the average reported of 321.3 mm in the study of Mazák and Groves (2006) that also included inmature specimens. Also, the biggest skull measured for this subspecies is of 349 mm (Mazák, 2013) and he even concluded that based in the skulls, this tiger population was probably as big as the tigers in South China! Using the condylobasal length of several specimens I calculated an average weight of 134.5 kg (n=10, range, 110 - 158 kg), which I guess will be probably closer to the real average in the wild. For Bali tigers we don't have any weight, Mazák (1981) estimated a weight between 90 - 100 kg, but I calculated an average weight of 112.8 kg (n=3, range: 107 - 123), but we must take in count that Mazák did not know the large skull of 301.5 mm in greatest length reported by Buzás and Karfas (1996). Also, my estimations based in the condilobasal length are using only captive specimens, if we use wild and captive  specimens the average figures will be:
* Java male tigers: 141.8 kg - n=10 - range: 116 - 166 kg.
* Bali male tigers: 118.9 kg - n=3 - range: 113 - 130 kg.
This may be a little more reliable figures, by I dediced to use the captive ones as the result obtained with the male of 141 kg was closer to the original (I got 144 kg with that specimen with condylobasal length of 294 mm.). However is interesting to see that the largest Bali male tiger, which had a skull size of the about the same than the large jaguar males from the Pantanal, got a similar calculated weight.


We can try to estimate an overall average weight for the males of the species Panthera tigris, but we will need to use captive specimens and isometric calculations from skulls to fill the holes. Taking the risk, this is what I got:
* Bengal tiger: 200 kg - n=147 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* Amur tiger: 203 kg - n=33 - range: 155 - 254 kg.
* Caspian tiger: 197 kg - n=3 - range: 170 - 240 kg.
* Indochinese tiger: 193.5 kg - n=8 - range: 164 - 259 kg.
* South China tiger: 152 kg - n=8 - range: 108 - 190 kg.
* Malayan tiger: 120.6 kg - n=6 - range: 109 - 132  kg - captivity.
* Sumatran tiger: 122.8 kg - n=10 - range: 104 - 148 kg.
* Java tiger: 125.5  kg - n=2 - range: 110 - 141 kg - one wild, one captive.
* Bali tiger: 112.8 kg - n=3 - range: 107 - 123 kg - isometrically calcullated.
** Overall average: 158.6 kg - n=220 - range: 97 - 272 kg.

This figure is pratically the same reported by Yamaguchi et al. (2009) and Kitchener & Yamagichi (2010), which says that the average weight for the male tiger at "species level" is c.160 kg. Now, remember that this list have many assumtions, specifically in the Malayan and Bali tigers. I used only to two known males for the Java tigers in order to use only true weights, but if I use the figure of 134.5 kg that I obtained from 10 skulls the average for male tigers overall will be 159.6 kg, practically the same figure with no diference. Now, if we use strictly only weights and only wild specimens, which will exclude the Malayan tigers (as they are captive), the Java tigers (as only one is wild) and the Bali tigers (as are calculated) from the sample, the average weight for male tigers as a species will be 178.1 kg (n=209, range: 97 - 272 kg).


Now, I did not included the male tiger of 389 kg from Guinness, well because something seems incorrect in that figure, the picture shows a bit tiger probably over 272 kg or maybe 290 kg, but that is all. The explanation that because a cat can eat a fifth of its weight is not satisfactory, specially by the fact that the highest amount ate by a tiger, actually record, is of 35 kg in Nepal and 27 kg in Kanha. Also, by no means we can take as "reliable" the reports of those lions of 700 and 800 lb, those are clear exagerations promoted by "fans" and we alread know that news reports are not reliable if are not corroborated. If not, it will be like to return to the old days and again acept the old records of Amur tigers of 360, 384 and even 400 kg! I think that if we try to get a good idea of the weight of these animals we must use a criteria and those selected-random-unreliabel figures should be discarted. In fact, the biggest male lion accepted by Guinness with 313 kg is also highly doubtfull, taking in count that the picture of that animal shows a quite small-to-average size male lion and the fact that was "checked by several people" is not guarantee, specially when we don't know what "people" was that, where they "experts", where they "officials", or where they just people that liked to please the guess? The method used but Slagth et al., (2005) seems reliable to me, and by this method, none of those huge lions from unverified news reports is remotelly reliable.

These are the figures about tigers that I have, if someone want especific information feel free to ask. Greetings.
8 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

India Rishi Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators

(10-15-2019, 02:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Average weight of the male tiger (Panthera tigris) at species level:

I will try to clarify this issue of the weights with the tigers.

With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few.  Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over  200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which  is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.

I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:

Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.

Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg. 

I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.

The figure of 272 kg+ was stablished by the two big males from Chitwan, Nepal, males tigers 105-Sauraha and 126. Interestingly, while only 4 males were captured in that area between 1974 to 1980, 2 of them are already heavier than any tiger or lion in the wild recorded by scientists (the male of 272 kg in Kenya was a cattle killer and consequently very bulky and at some point abnormal), which suggest that most of the males in that area reached big weights. They calculated weights "empty belly" are of at least 260 kg, and Smith et al. (1983) presented a figure of 261 kg, which is the one quoted in modern books.  

Dr Jhala says that the tigers in Ranthambore NP are among the largest in India, but it seems that he have just captured 8 specimens (other source says 10) in the area between 2007 and 2009: 3 adult males, 1 adult female, 3 subadult males and 1 subadult female. From the 3 adult males, we know the weight of two males: T10-Darra with 220 kg and T-24-Ustad with 240 kg; the other male T12-Tikkoo is still not clear, but people that saw him estimated that it could not weight less than 200 kg. The area of Kumaon and Gwalior presented huge tigers in the old records, in fact 4 of the exceptional males came from that area (272, 276, 282 and 292 kg, respectivelly), and we must not forget that the modern tigers that live in Ranthambore are decendents of a population reintroduced from Gwalior (Thapar et al., 2013). 

About the Amur tigers, we have less information, however, with the few old and verified old records and the modern scientific records we can present figures of 216.5 kg (n=10, range: 164 - 254 kg) for males in old records and 190 kg (n=23, range: 155- 212 kg) for the modern ones. The overall average using all the weights will be of 203 kg for the entire subspecies/population.  

The Caspian tigers are calculated to be as large as the Bengal ones, but the few skulls available suggest a smaller size. The only three weights from males records a figure of 197 kg (range: 170 - 240 kg). One skull is said to have measured 385 mm in total length (Heptner & Sludskii, 1992) but a follow investigation suggested that the other measurements presented suggest a specimen much more smaller and that probably the skull was measured over the bone, saldly the skull is lost forever (Mazák, 2013).

The Indochinese tiger was about the same than the Caspian tiger, if not slightly longer based in the skulls. The biggest skull from a Caspian tiger was of 369 mm while a new skull apparently from Malaysia (based in DNA) was  of 370 mm. In the weight department very few figures are available in litterature, with just three males: one of 173.3 kg (Pocock, 1939), other of 182 kg (Mazák, 2013) and a big one of 259 kg (Bazé, 1957). Modern records are available thanks to the scientists working in Thailand at this moment, and based in 4 males (with 5 captures) the average weight is of 182 kg (range: 164 - 209 kg), about the same body mass than modern Amur tigers. So using the modern records plus the old records we got an average figure of 193.5 kg (n=8, range: 164 - 259 kg).

The South China tiger is the smallest of the mainland tigers, if we take them as a single subspecies, and only lives in captivity. Slagth et al. (2005) present a a list of captive specimens and the males from this population had an average weight of 130.7 kg (n=13, no range). A list of wild specimens from hunting records shows an aveage of 152 kg (n=8, range: 108 - 190 kg). The biggest specimens seems to be from the northern are and the smallest ones from the southern, se there was a cline in the weight of this population. I don't have figures from the tigers that are in semi-wild status in South Africa, but I guess that they are heavier than those in China zoos and maybe clouse to those from the old wild records.

Finally, the only other subspecies/population from which we have body mass records is the Sumatran tiger, the smallest tiger in modern days. Using modern scientific records we have an average weight for males of 127 kg (n=4, range: 98-148 kg). That sample also includes a male of 75 kg, it says tha was adult and in good health, but certainly there is an error in that figures. The smallest captive adult male recorded by Slaght et al. (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009=) is of 91 kg and came from a sample of 21 speciments, and also Mazák (2013) which recorded weights of wild and capivte specimens reported that the smallest male was of 100 kg. So the figure of "75 kg" came probably when the animals was first captured and probably in not a good shape, or there was a typo. Using old hunting records, the average weight for Sumatran male tigers is of 119.3 kg (n=6, range: 104 - 140 kg), and using all the records for this subspecies we get to 122.8 kg (n=10, range: 104 - 148 kg). There is a record of a male of 180 kg but if that is accurate it will be exceptional. Also @peter measured a skull from a male of 350 mm in greatest length, which suggest that in the past big males existed in the island. There is also other record from a captured male of 130 kg posted here by a member but as we don't have the main source of it, I did not included the records in the modern records.

About the Malayan tigers, we don't have reliable weights from the wild in the old records. I found only one records of a male of 120 kg, but other news reports shows males of up to 170 kg, which will be not out of question. The figures showed by a report on Malayan tiger conservation as just estimations and reach a maximum of 130 kg. Slagth et al, (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009)) present a list of weights of "Indochinese - Corbetti" tigers but in fact this weights are from Malayan tigers in captivity, the average weight for males is 120.6 kg (n=6, range: 109 - 132 kg), this is closer to the Sumatran tigers than to the mainland ones. Reliable measurements from old records give average lengths as large as the South China and Indochinese tigers (Locke, 1954), and the skulls reported are big, with an average greatest length of 339 mm - n=4 (J. H. Mazák, 2008) and now we have a new skull of 370 mm. This suggest that in the past the Malayan tigers were as big as South China tigers (average greatest skull length of 334.7 mm (n=10, range: 318 - 348) and in some case even as big as the Indochinese tigers. I had not calculated yet the average weight of this population based in the skull size, but certainly if we use the average figures from modern captive specimens, we will get a very low average weight for the tigers species, a one that will not reflect the real weight of the species in time.

For Java and Bali tigers, the situation is worst. We only have two weights for Javanese tigers and none for the Bali tigers. For Javanese male tigers, we have one wild male of 141 kg and other from captivity of 110 kg. The average of these two specimens will be 125.5 kg, which is slighly more than those from Sumatra and this is accurate as the skulls fromthe male tigers in Java and bigger than those from the other two islands. However, the weight of 141 belongs to an animal with a skull length of 331 mm, whcih is just a little over the average reported of 321.3 mm in the study of Mazák and Groves (2006) that also included inmature specimens. Also, the biggest skull measured for this subspecies is of 349 mm (Mazák, 2013) and he even concluded that based in the skulls, this tiger population was probably as big as the tigers in South China! Using the condylobasal length of several specimens I calculated an average weight of 134.5 kg (n=10, range, 110 - 158 kg), which I guess will be probably closer to the real average in the wild. For Bali tigers we don't have any weight, Mazák (1981) estimated a weight between 90 - 100 kg, but I calculated an average weight of 112.8 kg (n=3, range: 107 - 123), but we must take in count that Mazák did not know the large skull of 301.5 mm in greatest length reported by Buzás and Karfas (1996). Also, my estimations based in the condilobasal length are using only captive specimens, if we use wild and captive  specimens the average figures will be:
* Java male tigers: 141.8 kg - n=10 - range: 116 - 166 kg.
* Bali male tigers: 118.9 kg - n=3 - range: 113 - 130 kg.
This may be a little more reliable figures, by I dediced to use the captive ones as the result obtained with the male of 141 kg was closer to the original (I got 144 kg with that specimen with condylobasal length of 294 mm.). However is interesting to see that the largest Bali male tiger, which had a skull size of the about the same than the large jaguar males from the Pantanal, got a similar calculated weight.


We can try to estimate an overall average weight for the males of the species Panthera tigris, but we will need to use captive specimens and isometric calculations from skulls to fill the holes. Taking the risk, this is what I got:
* Bengal tiger: 200 kg - n=147 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* Amur tiger: 203 kg - n=33 - range: 155 - 254 kg.
* Caspian tiger: 197 kg - n=3 - range: 170 - 240 kg.
* Indochinese tiger: 193.5 kg - n=8 - range: 164 - 259 kg.
* South China tiger: 152 kg - n=8 - range: 108 - 190 kg.
* Malayan tiger: 120.6 kg - n=6 - range: 109 - 132  kg - captivity.
* Sumatran tiger: 122.8 kg - n=10 - range: 104 - 148 kg.
* Java tiger: 125.5  kg - n=2 - range: 110 - 141 kg - one wild, one captive.
* Bali tiger: 112.8 kg - n=3 - range: 107 - 123 kg - isometrically calcullated.
** Overall average: 158.6 kg - n=220 - range: 97 - 272 kg.

This figure is pratically the same reported by Yamaguchi et al. (2009) and Kitchener & Yamagichi (2010), which says that the average weight for the male tiger at "species level" is c.160 kg. Now, remember that this list have many assumtions, specifically in the Malayan and Bali tigers. I used only to two known males for the Java tigers in order to use only true weights, but if I use the figure of 134.5 kg that I obtained from 10 skulls the average for male tigers overall will be 159.6 kg, practically the same figure with no diference. Now, if we use strictly only weights and only wild specimens, which will exclude the Malayan tigers (as they are captive), the Java tigers (as only one is wild) and the Bali tigers (as are calculated) from the sample, the average weight for male tigers as a species will be 178.1 kg (n=209, range: 97 - 272 kg).


Now, I did not included the male tiger of 389 kg from Guinness, well because something seems incorrect in that figure, the picture shows a bit tiger probably over 272 kg or maybe 290 kg, but that is all. The explanation that because a cat can eat a fifth of its weight is not satisfactory, specially by the fact that the highest amount ate by a tiger, actually record, is of 35 kg in Nepal and 27 kg in Kanha. Also, by no means we can take as "reliable" the reports of those lions of 700 and 800 lb, those are clear exagerations promoted by "fans" and we alread know that news reports are not reliable if are not corroborated. If not, it will be like to return to the old days and again acept the old records of Amur tigers of 360, 384 and even 400 kg! I think that if we try to get a good idea of the weight of these animals we must use a criteria and those selected-random-unreliabel figures should be discarted. In fact, the biggest male lion accepted by Guinness with 313 kg is also highly doubtfull, taking in count that the picture of that animal shows a quite small-to-average size male lion and the fact that was "checked by several people" is not guarantee, specially when we don't know what "people" was that, where they "experts", where they "officials", or where they just people that liked to please the guess? The method used but Slagth et al., (2005) seems reliable to me, and by this method, none of those huge lions from unverified news reports is remotelly reliable.

These are the figures about tigers that I have, if someone want especific information feel free to ask. Greetings.

@sanjay I have created a whole new thread in the Admin And Moderator Forum named: Average weight of the male tiger (Panthera tigris) at species level.

It contains a copy of this above post. If you want you can move it to the Premiere Section.
1 user Likes Rishi's post
Reply

India sanjay Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
*****

So why you haven't done it? Just asking.
Reply

United States BlakeW39 Offline
Member
**
( This post was last modified: 10-16-2019, 09:38 AM by BlakeW39 )

(10-15-2019, 02:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Average weight of the male tiger (Panthera tigris) at species level:

I will try to clarify this issue of the weights with the tigers.

With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few.  Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over  200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which  is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.

I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:

Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.

Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg. 

I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.

The figure of 272 kg+ was stablished by the two big males from Chitwan, Nepal, males tigers 105-Sauraha and 126. Interestingly, while only 4 males were captured in that area between 1974 to 1980, 2 of them are already heavier than any tiger or lion in the wild recorded by scientists (the male of 272 kg in Kenya was a cattle killer and consequently very bulky and at some point abnormal), which suggest that most of the males in that area reached big weights. They calculated weights "empty belly" are of at least 260 kg, and Smith et al. (1983) presented a figure of 261 kg, which is the one quoted in modern books.  

Dr Jhala says that the tigers in Ranthambore NP are among the largest in India, but it seems that he have just captured 8 specimens (other source says 10) in the area between 2007 and 2009: 3 adult males, 1 adult female, 3 subadult males and 1 subadult female. From the 3 adult males, we know the weight of two males: T10-Darra with 220 kg and T-24-Ustad with 240 kg; the other male T12-Tikkoo is still not clear, but people that saw him estimated that it could not weight less than 200 kg. The area of Kumaon and Gwalior presented huge tigers in the old records, in fact 4 of the exceptional males came from that area (272, 276, 282 and 292 kg, respectivelly), and we must not forget that the modern tigers that live in Ranthambore are decendents of a population reintroduced from Gwalior (Thapar et al., 2013). 

About the Amur tigers, we have less information, however, with the few old and verified old records and the modern scientific records we can present figures of 216.5 kg (n=10, range: 164 - 254 kg) for males in old records and 190 kg (n=23, range: 155- 212 kg) for the modern ones. The overall average using all the weights will be of 203 kg for the entire subspecies/population.  

The Caspian tigers are calculated to be as large as the Bengal ones, but the few skulls available suggest a smaller size. The only three weights from males records a figure of 197 kg (range: 170 - 240 kg). One skull is said to have measured 385 mm in total length (Heptner & Sludskii, 1992) but a follow investigation suggested that the other measurements presented suggest a specimen much more smaller and that probably the skull was measured over the bone, saldly the skull is lost forever (Mazák, 2013).

The Indochinese tiger was about the same than the Caspian tiger, if not slightly longer based in the skulls. The biggest skull from a Caspian tiger was of 369 mm while a new skull apparently from Malaysia (based in DNA) was  of 370 mm. In the weight department very few figures are available in litterature, with just three males: one of 173.3 kg (Pocock, 1939), other of 182 kg (Mazák, 2013) and a big one of 259 kg (Bazé, 1957). Modern records are available thanks to the scientists working in Thailand at this moment, and based in 4 males (with 5 captures) the average weight is of 182 kg (range: 164 - 209 kg), about the same body mass than modern Amur tigers. So using the modern records plus the old records we got an average figure of 193.5 kg (n=8, range: 164 - 259 kg).

The South China tiger is the smallest of the mainland tigers, if we take them as a single subspecies, and only lives in captivity. Slagth et al. (2005) present a a list of captive specimens and the males from this population had an average weight of 130.7 kg (n=13, no range). A list of wild specimens from hunting records shows an aveage of 152 kg (n=8, range: 108 - 190 kg). The biggest specimens seems to be from the northern are and the smallest ones from the southern, se there was a cline in the weight of this population. I don't have figures from the tigers that are in semi-wild status in South Africa, but I guess that they are heavier than those in China zoos and maybe clouse to those from the old wild records.

Finally, the only other subspecies/population from which we have body mass records is the Sumatran tiger, the smallest tiger in modern days. Using modern scientific records we have an average weight for males of 127 kg (n=4, range: 98-148 kg). That sample also includes a male of 75 kg, it says tha was adult and in good health, but certainly there is an error in that figures. The smallest captive adult male recorded by Slaght et al. (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009=) is of 91 kg and came from a sample of 21 speciments, and also Mazák (2013) which recorded weights of wild and capivte specimens reported that the smallest male was of 100 kg. So the figure of "75 kg" came probably when the animals was first captured and probably in not a good shape, or there was a typo. Using old hunting records, the average weight for Sumatran male tigers is of 119.3 kg (n=6, range: 104 - 140 kg), and using all the records for this subspecies we get to 122.8 kg (n=10, range: 104 - 148 kg). There is a record of a male of 180 kg but if that is accurate it will be exceptional. Also @peter measured a skull from a male of 350 mm in greatest length, which suggest that in the past big males existed in the island. There is also other record from a captured male of 130 kg posted here by a member but as we don't have the main source of it, I did not included the records in the modern records.

About the Malayan tigers, we don't have reliable weights from the wild in the old records. I found only one records of a male of 120 kg, but other news reports shows males of up to 170 kg, which will be not out of question. The figures showed by a report on Malayan tiger conservation as just estimations and reach a maximum of 130 kg. Slagth et al, (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009)) present a list of weights of "Indochinese - Corbetti" tigers but in fact this weights are from Malayan tigers in captivity, the average weight for males is 120.6 kg (n=6, range: 109 - 132 kg), this is closer to the Sumatran tigers than to the mainland ones. Reliable measurements from old records give average lengths as large as the South China and Indochinese tigers (Locke, 1954), and the skulls reported are big, with an average greatest length of 339 mm - n=4 (J. H. Mazák, 2008) and now we have a new skull of 370 mm. This suggest that in the past the Malayan tigers were as big as South China tigers (average greatest skull length of 334.7 mm (n=10, range: 318 - 348) and in some case even as big as the Indochinese tigers. I had not calculated yet the average weight of this population based in the skull size, but certainly if we use the average figures from modern captive specimens, we will get a very low average weight for the tigers species, a one that will not reflect the real weight of the species in time.

For Java and Bali tigers, the situation is worst. We only have two weights for Javanese tigers and none for the Bali tigers. For Javanese male tigers, we have one wild male of 141 kg and other from captivity of 110 kg. The average of these two specimens will be 125.5 kg, which is slighly more than those from Sumatra and this is accurate as the skulls fromthe male tigers in Java and bigger than those from the other two islands. However, the weight of 141 belongs to an animal with a skull length of 331 mm, whcih is just a little over the average reported of 321.3 mm in the study of Mazák and Groves (2006) that also included inmature specimens. Also, the biggest skull measured for this subspecies is of 349 mm (Mazák, 2013) and he even concluded that based in the skulls, this tiger population was probably as big as the tigers in South China! Using the condylobasal length of several specimens I calculated an average weight of 134.5 kg (n=10, range, 110 - 158 kg), which I guess will be probably closer to the real average in the wild. For Bali tigers we don't have any weight, Mazák (1981) estimated a weight between 90 - 100 kg, but I calculated an average weight of 112.8 kg (n=3, range: 107 - 123), but we must take in count that Mazák did not know the large skull of 301.5 mm in greatest length reported by Buzás and Karfas (1996). Also, my estimations based in the condilobasal length are using only captive specimens, if we use wild and captive  specimens the average figures will be:
* Java male tigers: 141.8 kg - n=10 - range: 116 - 166 kg.
* Bali male tigers: 118.9 kg - n=3 - range: 113 - 130 kg.
This may be a little more reliable figures, by I dediced to use the captive ones as the result obtained with the male of 141 kg was closer to the original (I got 144 kg with that specimen with condylobasal length of 294 mm.). However is interesting to see that the largest Bali male tiger, which had a skull size of the about the same than the large jaguar males from the Pantanal, got a similar calculated weight.


We can try to estimate an overall average weight for the males of the species Panthera tigris, but we will need to use captive specimens and isometric calculations from skulls to fill the holes. Taking the risk, this is what I got:
* Bengal tiger: 200 kg - n=147 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* Amur tiger: 203 kg - n=33 - range: 155 - 254 kg.
* Caspian tiger: 197 kg - n=3 - range: 170 - 240 kg.
* Indochinese tiger: 193.5 kg - n=8 - range: 164 - 259 kg.
* South China tiger: 152 kg - n=8 - range: 108 - 190 kg.
* Malayan tiger: 120.6 kg - n=6 - range: 109 - 132  kg - captivity.
* Sumatran tiger: 122.8 kg - n=10 - range: 104 - 148 kg.
* Java tiger: 125.5  kg - n=2 - range: 110 - 141 kg - one wild, one captive.
* Bali tiger: 112.8 kg - n=3 - range: 107 - 123 kg - isometrically calcullated.
** Overall average: 158.6 kg - n=220 - range: 97 - 272 kg.

This figure is pratically the same reported by Yamaguchi et al. (2009) and Kitchener & Yamagichi (2010), which says that the average weight for the male tiger at "species level" is c.160 kg. Now, remember that this list have many assumtions, specifically in the Malayan and Bali tigers. I used only to two known males for the Java tigers in order to use only true weights, but if I use the figure of 134.5 kg that I obtained from 10 skulls the average for male tigers overall will be 159.6 kg, practically the same figure with no diference. Now, if we use strictly only weights and only wild specimens, which will exclude the Malayan tigers (as they are captive), the Java tigers (as only one is wild) and the Bali tigers (as are calculated) from the sample, the average weight for male tigers as a species will be 178.1 kg (n=209, range: 97 - 272 kg).


Now, I did not included the male tiger of 389 kg from Guinness, well because something seems incorrect in that figure, the picture shows a bit tiger probably over 272 kg or maybe 290 kg, but that is all. The explanation that because a cat can eat a fifth of its weight is not satisfactory, specially by the fact that the highest amount ate by a tiger, actually record, is of 35 kg in Nepal and 27 kg in Kanha. Also, by no means we can take as "reliable" the reports of those lions of 700 and 800 lb, those are clear exagerations promoted by "fans" and we alread know that news reports are not reliable if are not corroborated. If not, it will be like to return to the old days and again acept the old records of Amur tigers of 360, 384 and even 400 kg! I think that if we try to get a good idea of the weight of these animals we must use a criteria and those selected-random-unreliabel figures should be discarted. In fact, the biggest male lion accepted by Guinness with 313 kg is also highly doubtfull, taking in count that the picture of that animal shows a quite small-to-average size male lion and the fact that was "checked by several people" is not guarantee, specially when we don't know what "people" was that, where they "experts", where they "officials", or where they just people that liked to please the guess? The method used but Slagth et al., (2005) seems reliable to me, and by this method, none of those huge lions from unverified news reports is remotelly reliable.

These are the figures about tigers that I have, if someone want especific information feel free to ask. Greetings.

Omg dude. Thanks so much. That is truly the thing. From my reading (and truthfully, from what I've known) it seems like large tiger subspecies - and I use this term loosely - average about 200-215kg, though large tigers seem to approach much greater weights (as is the standard for large predators, most of all tigers).

Furthermore, I agree with you on the subject of these 'extraordinary' cats. Most of them do not seem reliable. I would assume that they are exaggerated - furthermore, even if they do exist, they are clearly not representative of a normal animal (even if larger than average). The 313kg lion included.

(10-11-2019, 07:24 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 05:35 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 11:10 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 02:22 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 07:59 PM)Rishi Wrote: Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.

The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.

Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.

I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).

I was referring to all subspecies, of both species... which i clearly mentioned. It's better not to pick & choose.

"Un-conventional" lion subspecies refer to the recent suggestions that onlines belong to two general subspecies Northern (Asiatic, Barbary & West-African) & Southern (East-African, South-African, Southwest-African). @BorneanTiger can point you towards the detailed posts he made on this topic, if you don't already know.

And no, I can't give you 1 specific page number. You have gotta go through the whole thread, it's a a short one & the data is stored all over it.
Ideally you should go through the tiger population's threads (Terai, Central India, South India, Eastern & Western Ghats, Northeast, Himalayas, West, Sundarban) too.

Because 95% of the very little publicly available & reliable modern tiger weights are from Central or South India, I repeat, the northern tigers' possible average weight was an estimation based on their physique compared to the ones whose weights are known. Could be higher or lower, from population to population.

On top of that only young-adults are collared in India & almost no healthy tigers get tranquilised. Weighing of stranded or problem tigers sedated for capture & release is uncommon. Even if done, that data is rarely released.
We know next to nothing about weight of prime specimens.

(10-11-2019, 11:46 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.


Thanks, I'll look through. And yes I'm aware of the research done on those lion subspecies (that's what I was referencing). Which was why I chose the larger of the two to compare to large tigers, I like to compare smaller tigers to large jaguars since the range is so great. Using a whole species for comparison fades the usefulness of an average weight. But this is interesting, I'll look into some of the stuff you guys got here - thanks.

(10-11-2019, 11:46 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.


I'm confused man, what's fact..? That 2% of tigers are weighed or that 220kg males are existant? lol well I'm not sure any of this is fact as you'd call it... speculation and theorization, even if accurate at that.

What comes to weighings of the big cats and other animals, it´s same with all. It´s not easy or without risks to sedate wild animals and then weigh them. 2% of tigers, might be same or even less with lions... I don´t think, that even 1% have been weighed. Biggest bears... there are maybe 1-2 times, when wild Kodiak bears have been weighed. So in this way tigers or lions are nothing special. Lately there have been discussions about rainforest leopards, not much good information really about those either. 

It is as it is. So there might be (and without a doubt are) many big representatives of different species which have never been weighed. There have been many photos and videos about tigers and lions showing impressive individuals, but we will never know their exact size or weight, many are gone already. Like the famous lion Caesar, considered as biggest ever in Maasai Mara by many. But all what we have are "guesstimations".


Indeed, which is why I find that weight ranges are most effective. For example if I say male Bengal tigers weigh, on average, [for example] 482lbs, that may or may not be correct, but if I say that tigers between 200-210kg are 'normal' then it would be accurate. The same would be true for other large animals like lions and bears.

I do think that if a 'general' number is given then it's fine. Averages are all relative.
5 users Like BlakeW39's post
Reply

India Rishi Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 10-16-2019, 08:38 AM by Rishi )

(10-15-2019, 04:51 PM)sanjay Wrote: So why you haven't done it? Just asking.

Confirmation from you & @GuateGojira I'm not managing that section.
Reply

BorneanTiger Offline
Senior Member
****
( This post was last modified: 10-16-2019, 06:37 PM by BorneanTiger )

(10-16-2019, 06:41 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-15-2019, 02:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Average weight of the male tiger (Panthera tigris) at species level:

I will try to clarify this issue of the weights with the tigers.

With the Bengal tigers, in old records, we have many weights to compare the tiger populations, but from modern records we have very few.  Using all the available figures, hunting and modern, I calculated an average weight of the Bengal tigers from India and Nepal at 211 kg (465 lb) - n=141; including Sundarbans it will be 200 kg (440 lb) - n=147. In the mainland all the populations are over  200 kg on average, except from the one of southeast India which  is about 182 kg, but from here we only have hunting records. I found that there is no significant diference in body length between the populations, just in weight which range between 182 to 243 kg.

I had a full list of at least 160 male specimens from hunting and modern records, but sadly I lost all that information, so I manage to recover this list of 147 specimens in order to get a good idea of the average weight of male Bengal tigers in the Indian Subcontinent:

Central India: 204 kg - n=55 - range: 160 - 255 kg.
Southwest India: 218 kg - n=6 - range: 206 - 227 kg
Southeast India: 182 kg - n=9 - range: 150 - 203 kg.
Northwest India: 243 kg - n=3 - range: 220 - 268 kg.
Northeast India: 205 kg - n=44 - range: 168 - 236 kg.
Terai-North India: 200 kg - n=17 - range: 161 - 259 kg.

Nepal: 224 kg - n=7 - range: 180 - 272 kg+.
Sundarbans: 123 kg - n=6 - range: 97 - 172 kg. 

I still need to recover lees than 10 weights that I had, but the difference in the average figures will be minimal, I still remember that the average in the Southwest will be smaller and that in Northeast India will be higher. This list excludes all the specimens over 272 kg, including them in a group of "exceptional specimens" that range from 276 kg (Kumaon) to 320 kg (Nepal), and is a list of 6 males, please take in count that these records are tied to its acceptance and not all are accepted as "reliable", however at liest in the case of a huge male of 282 kg in Kumaon it clearly says that was actually weighed. This sample includes only the 16 males recorded by scientists and published or corroborated by email. If we include all the other weights reported by news webpages in this topic the sample will be higher but I don't think that the average will be dramatically different.

The figure of 272 kg+ was stablished by the two big males from Chitwan, Nepal, males tigers 105-Sauraha and 126. Interestingly, while only 4 males were captured in that area between 1974 to 1980, 2 of them are already heavier than any tiger or lion in the wild recorded by scientists (the male of 272 kg in Kenya was a cattle killer and consequently very bulky and at some point abnormal), which suggest that most of the males in that area reached big weights. They calculated weights "empty belly" are of at least 260 kg, and Smith et al. (1983) presented a figure of 261 kg, which is the one quoted in modern books.  

Dr Jhala says that the tigers in Ranthambore NP are among the largest in India, but it seems that he have just captured 8 specimens (other source says 10) in the area between 2007 and 2009: 3 adult males, 1 adult female, 3 subadult males and 1 subadult female. From the 3 adult males, we know the weight of two males: T10-Darra with 220 kg and T-24-Ustad with 240 kg; the other male T12-Tikkoo is still not clear, but people that saw him estimated that it could not weight less than 200 kg. The area of Kumaon and Gwalior presented huge tigers in the old records, in fact 4 of the exceptional males came from that area (272, 276, 282 and 292 kg, respectivelly), and we must not forget that the modern tigers that live in Ranthambore are decendents of a population reintroduced from Gwalior (Thapar et al., 2013). 

About the Amur tigers, we have less information, however, with the few old and verified old records and the modern scientific records we can present figures of 216.5 kg (n=10, range: 164 - 254 kg) for males in old records and 190 kg (n=23, range: 155- 212 kg) for the modern ones. The overall average using all the weights will be of 203 kg for the entire subspecies/population.  

The Caspian tigers are calculated to be as large as the Bengal ones, but the few skulls available suggest a smaller size. The only three weights from males records a figure of 197 kg (range: 170 - 240 kg). One skull is said to have measured 385 mm in total length (Heptner & Sludskii, 1992) but a follow investigation suggested that the other measurements presented suggest a specimen much more smaller and that probably the skull was measured over the bone, saldly the skull is lost forever (Mazák, 2013).

The Indochinese tiger was about the same than the Caspian tiger, if not slightly longer based in the skulls. The biggest skull from a Caspian tiger was of 369 mm while a new skull apparently from Malaysia (based in DNA) was  of 370 mm. In the weight department very few figures are available in litterature, with just three males: one of 173.3 kg (Pocock, 1939), other of 182 kg (Mazák, 2013) and a big one of 259 kg (Bazé, 1957). Modern records are available thanks to the scientists working in Thailand at this moment, and based in 4 males (with 5 captures) the average weight is of 182 kg (range: 164 - 209 kg), about the same body mass than modern Amur tigers. So using the modern records plus the old records we got an average figure of 193.5 kg (n=8, range: 164 - 259 kg).

The South China tiger is the smallest of the mainland tigers, if we take them as a single subspecies, and only lives in captivity. Slagth et al. (2005) present a a list of captive specimens and the males from this population had an average weight of 130.7 kg (n=13, no range). A list of wild specimens from hunting records shows an aveage of 152 kg (n=8, range: 108 - 190 kg). The biggest specimens seems to be from the northern are and the smallest ones from the southern, se there was a cline in the weight of this population. I don't have figures from the tigers that are in semi-wild status in South Africa, but I guess that they are heavier than those in China zoos and maybe clouse to those from the old wild records.

Finally, the only other subspecies/population from which we have body mass records is the Sumatran tiger, the smallest tiger in modern days. Using modern scientific records we have an average weight for males of 127 kg (n=4, range: 98-148 kg). That sample also includes a male of 75 kg, it says tha was adult and in good health, but certainly there is an error in that figures. The smallest captive adult male recorded by Slaght et al. (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009=) is of 91 kg and came from a sample of 21 speciments, and also Mazák (2013) which recorded weights of wild and capivte specimens reported that the smallest male was of 100 kg. So the figure of "75 kg" came probably when the animals was first captured and probably in not a good shape, or there was a typo. Using old hunting records, the average weight for Sumatran male tigers is of 119.3 kg (n=6, range: 104 - 140 kg), and using all the records for this subspecies we get to 122.8 kg (n=10, range: 104 - 148 kg). There is a record of a male of 180 kg but if that is accurate it will be exceptional. Also @peter measured a skull from a male of 350 mm in greatest length, which suggest that in the past big males existed in the island. There is also other record from a captured male of 130 kg posted here by a member but as we don't have the main source of it, I did not included the records in the modern records.

About the Malayan tigers, we don't have reliable weights from the wild in the old records. I found only one records of a male of 120 kg, but other news reports shows males of up to 170 kg, which will be not out of question. The figures showed by a report on Malayan tiger conservation as just estimations and reach a maximum of 130 kg. Slagth et al, (2005; in Barlow et al. (2009)) present a list of weights of "Indochinese - Corbetti" tigers but in fact this weights are from Malayan tigers in captivity, the average weight for males is 120.6 kg (n=6, range: 109 - 132 kg), this is closer to the Sumatran tigers than to the mainland ones. Reliable measurements from old records give average lengths as large as the South China and Indochinese tigers (Locke, 1954), and the skulls reported are big, with an average greatest length of 339 mm - n=4 (J. H. Mazák, 2008) and now we have a new skull of 370 mm. This suggest that in the past the Malayan tigers were as big as South China tigers (average greatest skull length of 334.7 mm (n=10, range: 318 - 348) and in some case even as big as the Indochinese tigers. I had not calculated yet the average weight of this population based in the skull size, but certainly if we use the average figures from modern captive specimens, we will get a very low average weight for the tigers species, a one that will not reflect the real weight of the species in time.

For Java and Bali tigers, the situation is worst. We only have two weights for Javanese tigers and none for the Bali tigers. For Javanese male tigers, we have one wild male of 141 kg and other from captivity of 110 kg. The average of these two specimens will be 125.5 kg, which is slighly more than those from Sumatra and this is accurate as the skulls fromthe male tigers in Java and bigger than those from the other two islands. However, the weight of 141 belongs to an animal with a skull length of 331 mm, whcih is just a little over the average reported of 321.3 mm in the study of Mazák and Groves (2006) that also included inmature specimens. Also, the biggest skull measured for this subspecies is of 349 mm (Mazák, 2013) and he even concluded that based in the skulls, this tiger population was probably as big as the tigers in South China! Using the condylobasal length of several specimens I calculated an average weight of 134.5 kg (n=10, range, 110 - 158 kg), which I guess will be probably closer to the real average in the wild. For Bali tigers we don't have any weight, Mazák (1981) estimated a weight between 90 - 100 kg, but I calculated an average weight of 112.8 kg (n=3, range: 107 - 123), but we must take in count that Mazák did not know the large skull of 301.5 mm in greatest length reported by Buzás and Karfas (1996). Also, my estimations based in the condilobasal length are using only captive specimens, if we use wild and captive  specimens the average figures will be:
* Java male tigers: 141.8 kg - n=10 - range: 116 - 166 kg.
* Bali male tigers: 118.9 kg - n=3 - range: 113 - 130 kg.
This may be a little more reliable figures, by I dediced to use the captive ones as the result obtained with the male of 141 kg was closer to the original (I got 144 kg with that specimen with condylobasal length of 294 mm.). However is interesting to see that the largest Bali male tiger, which had a skull size of the about the same than the large jaguar males from the Pantanal, got a similar calculated weight.


We can try to estimate an overall average weight for the males of the species Panthera tigris, but we will need to use captive specimens and isometric calculations from skulls to fill the holes. Taking the risk, this is what I got:
* Bengal tiger: 200 kg - n=147 - range: 97 - 272 kg.
* Amur tiger: 203 kg - n=33 - range: 155 - 254 kg.
* Caspian tiger: 197 kg - n=3 - range: 170 - 240 kg.
* Indochinese tiger: 193.5 kg - n=8 - range: 164 - 259 kg.
* South China tiger: 152 kg - n=8 - range: 108 - 190 kg.
* Malayan tiger: 120.6 kg - n=6 - range: 109 - 132  kg - captivity.
* Sumatran tiger: 122.8 kg - n=10 - range: 104 - 148 kg.
* Java tiger: 125.5  kg - n=2 - range: 110 - 141 kg - one wild, one captive.
* Bali tiger: 112.8 kg - n=3 - range: 107 - 123 kg - isometrically calcullated.
** Overall average: 158.6 kg - n=220 - range: 97 - 272 kg.

This figure is pratically the same reported by Yamaguchi et al. (2009) and Kitchener & Yamagichi (2010), which says that the average weight for the male tiger at "species level" is c.160 kg. Now, remember that this list have many assumtions, specifically in the Malayan and Bali tigers. I used only to two known males for the Java tigers in order to use only true weights, but if I use the figure of 134.5 kg that I obtained from 10 skulls the average for male tigers overall will be 159.6 kg, practically the same figure with no diference. Now, if we use strictly only weights and only wild specimens, which will exclude the Malayan tigers (as they are captive), the Java tigers (as only one is wild) and the Bali tigers (as are calculated) from the sample, the average weight for male tigers as a species will be 178.1 kg (n=209, range: 97 - 272 kg).


Now, I did not included the male tiger of 389 kg from Guinness, well because something seems incorrect in that figure, the picture shows a bit tiger probably over 272 kg or maybe 290 kg, but that is all. The explanation that because a cat can eat a fifth of its weight is not satisfactory, specially by the fact that the highest amount ate by a tiger, actually record, is of 35 kg in Nepal and 27 kg in Kanha. Also, by no means we can take as "reliable" the reports of those lions of 700 and 800 lb, those are clear exagerations promoted by "fans" and we alread know that news reports are not reliable if are not corroborated. If not, it will be like to return to the old days and again acept the old records of Amur tigers of 360, 384 and even 400 kg! I think that if we try to get a good idea of the weight of these animals we must use a criteria and those selected-random-unreliabel figures should be discarted. In fact, the biggest male lion accepted by Guinness with 313 kg is also highly doubtfull, taking in count that the picture of that animal shows a quite small-to-average size male lion and the fact that was "checked by several people" is not guarantee, specially when we don't know what "people" was that, where they "experts", where they "officials", or where they just people that liked to please the guess? The method used but Slagth et al., (2005) seems reliable to me, and by this method, none of those huge lions from unverified news reports is remotelly reliable.

These are the figures about tigers that I have, if someone want especific information feel free to ask. Greetings.

Omg dude. Thanks so much. That is truly the thing. From my reading (and truthfully, from what I've known) it seems like large tiger subspecies - and I use this term loosely - average about 200-215kg, though large tigers seem to approach much greater weights (as is the standard for large predators, most of all tigers).

Furthermore, I agree with you on the subject of these 'extraordinary' cats. Most of them do not seem reliable. I would assume that they are exaggerated - furthermore, even if they do exist, they are clearly not representative of a normal animal (even if larger than average). The 313kg lion included.

(10-11-2019, 07:24 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 05:35 PM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 11:10 AM)Rishi Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 02:22 AM)BlakeW39 Wrote:
(10-10-2019, 07:59 PM)Rishi Wrote: Atleast 3 (conventional) subspecies of lions average weight scales within range of 350lbs & 400lbs. You gotta consider them too.

The ±500lbs is an rough estimate & pretty conservative at that... We know the weights of several tigers mostly from Central India. We have most above-average & even young adult tigers with confirmed weights of 220-230kg. A healthy adult Bengal below 200 kg is rather uncommon. Please see ahead in this thread, our collection is quite impressive.
And it is pretty universally accepted amongst most experts that Tigers in Terai & Northeast India at average are easily larger. Thus 500lb.

Not sure what you mean by conventional, but only smaller lion populations have ranged so low. Since I was refering to large tigers (Bengals) it would be symetrical and fair to comoare them with large lions (melanochaita Southern clade). A lion of this region at 350lbs would be usually small. 400-450lbs seems more accurate to the data on these Southern lions, man. P. l. leo seems smaller and to fit to the range you stated.

I would love to review your data, friend. Do you have a page number, perhaps? I have seen tiger averages and they, *those that I have seen*, were never so high. But I am interested to see that 500lbs would be an average weight for Indian (and surrounding) tigers. I always saw a range of around 425-475lbs+ *but this may be dated and I have confidence that you have seen more tiger masses than I* given that I am, I admit, slightly more familiar with lions (though I haven't any preference to them).

I was referring to all subspecies, of both species... which i clearly mentioned. It's better not to pick & choose.

"Un-conventional" lion subspecies refer to the recent suggestions that onlines belong to two general subspecies Northern (Asiatic, Barbary & West-African) & Southern (East-African, South-African, Southwest-African). @BorneanTiger can point you towards the detailed posts he made on this topic, if you don't already know.

And no, I can't give you 1 specific page number. You have gotta go through the whole thread, it's a a short one & the data is stored all over it.
Ideally you should go through the tiger population's threads (Terai, Central India, South India, Eastern & Western Ghats, Northeast, Himalayas, West, Sundarban) too.

Because 95% of the very little publicly available & reliable modern tiger weights are from Central or South India, I repeat, the northern tigers' possible average weight was an estimation based on their physique compared to the ones whose weights are known. Could be higher or lower, from population to population.

On top of that only young-adults are collared in India & almost no healthy tigers get tranquilised. Weighing of stranded or problem tigers sedated for capture & release is uncommon. Even if done, that data is rarely released.
We know next to nothing about weight of prime specimens.

(10-11-2019, 11:46 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.


Thanks, I'll look through. And yes I'm aware of the research done on those lion subspecies (that's what I was referencing). Which was why I chose the larger of the two to compare to large tigers, I like to compare smaller tigers to large jaguars since the range is so great. Using a whole species for comparison fades the usefulness of an average weight. But this is interesting, I'll look into some of the stuff you guys got here - thanks.

(10-11-2019, 11:46 AM)Roflcopters Wrote: considering only 2% of wild tigers get weighed annually, how do you know what the real figure is? this is a department that least concerns the experts on the field and i understand why. not everyone is capable of taking down a 300-500kg capacity scale to weigh an animal, specially when the time is limited while the animals are sedated. even with the 2% rate, males of over 220kg are not hard to find. tigers are hardly weighed. this isn’t even an opinion. facts.


I'm confused man, what's fact..? That 2% of tigers are weighed or that 220kg males are existant? lol well I'm not sure any of this is fact as you'd call it... speculation and theorization, even if accurate at that.

What comes to weighings of the big cats and other animals, it´s same with all. It´s not easy or without risks to sedate wild animals and then weigh them. 2% of tigers, might be same or even less with lions... I don´t think, that even 1% have been weighed. Biggest bears... there are maybe 1-2 times, when wild Kodiak bears have been weighed. So in this way tigers or lions are nothing special. Lately there have been discussions about rainforest leopards, not much good information really about those either. 

It is as it is. So there might be (and without a doubt are) many big representatives of different species which have never been weighed. There have been many photos and videos about tigers and lions showing impressive individuals, but we will never know their exact size or weight, many are gone already. Like the famous lion Caesar, considered as biggest ever in Maasai Mara by many. But all what we have are "guesstimations".


Indeed, which is why I find that weight ranges are most effective. For example if I say male Bengal tigers weigh, on average, [for example] 482lbs, that may or may not be correct, but if I say that tigers between 200-210kg are 'normal' then it would be accurate. The same would be true for other large animals like lions and bears.

I do think that if a 'general' number is given then it's fine. Averages are all relative.

And a trouble with African lions is that they're much apparently more numerous, and are present in more countries than Asiatic lions and tigers put together, and certain places with African lions, like D. R. Congo and South Sudan, have serious conflicts or political issues that may make it dangerous to measure lions there, though the same could be said for the tiger-containing countries of Myanmar and North Korea (which might have a few Amur tigers that came from neighbouring China or Russia), so measuring the weights of Asiatic lions and Amur and Bengal tigers at least appears to be easier than measuring those of African lions in general, and @GuateGojira had posted weights of Asiatic lions (which are to an extent confined to a single area in the wild like Amur tigers) as well.

A rough map of the distribution of African lions: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:...bution.svg

*This image is copyright of its original author


Map of the region of Saurashtra in the Western Indian State of Gujarat, where the Asiatic lion is present, in and around Gir Forest: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:...or_map.svg

*This image is copyright of its original author


Map of the distribution of tigers: https://watermark.silverchair.com/57-6-5...m9ezqSiE10

*This image is copyright of its original author
1 user Likes BorneanTiger's post
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