ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[GuateGojira]

Check this image, showing the largest and the smallest cat on Earth:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The tiger is scaled at the size of the largest tiger of Brander (1923). This will give us an idea about how massive is an animal of that exceptional size. On the other hand is the small Asian cat that is described as agile as a squirrel.
  Reply

[Pckts]

@peter
Great information and everything stated seems to coincide perfectly with what Kanwar has said. 
He said that Kaziranga Tiges are the largest cats he has ever seen and Corbett Tigers are massive animals as well. They are classified by him as being the largest Cats he's ever witnessed, by far.

He also stated that there are even larger tigers near the Himalayas but I don't think he has seen them, maybe its just the opinion of all who study tigers, but everything you posted seems to back that idea.

Well done Reply

[Roflcopters]

I asked Kanwar a while back about how Munna compared with the males he saw up north and he told me, Munna is big but the tigers he saw up North are the largest he's seen. Different league altogether. Dr. Mel Sunquist takes huge interest in Kaziranga tigers and Dr.Ullas's biggest male that he ever saw was also from Kaziranga. Same with Kanwar Juneja, hes been all around India but never came across a specimen like the Late Kohora king aka KZT023.

If you think Kaziranga tigers are huge, wait until what you might find all around Terai.

Here's a mammoth sized male that i saw from Rajaji's Chilla range and the pugmarks are most likely his as well. Such a huge male, tall, big dimensions, long and truly one of the best specimens i saw in all of 2015 so far.

http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-b2-and-o...ia?page=31

Guaranteed Surpasses Wagdoh, Babathenga, Jai and BMW 's size. Betting my life over this one.

 
check post #465 when you click that link and tell me what you think of that specimen. I know Peter took note of the paw prints because i saw him post that picture in one of his posts not too long ago. Definitely the biggest paw prints on photo that you'll ever see and when you look at that male, it shouldnt surprise anyone. His size is enormous. Pity, none of these tigers will ever get weighed in the wild. Reply

[Pckts]

(06-07-2015, 08:52 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Check this image, showing the largest and the smallest cat on Earth:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The tiger is scaled at the size of the largest tiger of Brander (1923). This will give us an idea about how massive is an animal of that exceptional size. On the other hand is the small Asian cat that is described as agile as a squirrel.
 

 

So cool!!!
 
Kind of random request but could you use a different tiger on your next comparison?
I would love to see Jai or Raja or Munna or Waghdoh used.
haha
Obviously if its more work, don't worry about it. Just think it would look cool with an even more robust tiger. Reply

[Pckts]

(06-07-2015, 11:05 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: I asked Kanwar a while back about how Munna compared with the males he saw up north and he told me, Munna is big but the tigers he saw up North are the largest he's seen. Different league altogether. Dr. Mel Sunquist takes huge interest in Kaziranga tigers and Dr.Ullas's biggest male that he ever saw was also from Kaziranga. Same with Kanwar Juneja, hes been all around India but never came across a specimen like the Late Kohora king aka KZT023.

If you think Kaziranga tigers are huge, wait until what you might find all around Terai.

Here's a mammoth sized male that i saw from Rajaji's Chilla range and the pugmarks are most likely his as well. Such a huge male, tall, big dimensions, long and truly one of the best specimens i saw in all of 2015 so far.

http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-b2-and-o...ia?page=31

Guaranteed Surpasses Wagdoh, Babathenga, Jai and BMW 's size. Betting my life over this one.

 
check post #465 when you click that link and tell me what you think of that specimen. I know Peter took note of the paw prints because i saw him post that picture in one of his posts not too long ago. Definitely the biggest paw prints on photo that you'll ever see and when you look at that male, it shouldnt surprise anyone. His size is enormous. Pity, none of these tigers will ever get weighed in the wild.

 

I love the Terai Arc male that is camera trapped very close to the camera with his head facing down. 
He is the thickest tiger I have ever seen in my life or that famous Kaziranga male as well, but I think he is even larger than that male.  Reply

[GuateGojira]

(06-07-2015, 11:12 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(06-07-2015, 08:52 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Check this image, showing the largest and the smallest cat on Earth:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The tiger is scaled at the size of the largest tiger of Brander (1923). This will give us an idea about how massive is an animal of that exceptional size. On the other hand is the small Asian cat that is described as agile as a squirrel.
 


 

So cool!!!
 
Kind of random request but could you use a different tiger on your next comparison?
I would love to see Jai or Raja or Munna or Waghdoh used.
haha
Obviously if its more work, don't worry about it. Just think it would look cool with an even more robust tiger.

 

I can do it, I only need the best picture that you can found of these tigers, from a side view, in the most straight line possible. This is the reason why I selected this tiger, because is perfectly on its side view. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
  Reply

[brotherbear]

I would be interested to see a comparison of an Ussuri brown bear and an Amur tiger to scale in such a manner at some point in time.   Reply

[peter]

(06-07-2015, 11:05 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: I asked Kanwar a while back about how Munna compared with the males he saw up north and he told me, Munna is big but the tigers he saw up North are the largest he's seen. Different league altogether. Dr. Mel Sunquist takes huge interest in Kaziranga tigers and Dr.Ullas's biggest male that he ever saw was also from Kaziranga. Same with Kanwar Juneja, hes been all around India but never came across a specimen like the Late Kohora king aka KZT023.

If you think Kaziranga tigers are huge, wait until what you might find all around Terai.

Here's a mammoth sized male that i saw from Rajaji's Chilla range and the pugmarks are most likely his as well. Such a huge male, tall, big dimensions, long and truly one of the best specimens i saw in all of 2015 so far.

http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-b2-and-o...ia?page=31

Guaranteed Surpasses Wagdoh, Babathenga, Jai and BMW 's size. Betting my life over this one.

 
check post #465 when you click that link and tell me what you think of that specimen. I know Peter took note of the paw prints because i saw him post that picture in one of his posts not too long ago. Definitely the biggest paw prints on photo that you'll ever see and when you look at that male, it shouldnt surprise anyone. His size is enormous. Pity, none of these tigers will ever get weighed in the wild.

 

Here's the Rajaji National Park pugmarks again:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this could be the tiger who left them:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

I agree it isn't likely the tiger will ever be measured and weighed. The only thing we can do is speculate. Here's my contribution.

The records I have say Himalayan tigers are large animals. Adult males reach 180-210 cm. in head and body in a straight line and 270-310 cm. (up to 320 cm.) in total length. I think they are taller than many think and if they are as musuclar as the Rajaji male, weights of 600 pounds empty can not be excluded. I was going to say the giant in Guate's great comparison (221 cm. in head and body and 320 kg.) is extremely unlikely, but it is a fact that Nepal has produced two 600-pound males in the last four decades. This in a time in which tigers are very close to the edge. Some males no doubt exceed 300 cm. and 250 kg.

Some of you might have seen bulkier tigers than the Rajaji male, but you have to remember it is easier to appear (and get) bulky when you are a bit smaller all the way. Tigers in the northwest, lengthwise, are very close to wild Amurs and as tall or taller. If you see a mature male as muscular as the Rajaji tiger, you can be sure he's heavier than he appears to be. In tigers, total length seem to be the best indicator of weight.

Here's another male. Also a Himalayan tiger, but from the northeast. Sizewise, my money is on the Rajaji tiger, but I agree he is as robust as they come. First posted by Copters in his great thread (B2 and other etc.):

*This image is copyright of its original author

       

How large is a big cat compared to a human? 

Guate's made a comparison of a 400-410 pound African male lion and a 6-feet man. The lion is big by any standard. The extra-large tigers above, well over 500 and possibly 600 pounds, are immense animals. To finish the post, a photograph of a human and a male Indian tiger who was 440-450 pounds in his prime (Dreamworld):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[peter]

brotherbear\ dateline='\'1433770920' Wrote: I would be interested to see a comparison of an Ussuri brown bear and an Amur tiger to scale in such a manner at some point in time.  

 

Wild male Amur tigers average 195 cm. in head and a body in a straight line and, according to Guate, about 420 pounds (190,5 kg.). Miquelle thought 430 pounds (195,0 kg.) would be about right for an average male. According to Guate, who used the WCS-table, wild male Amur tigers are about as tall as an average wild male Indian tiger, but captive male Amurs in European zoos (Moscow included), about half a century ago, averaged 102-103 cm. (V. Mazak, 1980, pp. 180). 

Wild male Ussuri brown bears, according to Kucerenko, average 196 cm. in total length and 582 pounds (264,0 kg.) in weight. As brown bears usually are measured 'over contours' and the difference between a straight line and a contour measurement in adult male brown bears in Yellowstone (who also average 196 cm. in length) was about 32 cm., one could assume Ussuri brown bears, if similar to their relatives in Yellowstone, also average about 164 cm. in a straight line.

I'm not sure about the weight either. Kucherenko wrote 10 males ranged between 260-320 kg. This means his average of 264 kg. probably was incorrect. Three adult males very recently weighed were 165, 180 and 235 kg. Of these, two (of 180 and 235 kg.) were from the Russian Far East. Quite a difference. What to do? I don't know.

My guess is the real average is closer to the average found a year ago, but we have to remember the sample was very small. 

The picture that emerges is that brown bears, although shorter, are taller, wider and heavier than big cats, both absolutely and relatively. They also have longer and heavier skulls. Visible in the bones as well? Yes. I saw skeletons of a male lion and a male brown bear side by side in the Napoli Natural History Museum (one of the best I saw). Both very similar in many ways, but the bear, although a trifle shorter, was bigger in all respects. Just a bit, but bigger no doubt. Could have been 5% and could have been 10%. 

This is the skeleton of Ursus arctos lasiotus. I saw it on Grahh's forum ago:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 


Big bones need big muscles. This means the percentages mentioned above need to be increased in live animals. My guess is an average male Ussuri brown bear, when about similar in head and body length as a big cat, probaby is 10-20% heavier. If an average male Amur tiger is about 420-430 ponds, an average wild male Ussuri brown bear should be anywhere between 460-520 pounds empty, say 490 or so (year-round average). This although the bear is about 15-20% shorter in head and body (seen from the perspective of the bear). Brown bears, therefore, are more robust animals than big cats, both in absolutes and relatives.

Also remember they are subject to violent weight changes. A male bear of average dimensions, depending on the season, could fluctuate between 400-650 pounds (400 in a bad year directly after hibernation and 650 in a good year just before hibernation). I saw a photograph of a large male brown bear (a 'Schatun') who was 150 kg. (331 pounds) only when they found him. Skin and bones, he was. In good shape, he could have been twice that weight.

Individual variation in both species is pronounced, but more so in brown bears. Some males range between 350-500 pounds all their live, whereas others might reach 800 and over at times. A lot over. In northeast Siberia, they found the remains of a male estimated to have exceeded 1200 pounds. Male Amur tigers range between 350-468 pounds and seem to reach their best shape in winter. The 468-pound male ('Luke' or 'Lyuk') is the heaviest actually weighed in the last decades, but his dimensions were well below average. 

The problem with a comparison based on length is how to express robustess. Reply

[Pckts]

Here are a couple of Tiger side Profiles I think may be cool to use

Waghdoh Recently

*This image is copyright of its original author

I really like this one

*This image is copyright of its original author

or Raja

*This image is copyright of its original author

Or Jobhi

*This image is copyright of its original author

On a side note, its really hard to find perfectly profiled images that have nothing blocking the view of the entire tiger. I see the struggles you are going through Guate, Ill contine searchign and see what I come up with. Reply

[Pckts]

@Roflcopters
These are the two I was thinking about

Who do you think is larger?

Terai Arc Male

*This image is copyright of its original author

vs


Kaziranga Male

*This image is copyright of its original author

My money would be on the Terai Arc boy. Reply

[brotherbear]

tigerluver\ dateline='\'1422684018' Wrote: Some might find this interesting. Here's a Grizzly bear chest girth equation, log transformed:
log(mass)=log(chest girth)*2.5782 - 3.1792    r^2=0.8704   n=20

Punching in 140 cm to the equation gives a mass of 226 kg. A bit heavier than the Amur proportion, but interestingly, the Bengal proportion is much higher.

 

 

peter\ dateline='\'1433787411' Wrote:

brotherbear\ dateline='\'1433770920' Wrote: I would be interested to see a comparison of an Ussuri brown bear and an Amur tiger to scale in such a manner at some point in time.  


 

Wild male Amur tigers average 195 cm. in head and a body in a straight line and, according to Guate, about 420 pounds (190,5 kg.). Miquelle thought 430 pounds (195,0 kg.) would be about right for an average male. According to Guate, who used the WCS-table, wild male Amur tigers are about as tall as an average wild male Indian tiger, but captive male Amurs in European zoos (Moscow included), about half a century ago, averaged 102-103 cm. (V. Mazak, 1980, pp. 180). 

Wild male Ussuri brown bears, according to Kucerenko, average 196 cm. in total length and 582 pounds (264,0 kg.) in weight. As brown bears usually are measured 'over contours' and the difference between a straight line and a contour measurement in adult male brown bears in Yellowstone (who also average 196 cm. in length) was about 32 cm., one could assume Ussuri brown bears, if similar to their relatives in Yellowstone, also average about 164 cm. in a straight line.

I'm not sure about the weight either. Kucherenko wrote 10 males ranged between 260-320 kg. This means his average of 264 kg. probably was incorrect. Three adult males very recently weighed were 165, 180 and 235 kg. Two of these (180 and 235 kg.) were from the Russian Far East. What to do? I don't know. 

The picture that emerges is that brown bears, although shorter, are taller, wider and heavier than big cats, both absolutely and relatively. They also have longer and heavier skulls. Visible in the bones as well? Yes. I saw skeletons of a male lion and a male brown bear side by side in the Napoli Natural History Museum (one of the best I saw). Both very similar in many ways, but the bear, although a trifle shorter, was bigger in all respects. Just a bit, but bigger no doubt. Could have been 5% and could have been 10%. 

This is the skeleton of Ursus arctos lasiotus. I saw it on Grahh's forum ago:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 


Big bones need big muscles. This means the percentages mentioned above need to be increased in live animals. My guess is an average male Ussuri brown bear, when about similar in head and body length as a big cat, probaby is 10-20% heavier. If an average male Amur tiger is about 420-430 ponds, an average wild male Ussuri brown bear should be anywhere between 460-520 pounds empty, say 490 or so (year-round average). This although the bear is about 15-20% shorter in head and body (seen from the perspective of the bear). Brown bears, therefore, are more robust animals than big cats, both in absolutes and relatives.

Also remember they are subject to violent weight changes. A male bear of average dimensions, depending on the season, could fluctuate between 400-650 pounds (400 in a bad year directly after hibernation and 650 in a good year just before hibernation). I saw a photograph of a large male brown bear (a 'Schatun') who was 150 kg. (331 pounds) only when they found him. Skin and bones, he was. In good shape, he could have been twice that weight.

Individual variation in both species is pronounced, but more so in brown bears. Some males range between 350-500 pounds all their live, whereas others might reach 800 and over at times. A lot over. In northeast Siberia, they found the remains of a male estimated to have exceeded 1200 pounds. Male Amur tigers range between 350-468 pounds and seem to reach their best shape in winter. The 468-pound male ('Luke' or 'Lyuk') is the heaviest actually weighed in the last decades, but his dimensions were well below average. 

The problem with a comparison based on length is how to express robustess. 

 

Actually, roughly within the same size range as a Yellowstone grizzly. Reply

[Roflcopters]

(06-08-2015, 11:21 PM)Pckts Wrote: @Roflcopters
These are the two I was thinking about

Who do you think is larger?

Terai Arc Male

*This image is copyright of its original author

vs


Kaziranga Male

*This image is copyright of its original author

My money would be on the Terai Arc boy.

Hard to tell because of the angles they're both in, both are giants though!


  Reply

[tigerluver]

I would love to see the osteological measurements of those specimens. That's how I imagine the most robust of the Ngandong tiger looked like. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(06-09-2015, 03:37 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I would love to see the osteological measurements of those specimens. That's how I imagine the most robust of the Ngandong tiger looked like.

 

I wanna see Guate to reconstruct a new evolutionary theory about the tiger clade, and it seems that Panthera zdanskyi had played a bigger role than we previously thought.

They also had their shinning history with being evolved as a giant rather than being stayed as a small primitive species.
  Reply