Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[WaveRiders]

tigerluver
 
You cannot be sure that the scale weight in excess of 270 kg of the individual you are referring (the Sauraha male M105 or M026) bottomed the scale even in a second capture and therefore when perhaps (perhaps) he was not baited as radio-tracked. The majority of recaptures occurred again with the use of baits. The Sauraha male was captured and measured at least three times. In the first two times he bottomed a scale of 500 lb (Sunquist) and apparently grew in length as did M102. Then, according to Dinerstein (2003) he bottomed a 600 lb scale while being weighed by Smith (Sunquist private info). I have also seen circulating figure of 258,2 kg as a weight of M105 provided privately by Sunquist as well as statement he initially estimated the weight based on morphological measurements.
 
You are right in pointing out that a claim with such strong implications like mine that the Sauraha male M105 was measured at 1970 mm in head-and-body length along the body curves should be supported by the related reference / communication (by the way, this figure refers to the undetailed 3100 mm longest measurement of Sunquist, 1981). Unfortunately I am not a good poster and I rely on people trusting me, better say assume / hope people trusting me. I tend to release info with little source details because my info has the main purpose to at least put doubts in the brained minds if they do not know that info (an info either official or private that could even be wrong or not totally correct in some cases because the autho was faulty). When I cannot be 100% sure of something I hope it is evident from how and what I write about the info, consideration, analysis study, etc. Sometimes not releasing details like the source adds a bit of spicy in the discussion which can be funny if the discussion does not degenerate. Be patient and the source will come out.
 
In the meantime please allow me to give you a friendly advice. It is really a friendly advice. Always read carefully things in general. When you assert “From your last estimate of 205 kg, you're implying the specimen ate 32%-50% of its body weight before weighing in a short period of time at his last weighing. That's essentially impossible.”
 
You misunderstood or perhaps I was not too clear. I wrote “According to my statistics applied to sufficiently reliable historical data an Indian adult male tiger as long as 1970 mm along the curves without the tail (or 1830 mm in straight line) of average build would likely weigh in the range 180-205 kg.”
 
I did not write that 180-205 kg was a likely weight estimate of the Sauaraha male. I meant that based on statistics applied to sufficiently reliable and accurate historical data if you could take a large enough number of adult male Indian tigers all as long in head-and-body length as the Sauraha male (1970 mm along the curves pretty much equivalent to 1830 mm in straight line), weigh all of them and take the average of those figures, choose a probabilistic range of 25 kg across the most likely single figure average, this average would most likely fall in the range 180-205 kg then in any other sensible 25 kg interval above or below that range (i.e. intervals 130-155, 155-180, 205-230, 230-255, 255-280, 280-305). If I would have to bet a 5 kg range I would choose 190-195 kg.
 
Finally again you misunderstood. I never put in doubts those two males bottomed a scale of 600 lb (272 kg). As no sort of mistakes have been admitted to have been done by the authors, this is undisputable official info. Therefore if the measurements were correctly taken (scale zeroed if necessary, scales checked for accuracy, weight operation properly executed, etc.) the body mass of those animals in the conditions they have been captured (more then likely baited) and weighed was at least 272 kg minus the tools necessary to lift the animal (if the scale could not be zeroed after having rigged the equipment) or at least 272 kg if the scales were zeroed and still able to read 600 lb. Period. Then we can speculate on the stomach contents, be surprised by the short size of the Sauraha male and the not so huge chest and neck girths I would have instead expected in relationship to his very high weight and relatively short size so on.
 
 
Also note that my discussion started with speculating on differentiating the possible statistically estimable stomach contents based on Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983) info for the adult males and females of Smith et al. (1983) sample instead of using the fixed figure of 14,0 kg for both adult males and females as GuateGojira did in his table. I focused on the average adult male and female weight given at 235 kg and 140 kg, and the maximum male weight given at 261 kg (evidently not the Sauraha male) and the maximum female weight given at 164 kg (more then likely the one measured for F101 when she was close to give birth).
 
I never talked of Chitawan tigers all gorged (meaning full belly and possibly eating 15-20 % of their empty stomach weight) when weighed. Nor I wrote Chitawan adult male tiger cannot reach 270 kg in body mass. I mentioned M105 and M026. these are the two 270+ kg males mentioned by Dinerstein (2003). Then there is the 261 kg male by Smith et al. (1983). There have been speculations this latter figure is also an estimate of either M105 or M026 weight or that it was a scale weight of M026 weighed at another recapture. I believe it is an actual weight of another male (not M105 or M026).
 
I am not aware of any more males weighed in Chitawan in the region of 270 kg either in the 70s-80s, either later.
 
In my first two posts on this thread I did not mention the Sauraha male and I never alleged he was at full stomach when weighed (although it can be suggested he likely had at least “some” food in the stomach from a picture of him narcotized – how much? Nobody really knows). I talked about the Sauaraha male in relationship to his scale weight exceeding 270 kg in the condition he was weighed (baited), his head and body length and chest girth.
 
 
Finally
“Next, we have conflicting data, as males around Sauraha's length have hovered in the 270-320 kg range.”
 
I am sorry but I am not aware of any wild tiger in the 270-320 kg range with head-and-body length around (let’ s say no more then 100 mm longer) the Sauraha male (1970 mm along the curves pretty much equivalent to 1830 mm in straight line), I have already recalled two shorter then or just above average size but very stocky individuals among sufficiently reliable historical records. Among others I have an about average size male measured at 2007 mm along the curves without tail (I best estimate him 1860-1865 mm in straight line) scaling 249,5 kg and therefore very stocky unless really fully gorged with 30-40+ kg of meat (much unlikely in general, I do not consider this occurrence unless clearly suggested/specified).
 
Then there are the males weighed and measured by Karanth in Nagarahole NP. They were quite stocky animals but none any close to the range 270-320 kg you are talking (sic!).
 
I am rather curious to know the measurements of those animals.
 
 
                             WaveRiders
 

  Reply