WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
LARGE INDIAN TIGRESSES
Although most adult Indian tigresses in good health range between 100-150 kg., some are well over that mark. Although I'm not sure, my guess is the tigresses in this post all are at least 140 kg. Some, like tigress Safeda (no. 9), were close in size to an average adult male. What we see in males is roughly confirmed in females. In the north and northwest, tigresses often are long, tall and large-skulled. Those in central India, although not as large, seem to be more muscular. Kazirangha tigresses and those in adjoining reserves are a bit different in that they quite often have an oversized skull. Although the typical features described above can be found anywhere in India, some types dominate in certain regions. Apart from the tigresses in this post, I saw a number of documentaries in which large tigresses featured. Some of them (often man-eaters) were measured. Not one was shorter than 8.8 in a straight line. Although they were not weighed, I estimated some of them to range between 150-180 kg. In the next months, the videos I have will be transferred to other media. I hope to post the results in autumn or so. The aim of this post is to illustrate that India, in spite of the low numbers and the lack of gene flow, still produces tigresses well exceeding 350 pounds at times. The 177-kg. (391 pounds) tigress in southwest India (see U. Karanth) most certainly wasn't the largest and heaviest I saw. Exceptional females seem to be typical for India, not other regions. Some females in southeast Asia might approach or even exceed 9 feet straight and 300 pounds, but the only place where a large tigress could get to 400 pounds (181,44 kg.) or slightly over is India. Wild Amur tigresses, like Amur males, are a bit longer than Indian tigresses, but they, as a rule, are not as heavy. The main reason, of course, is a depleted prey base. If we include captive animals in the equasion, we could say they should get close to Indian females in good conditions. My guess, however, is they most probably won't get to the weight of large Indian females even then. The reason is sexual dimorphism in Amur tigers is more outspoken than in Indian tigers. I've seen large Amur females, but they're never even approaching an average male in robustness. Not so in Indian tigresses. I know of more than one Indian tigress exceeding 160 kg. in captivity. I've measured some skulls of large captive tigresses. Amur tigresses have slightly longer skulls, but Indian tigresses have slightly more robust skulls as a rule (captive animals only). Same as in males, that is. Although many limit the maximum length of females in both subspecies to about 320,00 mm., J.H. Mazak measured a skull of a wild Amur tigress that was 329,00 mm. in greatest total length. Apart from that, I found reliable evidence of skulls of wild Indian tigresses that were similar in length. Most adult females (both subspecies), depending on sample size and sample, range between 290,00-305,00 mm. 1 - Bandhavgar This is a sedated tigress. A large animal with long and robust legs:  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - Faizabad (United Provinces) This photograph was posted some years ago on different animal forums. The tigress, a confirmed man-eater, was shot in February 2009. Her right front paw was damaged and many thought this was the reason she had started hunting humans. They were probably right, as the damage was considerable. This would have impeded the tigress when hunting. The tigress had a large skull and no doubt was well over average in many other respects as well:  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - Kazirangha There's something strange about tigers in Kazirangha, Orange, Manas and other reserves in northeast India. I don't know if they are as large as many think, but they do seem to have a different skull. More rounded, heavier and relatively large. This tigress, skullwise, isn't different from many others:  *This image is copyright of its original author 4 - Kazirangha This tigress was poisoned. It was a large and heavy animal:  *This image is copyright of its original author 5 - Kazirangha Although the photograph is a bit deceptive, there's no doubt this tigress also was a large animal:  *This image is copyright of its original author 6 - Kazirangha Another heavy-skulled and muscular tigress:  *This image is copyright of its original author 7 - Kazirangha Same comment as in no. 6:  *This image is copyright of its original author 8 - Central India This is tigress Banseri. She has to be close to the perfect tigress:  *This image is copyright of its original author 9 - Central India Tigress Safeda was so large, they mistook her for a male:  *This image is copyright of its original author 
Sundari (T-02), the famous lady of Nagarahole:
Following the same road of Peter, I decided to share an interesting fact that I have found about Sundari, the only tigress captured in Nagarahole NP and at this day, the heaviest female tiger on scientific record. Most of our data about the four tigers captured in Nagarahole NP came from a second hand source, which is the mandatory book of Dr Sunquist and his wife Fiona “Wild Cats of the World” of 2002. The table on tiger size is the first source of the body size of those tigers in southwest India. The other source for the weights is the book “Hulirayana Akashavani” (2007) of Dr Karanth and TS Gopal, written in Kannada, and translated by an old poster named “Ppardus”, a very reliable source in the old days of AVA. The point is that the two sources quotes different weights for the male tigers, and I don’t even know if the second sources even mention the female weight, although it shows its picture. At the end, the conclusion was that the weights of the Kannada book were the original ones and those in Sunquist book are those adjusted for stomach content (-30 kg each specimen). However, I always had the doubt about Sundari (T-02), was she adjusted? The weight that presents Sunquist is of 177 kg, so I guess it should be, but now, I think that something seems incorrect. Like all know, I have the book “Tiger: the ultimate guide” of Valmik Thapar (2004), and at it, there are several small chapters of other authors that enlarge specific themes about the life of the tigers. One of them is “Tigers and Leopards” from Dr Karanth (page 144) and there, he describe, for the second time in a first-hand form (the first was the 240 kg male tiger T-01 that latter died from infected injures and old age), the weight of one of his tigers, the one and only Sundari, check it out:  *This image is copyright of its original author Yes, that is a taste of the magnificent book that is “Tigers: the ultimate guide” and is as large as a big Bible, if you have the $6.00 that cost (used), expend it, its value is incredible. But returning to the point, we can see that he mention that she weighed 145 kg, not the 177 kg figure of Sunquist, and what is more important, 177 – 145 = 32 kg, just about the same number used to adjust the males T-01 T-03 and T-04, which is "30 kg". I send an email do Dr Karanth, trying to not sound to “interested” in the weight, and here is his answer:  *This image is copyright of its original author It is confirmed, it is the same tigress and the weight, although a "round number", it is accurate. So, is this 145 kg figure the weight of the tigress “adjusted” or it’s another weight recorded in the five years when she was captured many times to change her radiocollar? For the moment, I don’t have a clear answer to this. In his other paper “The Tiger: Power and Fragility” Dr Karanth mentions Sundari again, this time with a weight of 150 kg: “As the 150 kilogram lethal projectile hurtled towards them, the gaur scattered into the heavy shrubbery which lay on their side of the clearing.” Source: http://savingwildtigers.org/karanth.html It seems that 145 kg and 150 kg are just the round number of a real figure: 177 - 30 = 147 kg "empty". The point is that if we see her size (161 cm head-body and 248 cm total length) she doesn’t look any exceptional in size, the largest Nepalese tigress T-101 measured 274 cm and weighed 164 kg while the long T-107 measured 282 cm but weighed “only” 148 kg. Based on this, Sundari should be (or most be) a very robust tigress. Here are some pictures of her to give us an idea of her proportions.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author With the presented data, what do you think, is she the giant of 177 kg that we think, or is she a c.147 kg “empty” tigress, famous for its 5 years giving very important data to Dr Karanth in the paradise that is now Nagarahole? Your turn guys. [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img]   (05-03-2015, 10:50 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Short read about tiger genome sequencing attached.Great info Since I am no where near being a genetisist, when I look at the differences in the graph, are they major? I mean in terms of differentiating species, like if we were to compare an ape to a human would they look similar to this or be even more different? Im just trying to get an idea if these sub species are very different or almost identical. 
the late Mira T37 of ranthambore one of the biggest tigresses ive ever seen R.I.P
 *This image is copyright of its original author
Dr Karanth’s opinion about the size of the tiger: Where is the confusion?
Yesterday, I received a pleasant surprise, when I received the full chapter about the tiger from the new book “Mammals of South Asia – Volume 1 (Eds: AJT Johnsingh and Nima Manjrekar). University Press” from 2013 and the chapter was written by no other than the great Dr Ullas Karanth. With its 19 pages, it is a jewel on tiger knowledge, although there are some points that will be interesting to discuss (as I am not agree with them), like the origin of the Caspian tigers, the lion-tiger relationship and the “subspecies” issue. Obviously, when I read the part of the size and weight, I was excited as I was hoping to see “new” data, but it was just a copy-paste of previous documents, although the data seems accurate. However, I took the liberty to compare this his figures with his previous documents and guess what? There are important changes and I discovered that the management of his sources are incorrect. Let’s begin with his first size description in 1997 from the document “The Tiger: Power and Fragility”: “Siberian tigers can weigh more than 300 kilograms. The Indian tigers are smaller with average males weighing around 200 to 250 kilograms and females a 100 kilos less. Indian tigers are about 155 to 225 centimetres long including head and body, with an additional tail length of 75 to 100 centimetres, if measured correctly along the body curves. However, many old shikar accounts report a nose to tail-tip distance, measured straight between wooden pegs (and, as a way suspected, sometimes between pegs of whisky) making it difficult to get accurate size estimates from them.” Source: http://savingwildtigers.org/karanth.html This phrase caused a great controversy about why he believed that measurements “over curves” where more reliable than “between pegs”. Other thing, the only tigers in India with 225 cm in head-body are those measured in the very old literature and from animals measured “over curves”. He also repeated the old cliché that Amur tigers can weight 300 kg while Bengals don’t. Thankfully, this figures were forgotten and his next documents stated other figures and other quotes. 2. The way of the tiger (2001): His best and most famous book makes a better description about the size of the tigers in “south east Asia”, not India alone (take this in count): [img]http://i.imgur.com/eF1hli8.jpg" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title=""> *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Here, he explained the two methods to measure tigers and makes the first claim that old hunting records are mostly “incorrect” and he quotes Pocock here. However, he ends his statements saying that modern scientists measure the tigers “along the contours of the spine”, which apparently means that is the same “over curves” method. However, I think that the problem is more at the words used and semantic, rater than the method itself. To measure a tiger in “straight line”, we don’t need to use “pegs” and in fact, no one use pegs anymore. Scientists stretch the tape in the back of the cat along the contours, but in ANY part say that they follow all the curves of the body, like the old hunters, for the contrary, the description present that the tape was in the flesh and based in Dr Sunquist description and several photographs, the tape is stretched straight in the back and is not stick to the curves of the body. In simple words, the tape is "along" the contours but it is not "following" the curves. Now, on the Amur vs. Bengal issue, he now accepts the fact that they are of the same size, based in scientific measurements of tigers in Nepal, India and Russia. This time, he don’t quote sources, just put the data, which seems surprisingly equal to that of Mazák (1981). 3. Tiger Ecology and Conservation in the Indian Subcontinent (2003): In this document, published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (Vol. 100), he describes the same measurements, but now he quotes his sources, which seems Pocock (1929), Sunquist (1981) and his own “unpublished” data:  *This image is copyright of its original author Again, the figures are the almost the same than those of Mazák (1981) and the maximum weight of the tigresses was diminished from 175 kg to 160 kg. Other thing, as he don’t believe in the “subspecies” separation, he still quotes the size for the entire “south east Asia” region, not only India. In this point, I guessed that the weight of 175 kg was from Burma and not from India. 4. Chapter 34 – Tiger Panthera tigris (2013): Now, here is the last description of the size of tigers, again in “south east Asia”:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author This seems like a summary of his previous books, but this time, he quotes the book of 1939 of Pocock and not the one of 1929. Based in the scans posted by @peter, the book of 1929 is the one that used the incorrect measurements (over curves) and don’t showed any weight. On the other hand, the book of 1939 is the one that use only measurements “between pegs” and do quotes weights from India and Burma. It seems that this is the last statements and should be quoted for true, or not????? 5. Pocock (1939): Here are the pages of the last book of Pocock and his description of the size of India-Burma tigers:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Taking a deep and slow read, the figures that quotes Pocock don’t match at all with those of Dr Karanth in any of this publications, here are the results, presented as ranges, like Dr Karanth do (weights of Rowland Ward were not included): Males: Weight: 160 – 259 kg Total length: 264 – 313 cm Head-body: 173 – 221 cm Tail length: 76 – 92 cm. Females: Weight: 132 - 157 kg Total length: 239 – 277 cm Head-body: 158 – 175 cm Tail length: 89 – 97 cm. I included the figures of Burma too, but still, they don’t match with the data that Dr Karanth supposedly quoted from Pocock. I ask, what was he reading??? The document of Dr Sunquist is very famous and hardly needs a description, so here is the table: [img]http://i.imgur.com/UCWfYED.png" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title=""> *This image is copyright of its original author The results, on ranges: Males: Weight: 200 – 227+ kg Total length: 287 – 310 cm Females: Weight: 116 - 164 kg Total length: 251 – 282 cm Some of these figures surpass those quoted by Dr Karanth, so, what is happening here? 7. Unpublished data: We can guess that these "unknown" data that is still not published will fill all the gaps between the quotes, but still there is no explanation about why he still quotes the same figures of Mazák (1981) instead of the sources that he claim to show??? As far we know, only four tigers were captured in Nagarahole, these are: Specimens: Total length Tail length Weight (adjusted) T-01 293 101 209 kg T-02 248 87 177 kg (145 kg?) T-03 311 107 227 kg T-04 289 100 215 kg Still, if we add these figures to those of Sunquist (1981), the results are: Males: Weight: 200 – 227+ kg Total length: 287 – 311 cm Females: Weight: 116 - 177 kg Total length: 248 – 282 cm 8. REAL quote: If we compile the real data from Pocock (1939), Sunquist (1981) and the four specimens that Dr Karanth measured and weights in Nagarahole (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002), these should be the real ranges: Males: Weight: 160 – 259 kg Total length: 264 – 313 cm Females: Weight: 116 - 164 kg Total length: 239 – 282 cm Tail length (overall): 89 – 97 cm. As we can see, the result is somewhat different than that in Dr Karanth books, while his quotes are, in fact, a clear copy-paste from Mazák (1981). Besides, despite his statements that the measurements “between pegs” were unreliable (Karanth, 1997), he still quotes Pocock (1939) which only rely in this type of measurements, which are the most reliable, but still from hunting sources. Now, my question is where he gets the tail length and the shoulder height??? None of his sources quote that figures, however when I dig a little more, check what I got:  *This image is copyright of its original author Yes, is Dunbar Brander (1923), and check his data: Tail length: 76 – 114 cm Shoulder height: 91 – 112 cm. From my point of view, I think that this is the real source of those particular measurements (in round numbers), although he only quotes a second hand source for that (Pocock, 1939). My conclusion is that the correct paragraph should stay like this: “The typical range of body dimensions and weights (based on Brander 1939, Pocock 1939, Sunquist 1981, Smith et al. 1983, Karanth, unpubl. Data) for South Asian tigers are as follows: Male tigers weight 160-261 kg and females 116-177 kg, showing substantial sexual dimorphism. Because tigers may eat 15-35 kg of meat in a meal, the period elapsed since feeding has a substantial effect on they recorded weight. The total length of adult males is 264-313 cm and that of females 239-282 cm, including a tail length of 76-114 cm. Height at the shoulder is 91-112 cm.” Or using round numbers if you like: “The typical range of body dimensions and weights (based on Brander 1939, Pocock 1939, Sunquist 1981, Smith et al. 1983, Karanth, unpubl. Data) for South Asian tigers are as follows: Male tigers weight 160-260 kg and females 110-180 kg, showing substantial sexual dimorphism. Because tigers may eat 15-35 kg of meat in a meal, the period elapsed since feeding has a substantial effect on they recorded weight. The total length of adult males is 260-310 cm and that of females 240-280 cm, including a tail length of 75-115 cm. Height at the shoulder is 90-110 cm.” I still don't see the point to mention the stomach content, as it suggest that all the high values are do to gorged specimens, when the reality is completely different, still I put them here as he put it too. That is my appreciation about how the paragraph should be written, and prove that many times we are used to use the sources from “reliable” people, but at the end, just a deep review can show if that “data” is accurate or not. Maybe this post and all the scrutiny of the data could sound too hard for a normal animal enthusiast, but for those that search for the most accurate and exact data, this type of examples show that this issues are normally irrelevant for the normal writer/reader, and mistakes are made, even in “official” documents. Dr Karanth is without any doubt one (if not the best) of the top experts on tigers, on they ecology, biology and social relationships, but in the size issue, I have my doubts, specially at the light of this data. What do you think guys, it is necessary to go so far, or we can stay with the "official" although not so accurate numbers? [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img] 
Hello Guate and Peter
I have been reading over George B. Schaller book "The Deer and the Tiger" and according to him, he has information on a few captive tigers which have apparently been weighed and average food consumption been mentioned. By Crandall, 1964 two captive tigers weighed about 500 pounds. I've tried to find the book, but can't find it. Would any of you be able to identify it?  *This image is copyright of its original author https://books.google.ca/books?id=KOVGHXf...00&f=false
The book is this: Crandall, L. 1964. The management of wild mammals in captivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
WILDFACT PUBLICATIONS
Guate Your effort to get to a conclusion on the accuracy of modern biologists in general and Ullas Karanth in particular regarding the size of wild tigers is much appreciated. As for the answer to your questions. I'm afraid the length of both posts (as well as the lack of a clear conclusion) says quite a lot. The focus of todays biologists is on survival and one has to admit they, and Karanth in particular, delivered excellent results in that department. We still have tigers and they have a decent chance in Russia and India in particular. It's also clear we, largely as a result of collars, know a lot more about tiger ecology than half a century ago. Knowledge is crucial for protection and management. Size is something for amateur specialists and forums. Same for man-eaters. These topics, for good reasons, are more or less neglected by biologists and could be discussed at forums. They are. Our aim is to continue and focus on quality. I don't know if you noticed, but your tables are used in different forums. One day, they will be used by those interested in reliable information on the size of big cats. Maybe your tables (all originals) will pop up in books. The work you did, therefore, was acknowledged. And rewarded. Please continue. In the last months, I have been working with the data I collected. The aim is to get to tables interesting for those collecting (and using) data themselves. Collecting good data and constructing original tables is time-consuming work. As a bit of acknowledgement would be appreciated, the aim is to publish a few booklets in the near future. The publisher will be WILDFACT PUBLICATIONS. Keep it in mind when you work on new tables. Regards, Peter. (05-11-2015, 05:45 AM)'peter' Wrote: As for the answer to your questions. I'm afraid the length of both posts (as well as the lack of a clear conclusion) says quite a lot.In fact, I decided not to put a "conclusion" because I wanted to know the opinion of the posters first, in base of the evidence. The length of both posts is important, because I wanted to show the entire panorama in order to create a clear overview of the situation. Making a smaller post will be counterproductive, from my point of view. Now, if a conclusion from my part is needed, I can add them right now, as I am convinced of the results: 1. The tigress Sundari (T-02) was weighed several times, and now we know two of those weights. I am convinced that she weighed 145 kg empty, but as the source from were we had all the other measurements quote 177 kg (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002), that is the figure that we most use. 2. The total body length quoted by Dr Karanth are obviously quoted from Mazák (1981), that is pretty clear for me, and the sources that he quote are only used to hide this fact. The method that Dr Karanth used to measure his tigers is the "straight line", as his description don't provide any evidence that he followed the curves like the old hunters. 3. Accuracy are important for us and our future documents, however, for the moment and for "popular" purposes like for example Wikipedia, the figures of Dr Karanth in the documents of 2003 and 2013 CAN and most be used, after all, they are not quite different that those that I have showed and at the end, the weight figures are more accurate than those from Mazák (1981). I can expand myself much more on this, but I think that a short direct conclusion is what you wanted here. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 94 Guest(s) |