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)
|
I freaked out for a second when i saw my post but it's okay Peter, I don't mind at all. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
Peter, I tried but their is no such option, If you want you can delete that post and repost it with your name.
 (04-14-2015, 05:48 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: Peter, I tried but their is no such option, If you want you can delete that post and repost it with your name. As Copters doesn't seem to mind, we leave it as it is. I like his post, so I decided to thank him for it! I wonder where he found all the old pictures. (04-14-2015, 12:24 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Just a few points to remember and/or to take in count: Ad 1 - You're right regarding the Royal Chitwan tigers. They were 235 kg. unadjusted and 221 kg. adjusted. Ad 2 - Most, if not all, tigers Hewett and his guests shot were not baited. The hunters, informed on the whereabouts of tigers by trackers, used elephants to surround and shoot them. At times, tiger families were driven out of cover and shot. Some of the cubs survived, only to be shot next year. This is how Hewett knew some of the males weighed were young adults or adolescents. Ad 3 - Some male tigers shot in southern India exceeded 500 pounds. The Luckvalley tiger certainly did. Old One Eye, full of beef, was 11 feet 'over curves' and estimated at 700 pounds. Meinertzhagen shot two males not selected for size in southern India. They were 454 and 498 pounds. R.G. Burton ('A book of Man-Eaters') shot one of 9.8 in the Deccan who exceeded a 500-pound scale. He was estimated at 550. Hicks shot a very large tiger of 9.7 'between pegs' in Mysore. Judging from his measurements (chest 64 inches, neck 38 and skull 40), he was much more robust than the Sauraha tiger. There is a report of a tiger shot in southern India with a chest of 73 inches. I also noticed quite many tigers shot in southern India exceeded 14,5 inches in greatest total skull length. Ad 4 - Hewett's book has a lot of information. The 18 males he weighed averaged 435,60 pounds and 291,96 cm. 'over curves'. The 22 he didn't weigh averaged 300,87 cm. Of the 18 he weighed, 8 large tigers averaged 299,71 cm. 'over curves' and 491,75 pounds. The others averaged 285,75 cm. and 390,80 pounds, a difference of nearly 101 pounds. The conclusion is total length, and not head and body length, seems to be the best factor to estimate weight. The reason, I think, is age. Male tigers seem to grow nearly all their life and put on weight for a long time. A century ago, some males estimated at 15-20 years were in excellent health and very big when they were shot. Today, as a result of severe competition, this is unheard of. The 40 males shot by Hewett and his guests, by the way, averaged 296,86 cm. 'over curves'. Use the information you have to estimate the average weight of all 40. Not that difficult, but it will take you some time. You can use the table I posted some time ago. Ad 5 - I read Kesri Singh's book and think the information can be used. If you do the work on Hewett's tigers, you can get to a good estimate on the two tigers Singh mentioned in his book (and all other tigers shot and measured, but not weighed, in northern India). The reason is there isn't much to choose between Nepal and northern India for type. The weights mentioned (590 and 600 pounds) were, if anything, a bit below expectation. A century and a half ago, most hunters thought tigers in central and, especially, southern India, although not reaching the same length as those in the north, were generally more robust and heavier. Based on what I have, I would agree. I will try to find the report on the tiger with 73-inch chest shot in southern India. He was much bigger than the 10-footers shot in the north and he wasn't the only one. Mysore and Kanara produced quite many robust tigers. Those in the southwest (Niligiris and Nagarahole), although impressive, are a bit longer, but not as big. The biggest tigers shot in southern India, judging from the comments and the details I read, probably exceeded 500 pounds quite often.
A VERY BULKY SOUTH INDIA TIGER
This post is about an editorial I read in the JBNHS many years ago. The title is 'On the methods of measuring tigers' and it was published in Volume 27 (Miscellaneous Notes, No. IV, pp. 391-394). This means methods, big cats and measurements were already discussed in the first decades of the previous century. Better still, methods were discussed in the 19th century. In 1879, to be more precise. As a result of questions of members about measurements of big cats published in the JBNHS, the editors decided to restart the ancient debate on methods. In their editorial, the editors used a few extracts from a letter of Joe Shillingford (from Purneah) written in November 1879 (...). The letter was published in 'The Asian' (a magazin) of December 23, 1879. A century and a half after the letter was written, one wonders if the issue on big cats, methods and measurements will ever be resolved in a satisfying way. My guess is no, as the letter and the debate didn't have the intended effect. In the last decade of the 19th century, hunters initially adopted the new method ('between pegs'), but many returned to the trusted method ('over curves') after a few years of trial and error. The reason was it often proved difficult to measure a big cat in a straight line. In many parts of wild India, a flat piece of ground was not easy to find and most hunters just didn't have the means to move a heavy big cat for many miles. After WWII, the debate on methods apparently was forgotten. The result is many hunters and some biologists still measure big cats 'over curves' today. A great pity. The editorial on methods is interesting. The writer of the letter (Joe Shillingford), after explaining how the tigers he shot were measured, compared an 11.0 tiger shot in Purneah with a 10.2 tiger shot in southern India. These tigers, both measured 'over curves', might have measured 10.6 and 9.8 'between pegs'. The details of the tiger shot in southern India are staggering. The circumference of his chest (6.1) and skull (3.5) are unsurpassed as far as I know. One can only imagine the size of the limbs that carried his great bulk. It is interesting to read that both Shillingford and another hunter ('Young Nimrod') thought tigers in central and southern India, although not as long as those in Bengal, were bigger:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author One could conclude that the giant shot in southern India would have been the exception to the rule. With a chest like that, he probably was. But there are more reliable reports about very big tigers shot in southern India. Hicks shot a big male tiger in Mysore. At 9.7 (292,10 cm.) 'between pegs', this tiger had a chest circumference of 5.4 (162,56 cm.), a neck circumference of 3.2 (96,52 cm.) and a skull circumference of 3.6 (106,68 cm.). Quite a bit larger than the Sauraha tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author Old One Eye, shot by Lt.-Gen. G.F. Waugh (US Army) in the northwestern part of the Nilgiris Hills in 1931, was 11.0 (335,28 cm.) 'over curves' and had a 167,64 cm. body circumference (chest or belly). This tiger, probably gorged, was estimated at 700 pounds. There is a lot more on large tigers shot in southern and central India. Although they do not reach the length of large males in northern India (same for skulls), they quite often seem to be bulkier. More than once, I read the muscular development of tigers shot in southern India was phenomenal. In order to compare the giant mentioned above with some exceptional tigers shot in northeast India, I added the letter of Hawkins published in the JBNHS. Both tigers were long and quite bulky, but they didn't compare to the gladiator shot in southern India:  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (04-14-2015, 10:09 PM)'peter' Wrote: Ad 2 - Most, if not all, tigers Hewett and his guests shot were not baited. The hunters, informed on the whereabouts of tigers by trackers, used elephants to surround and shoot them. In quite many cases, complete tiger families were driven out of cover and shot. Some of the cubs survived, only to be shot one or two years later or so. This is how Hewett knew some of the males weighed were young adults or adolescents. On Ad 2: Thanks for the clarification, so the records from Hewett are safe to use. Just one thing, I think that we most a warn the people that the smaller males in Hewett list were definitely not adults and probable about 2 or 3 years old. The average with the males between 170 to 259 kg only, is of 208.8 kg (n=16) and I think this is the correct one to use (this is slightly more than the records from Cooch Behar at 205 kg). More information in this "old" topic: http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-brander-...he-records On Ad 3: The Luckvalley tiger seems and exception, but I don't think it was the rule in this area. The tiger of 700 lb was estimated and gorged and the big male of Burton bottomed the scale of 500 lb and was estimated at 550 lb (249.5 kg). I found the estimation of Burton more reliable than that of 700 lb, but if true, this could suggest that tigers in this area do reached the same weights than those of the north. However, if we take all the available weights (actually taken) from this area, the heaviest one is the male T-03 captured by Dr Karanth and that weighed 227 kg (500 lb) "adjusted". On the chest girth, I think that 160-170 cm seems to be the maximum for a large tiger, including probably a big layer of fat in the chest, but a girth of 180 cm or more looks to suspicious for me. It sound like the figures of 220 cm in chest girths quoted by Baikov, that at the end, were probably just from skins. Maybe those girths were from the animal already inflated by the decomposition, or they were heavily gorged. On Ad 4: I most state again that I don't trust in total length, because it don't show the true proportions of the animal. For example, the large tiger of 322 cm hunted in the Duars weighed only 222 kg, but the giant tiger of Brander, with only 302 cm in total length, probably surpassed the 272 kg. The large tiger of 204 cm in head-body from Nagarahole weighed only 227 kg while the Sauraha male at only 197 cm was over 260 kg, check that these males measured 311 and 310 cm respectively and the same case can be applied to the Amur tigers. Maybe the total length could be a good estimator of weight (based on Hewett), but definitely other measurements are also important to get a true idea of the size and proportions of a tiger, like the head-body or the girths; the heaviest tiger from Hewett (570 lb - 259 kg) measured 293 cm "over curves" which means a length of only c.278 between pegs, this suggest that this male was a giant with a short tail, which seems the case of many of the larger-heaviest tigers (in the paint of the tiger of 705 lb from Nepal, we can see that this other tiger also had a very short tail). In the case of the Bachelor of Powalgarh, it will be a big mistake to take it just like a 10 ft animal, when in fact, this was a brute of Biblical proportions, it is huge and dwarf the Sauraha tiger, but if we take only the total length, they are of the same size, when in fact, it wasn't the case. What I try to say is that total length, alone, don't give the true idea of the size of a great cat.
HEAD AND BODY LENGTH, TOTAL LENGTH, ROBUSTNESS AND WEIGHT IN TIGERS
Although I understand, Guate, I do not agree with your assumption on head and body length, total length, robustness and weight. There are plenty of records of shortish tigers with a tail of normal length and more or less normal proportions. In spite of that, they were very heavy. I also have lots of records of long-bodied and lanky tigers. Mass is sometimes expressed in a long body or impressive body dimensions, but in most cases it isn't. Maj. Phytian-Adams shot a long tiger with a very long tail in the Nilgiris. Although the dimensions of the body were not remarkable, the tiger was very heavy. R.C.Morris shot a short tiger in the Nilgiris. Although only 8.8. 'between pegs', the chest of this tiger with a head and body length of 177,80 cm. was 57 inches (144,78 cm.). His weight, however, wasn't remarkable. The 9.11 giant shot by Dunbar Brander was a robust animal. The difference with many other bulky animals was he, like his mother, had a very long body (7.3) and a short tail (2.8). That, however, doesn't mean animals with long bodies are robust. It means they have a long body. Many male Amur tigers have long bodies as a rule, but they seldom exceed 200 kg. One of the few who did was shorter than average. I tried to find a relation between head and body length, total length, body dimensions and robustness in tigers. It isn't there. The only thing I'm sure of is long tigers nearly always were much heavier than short tigers in northern India a century ago and the only reason I could think of was age. Let's turn to humans to find out a bit more. In the country where I live, young adults are as long as older men but not as heavy. The most likely reason, apart from accumulation of fat when men get older, is men grow in mass as a result of more density until 30-35. After 40 or so, most start to lose muscle mass. I'm now heavier than when I was 20. Not fatter, bigger or more muscular, but heavier. The only reason I can think of is (bone or muscle) density and my guess is it's the same in big cats and bears. I agree tigers with a long body and more or less normal proportions would most probably be heavier than shorter tigers of normal proportions, but body length itself isn't related to robustness. Robustness largely is a result of density. As density is related to age and tigers grow nearly all their life, old animals usually are longer and denser and, therefore, heavier than young adults. 
Robustness I doubt will have much to do with body length, but usually Indian Tigers with longer body length's are the heavier animal. Obviously exceptions exist but more often than not, the longest cats are usually the heaviest from the data I have seen.
But "Robust" is a different situation, since I'm sure terrain, prey, climate and many other factors are going to play a role. For instance, Ranth and Corbett Tigers look much more lean compared to Kahna, Tadoba or Kaz tigers, But is there an actual difference in weight? Who knows for sure... maybe just weight distribution  *This image is copyright of its original author Corbett tigress found dead in 2011
AMUR TIGER AND WILD BOAR
1 - January 2010 I couldn't quite make out the cause of death of the tiger, but a dead wild boar was found close by and I assume there was a fight. I don't think the tiger was full-grown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ9Zj28XJQw 2 - February 2014 Another fight between a wild boar and a tiger. The boar was killed, but the tiger was badly wounded. I couldn't make out the cause of the injury, as it seems the tiger could have been injured before he hunted the boar: http://www.khingan.ru/view_news.php?id=45
The Head and Neck Muscles of a Serval and a Tiger: Homologies, Evolution and Proposal of a Mammalian and a Veterinary Muscle Ontology (The Anatomial Record, Issue 12, pages 2157-2178, December 2012)
Here's a link to an interesting article that was published in 2012. The tiger used for the study was a captive Sumatran tigress who died in a facility in Spain. At 152,0 kg., she was the heaviest Sumatran female I know of. The result of the study was that cats have more facial muscles than numerous other mammals, including humans: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...22589/full
Européens et prédateurs exotiques en Indochine, le cas du tigre (M. Guérin, HAL, 2011)
This is an article written in French, but you can use the translator. Interesting information offered by someone with access to French records: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00492359/document
I think there is a mistake in the document. With 152 kg, that was a Bengal-Amur (or hybrid) tigress or is a male Sumatran tiger.
(04-19-2015, 08:14 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I think there is a mistake in the document. With 152 kg, that was a Bengal-Amur (or hybrid) tigress or is a male Sumatran tiger. Could be, but not likely. It is a peer-reviewed document. Mistakes, for that reason, are bound to be discovered. Also remember big cats and exceptions are good friends. I measured a skull of a captive Sumatran tigress in the former Zoological Museum of Amsterdam. The skull was longer and heavier than that of an average Amur tigress and almost as long as that of an average Sumatran male. The size of the animal was confirmed on the label. To make sure, I talked to someone who had known the former keeper. He said the tigress was known for her large size. She wasn't obese, but large. As large as they come. Dr. Peter van Bree also remembered the tigress. He confirmed she was large.
Locating Specimens of Extinct Tiger (Panthera tigris) Subspecies: Javan Tiger (P.t. sondaica), Balinese Tiger (P.t. balica), and Caspian Tiger (P.t. virgata), Including Previously Unpublished Specimens (Yamaguchi et al, 'Mammal Study', 38 (3), pages 187-198, 2013, published by Mammal Society of Japan)
This article is known, but I thought a link should be in this thread for those interested in skulls of extinct tiger subspecies. I'm, ehhh, not surprised Japan features in more than one way: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3106/041.038.0307 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 67 Guest(s) |