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.
05-23-2020, 02:58 PM( This post was last modified: 05-23-2020, 03:12 PM by Hello )
This is Him again compared to his son Zambar who is an average Amur,The counting of bricks at the sliding door gives idea of his size.The brick standard size is 65 mm with 10 mm mortar bedding
The following 1 user Likes Hello's post:1 user Likes Hello's post • peter
05-23-2020, 10:19 PM( This post was last modified: 05-24-2020, 06:40 AM by peter )
(05-20-2020, 09:50 AM)Hello Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
HELLO
Many thanks again and say thanks to Kennion as well. His confirmation on the 13,75 cm is one point. I need one more to be sure. Unfortunately, I don't do social media. Would you be so kind as to contact Kerley? I've 4 questions:
1 - Could she provide details on the 13,75 cm print (location, season and the tiger leaving the print)?
2 - Using the information on heel width and weight of wild Amur tigers I recently posted in the tiger extinction thread, Tigerluver concluded a wild male Amur tiger leaving a print of 13,5 cm ranges between 259-337 kg (most likely outcome 295 kg). The heaviest male actually weighed in the period 1992-2020, however, was 212 kg. What's her opinion on Tigerluver's equation and the (average and maximum) weight of an adult (6 years and over) wild male Amur tiger today? Are wild Amur tigers, as some members think, a bit heavier than, say, 2-3 decades ago?
3 - In 2018, Olga Krasnykh (founder and co-owner of Bohai Tours) joined Wildfact. She knows researchers working in reserves in the southwestern part of Primorye. They told her tigers hunt brown bear females and, in particular, cubs more often than before. In their opinion, the pressure is significant. So much so, that tigers seem to 'expell' brown bears in some districts. What's Kerley's opinion on tigers and female brown bears with cubs in the Russian Far East?
4 - In 1983, the third edition of V. Mazak's book 'Der Tiger' (in German) was published. In this edition, Mazak referred to a letter he got from W.J. Jankowski, a son of J.M. Jankowski (who featured in 'The Tiger's Claw'). In this letter (dated 08-05-1970), Jankowski wrote about a large male tiger shot near the Sungari River in the summer of 1943. Close to the tiger, Jankowski found the remains of a " ... very large male brown bear ... " ('Der Tiger', 1983, pp. 189) killed and eaten by the tiger a few days before he was shot.
This letter resulted in some controversy. One reason is W.J. Jankowski didn't provide any details on the tiger and the bear in his book published in the early nineties of the previous century. Another reason is biologists never found an adult male brown bear killed by a tiger in the period 1992-2020. Most of them think experienced male tigers hunt adult female brown bears and, occasionally, young adult male bears up to their own size (150-200 kg), but avoid adult male brown bears.
Recent reports published by biologists involved in the Amur Tiger Programme however point in a different direction. I'm not only referring to a report about a rehabilitated young male tiger known as 'Borya' hunting adult brown bears published in December 2016. There are more recent publications (all of them peer-reviewed documents) suggesting tigers hunt 'large' brown bears more often than was assumed in the recent past. What's Kerley's opinion on male tigers and male brown bears in the Russian far East?
It wouldn't be superfluous to add members of forums are not only interested in peer-reviewed documents. Opinions could be as interesting, especially if those involved in opinions have a lot of experience. Pikunov offered his opinion on tigers and bears in the Russian Far East. Kerley and Goodrich no doubt have an opinion as well.
Kennion's opinion, to be sure, would be appreciated as well. He most probably knows more about (interactions between) captive tigers and bears than forum members.
I know it's a big ask. See what you can do and thanks in advance.
The following 1 user Likes peter's post:1 user Likes peter's post • AMG-DS
I remember the report because of the remarkable weight of the tiger. I tried to find out more, but came up empty.
The image on the left corresponds to the tiger that weighed 303 kg, the image on the right corresponds to another tiger that weighed 120 kg. Both images show that similar weighing scales were used, and taking into account the green scales, we can compare sizes between the two specimens.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Below is an image showing dimensions on a scale similar to that shown in the image on the right side.
*This image is copyright of its original author
So, it can be concluded that the tiger that weighed 303 kg was clearly a large specimen.
What are your thoughts?
I remember the report because of the remarkable weight of the tiger. I tried to find out more, but came up empty.
The image on the left corresponds to the tiger that weighed 303 kg, the image on the right corresponds to another tiger that weighed 120 kg. Both images show that similar weighing scales were used, and taking into account the green scales, we can compare sizes between the two specimens.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Below is an image showing dimensions on a scale similar to that shown in the image on the right side.
*This image is copyright of its original author
So, it can be concluded that the tiger that weighed 303 kg was clearly a large specimen.
What are your thoughts?
I knew about the pictures, but thought it wasn't quite enough to get to a conclusion. What is needed, is a photograph showing the scale, the tiger and, for comparison, a man. A clear statement of the official who was there when the tiger was weighed would also help.
I, however, do not doubt Indochinese tigers can grow to a large size in some regions. Over the years, I bought a few French books and magazins published in the days Vietnam was a French colony. Back then, all of those in the know (outfitters and hunters) agreed tigers from Annam (Vietnam) in particular compared to most 'Bengal' tigers. American hunters, for this reason, not seldom preferred Vietnam over India. Vietnam also was closer and cheaper.
Not every book I read is interesting, but some offer a bit more than others. I would recommend 'Im Lande der roten Tiger' (Franz Jozef Graf Seefried, 1963) in particular. Seefried hunted in a little known region close to the border with Cambodia. One of the tigers he shot was a male of 298 cm in total length. I posted a few scans and photographs in the tiger extinction thread. Here's one of the photographs I didn't post:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Informationwise, Oggeri's book ('I killed for a living', Safari press, limited edition, 2010) doesn't quite compare, but it has some nice photographs. A few of them were posted in the tiger thread.
Most reports about the size of (large) Indochinese tigers were, and still are, not taken very serious. A bit strange, as the skull topping the table on pp. 533 in Pococks paper on tigers (referring to the skull with a greatest total length of 15,5 inches or 393,70 mm) was from Nahtrang, Annam (Vietnam). According to Lt.-Col. C.H. Stockley, a member of the JBNHS, this tiger, shot by H.A. White, had a total length of 10.7 ('The size and markings of Indian tigers', letter of 04-03-1930, in: JBNHS, Vol, 34, Nos 1&2, Misc. Notes, No. V, pp. 553-555). Pocock's paper ('Tigers', 1929), by the way, still is a good read.
A few years ago, a 'new' skull popped up in a document from, if not mistaken, Finland. The former owner had been shot in Johore (southern tip of Malaysia). According to Mazak ('Der Tiger', third edition, 1983, pp. 147), skulls of Panthera tigris corbetti (adult males) range between 318,5-365,0 mm in greatest total length. The skull described in the document from Finland, however, was 370 mm in greatest total length. The former owner of the skull of 365 mm, by the way, was also shot in that region.
Here's a nice photograph of a tiger from Malaysia. This male also has a relatively large skull:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quite some time ago, a friend interested in big cats visited an exhibition in the Paris Natural History Museum. One of the stuffed tigers he saw (shot in Vietnam) was larger and more robust than nearly all captive Amur tigers he had seen. His report was confirmed by a vet I knew. He had also visited the exhibition.
The facility I often visited in the period 1995-2008 usually had captive Amur tigers. One day, the director took me to a new arrival. It was a very healthy circus tiger enjoying a break of a few weeks (his trainer was on leave). His coat was deep orange and the stripes were long, thin and very black. Although not quite as tall, he definitely compared to most captive Amur tigers for length. The difference between them was the circus tiger was in good shape. Every time he was allowed to lift a few weights in the large cage outside, the other big cats immediately bought a ticket to watch him perform. They were as impressed as I was. His trainer said he was from Vietnam.
I'm not saying captive Indochinese tigers compare to captive Amur tigers. At the level of averages, the difference between both subspecies is quite outspoken. But Indochinese tigers are not small. Same, by the way, for their wild relatives. Male tigers in Thailand (referring to recent information) average just over 400 pounds.
To finish the post, here's a photograph taken in Thailand a few years ago. The angle, of course, resulted in a bit of distortion, but it was a large male:
I remember the report because of the remarkable weight of the tiger. I tried to find out more, but came up empty.
The image on the left corresponds to the tiger that weighed 303 kg, the image on the right corresponds to another tiger that weighed 120 kg. Both images show that similar weighing scales were used, and taking into account the green scales, we can compare sizes between the two specimens.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Below is an image showing dimensions on a scale similar to that shown in the image on the right side.
*This image is copyright of its original author
So, it can be concluded that the tiger that weighed 303 kg was clearly a large specimen.
What are your thoughts?
I knew about the pictures, but thought it wasn't enough to get to a conclusion. In order to get there, we need a better photograph showing the scale, the tiger and, for comparison, a man. A clear statement of the official involved in weighing the tiger would also help.
I, however, do not doubt tigers in some parts of Indochina can grow to a large size. Over the years, I bought a few French books and magazins published in the days Vietnam was a French colony. Back then, all of those in the know (outfitters and hunters) agreed tigers from Annam in particular not seldom compared to 'Bengal' tigers. American hunters, for this reason, not seldom preferred Vietnam over India. Vietnam also was closer and cheaper, of course.
Not every book I read is interesting, but some offer a lot of information. I would recommend 'Im Lande der roten Tiger' (Franz Jozef Graf Seefried, 1963) in particular. Seefried hunted in an unknown region close to the border with Cambodia. One of the tigers he shot was a male of 298 cm in total length. I posted a few scans and photographs in the tiger extinction thread. Here's one of the photographs I didn't post:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Informationwise, Oggeri's book ('I killed for a living', Safari press, limited edition, 2010) doesn't really compare, but it has some nice photographs. The scans of some photographs were posted in the tiger extinction thread.
Most stories about large Indochinese tigers were, and still are, not taken very serious. A bit strange, as one of the largest skulls measured by Pocock was from Annam. A few years ago, a 'new' skull popped up in a document from, if not mistaken, Finland. The former owner had been shot in Johore (southern tip of Malaysia). According to Mazak ('Der Tiger', third edition, 1983, pp. 147), skulls of Panthera tigris corbetti (adult males) range between 318,5-365,0 mm in greatest total length. The skull described in the document from Finland, however, was 370 mm in greatest total length. The former owner of the skull of 365 mm, by the way, was also shot in that region.
Here's a nice photograph of a tiger from Malaysia. This male also has a relatively large skull:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quite some time ago, a friend interested in big cats visited an exhibition in the Paris Natural History Museum. One of the stuffed tigers he saw (shot in Vietnam) was larger and more robust than nearly all captive Amur tigers he had seen. His report was confirmed by a vet I knew.
The facility I often visited in the period 1995-2008 usually had captive Amur tigers. One day, the director took me to a new arrival. It was a very healthy tiger enjoying a break of a few weeks (his trainer was on leave). His coat was deep orange and the stripes were long, thin and very black. Although not quite as tall, he definitely compared to most captive Amur tigers for length. The difference between them was the circus tiger was in very good shape. Every time he was allowed to lift a few weights in the large cage outside, the other big cats bought a ticket to watch him perform. They were as impressed as I was. His trainer said he was from Vietnam.
I'm not saying captive Indochinese tigers compare to captive Amur tigers. At the level of averages, the difference between both subspecies is quite outspoken. But Indochinese tigers are not small. Same, by the way, for their wild relatives. Wild male tigers in Thailand (referring to recent information) average about 400 pounds.
To finish the post, here's one more from Thailand (recent). The angle resulted in a bit of distortion, but it was a large male:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Thanks for the information.
Both Indochinese and Indian populations appear to have similar weight ranges, however Bengal tigers are heavier on average, of course, there is not much data on Indochinese tigers.
I found 2 specimens that measured 330 cm and 335 cm TL (skin measurements):
I remember the report because of the remarkable weight of the tiger. I tried to find out more, but came up empty.
The image on the left corresponds to the tiger that weighed 303 kg, the image on the right corresponds to another tiger that weighed 120 kg. Both images show that similar weighing scales were used, and taking into account the green scales, we can compare sizes between the two specimens.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Below is an image showing dimensions on a scale similar to that shown in the image on the right side.
*This image is copyright of its original author
So, it can be concluded that the tiger that weighed 303 kg was clearly a large specimen.
What are your thoughts?
I knew about the pictures, but thought it wasn't quite enough to get to a conclusion. What is needed, is a photograph showing the scale, the tiger and, for comparison, a man. A clear statement of the official who was there when the tiger was weighed would also help.
I, however, do not doubt Indochinese tigers can grow to a large size in some regions. Over the years, I bought a few French books and magazins published in the days Vietnam was a French colony. Back then, all of those in the know (outfitters and hunters) agreed tigers from Annam (Vietnam) in particular compared to most 'Bengal' tigers. American hunters, for this reason, not seldom preferred Vietnam over India. Vietnam also was closer and cheaper.
Not every book I read is interesting, but some offer a bit more than others. I would recommend 'Im Lande der roten Tiger' (Franz Jozef Graf Seefried, 1963) in particular. Seefried hunted in a little known region close to the border with Cambodia. One of the tigers he shot was a male of 298 cm in total length. I posted a few scans and photographs in the tiger extinction thread. Here's one of the photographs I didn't post:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Informationwise, Oggeri's book ('I killed for a living', Safari press, limited edition, 2010) doesn't quite compare, but it has some nice photographs. A few of them were posted in the tiger thread.
Most reports about the size of (large) Indochinese tigers were, and still are, not taken very serious. A bit strange, as the skull topping the table on pp. 533 in Pococks paper on tigers (referring to the skull with a greatest total length of 15,5 inches or 393,70 mm) was from Nahtrang, Annam (Vietnam). According to Lt.-Col. C.H. Stockley, a member of the JBNHS, this tiger, shot by H.A. White, had a total length of 10.7 ('The size and markings of Indian tigers', letter of 04-03-1930, in: JBNHS, Vol, 34, Nos 1&2, Misc. Notes, No. V, pp. 553-555). Pocock's paper ('Tigers', 1929), by the way, still is a good read.
A few years ago, a 'new' skull popped up in a document from, if not mistaken, Finland. The former owner had been shot in Johore (southern tip of Malaysia). According to Mazak ('Der Tiger', third edition, 1983, pp. 147), skulls of Panthera tigris corbetti (adult males) range between 318,5-365,0 mm in greatest total length. The skull described in the document from Finland, however, was 370 mm in greatest total length. The former owner of the skull of 365 mm, by the way, was also shot in that region.
Here's a nice photograph of a tiger from Malaysia. This male also has a relatively large skull:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quite some time ago, a friend interested in big cats visited an exhibition in the Paris Natural History Museum. One of the stuffed tigers he saw (shot in Vietnam) was larger and more robust than nearly all captive Amur tigers he had seen. His report was confirmed by a vet I knew. He had also visited the exhibition.
The facility I often visited in the period 1995-2008 usually had captive Amur tigers. One day, the director took me to a new arrival. It was a very healthy circus tiger enjoying a break of a few weeks (his trainer was on leave). His coat was deep orange and the stripes were long, thin and very black. Although not quite as tall, he definitely compared to most captive Amur tigers for length. The difference between them was the circus tiger was in good shape. Every time he was allowed to lift a few weights in the large cage outside, the other big cats immediately bought a ticket to watch him perform. They were as impressed as I was. His trainer said he was from Vietnam.
I'm not saying captive Indochinese tigers compare to captive Amur tigers. At the level of averages, the difference between both subspecies is quite outspoken. But Indochinese tigers are not small. Same, by the way, for their wild relatives. Male tigers in Thailand (referring to recent information) average just over 400 pounds.
To finish the post, here's a photograph taken in Thailand a few years ago. The angle, of course, resulted in a bit of distortion, but it was a large male:
*This image is copyright of its original author
A 3 years old male Amur tiger, was caught in the Pozharsky District, Primorsky Territory, last Sunday (07/03/2021), an extremely undersized young specimen, which weighed 110 kg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The following 1 user Likes AMG-DS's post:1 user Likes AMG-DS's post • peter
(08-21-2014, 11:10 PM)tigerluver Wrote: The Hasinger Tiger
In this post I'd like to analyze the probability of a 389 kg specimen with a total length of 322.5 cm.
When something is out of the ordinary, we often try to modify and find reasons to why. For this tiger, most say it was gorged. But this picture of it says otherwise:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The stomach is not distended and looks to be of normal circumference. So before we bring out the inaccurate scale to unreliable weight theories, let's trust the 60s and look for another explanation.
So my next guess is that this specimen may have a short tail. I analyzed this photo:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Assuming Hasinger has a shoulder width of 46 cm, I estimated the tail length. He's a relatively short tailed tiger. Unlikely that it was greater than 100 cm long, and thus conservatively I'd say he had a body length of 220 cm.
Now I looked to math to support or reject the 389 kg weight. Let's use the most simple growth ratio, isometry.
Sauraha will be our comparison specimen. The math:
(x/y)^3*ymass = (220/197)cm^270 kg = 376 kg.
Quite close to the actual weight. Keep in mind that true growth in tigers happens at a significantly greater rate than cubic, so the true estimate could be even more, thus even if this male is shorter than 220 cm body length, the 389 kg weight is still attainable.
The 317 kg tiger is also very probable with a body length of 210 cm using the same isometric logic.
Mathematically, I've verified these specimens. The rest is on individual discretion.
Edit:
A quick tidbit I'd like to add about food intake corrections. Over a 24 hour period, the amount eaten will not equal amount in belly. Especially with raw meat, there is more water weight involved, which passes rather quickly. Tigers also are predicted to have a higher end metabolism, thus quicker food passage. In the case of domestic cats, expect nothing left in the belly from a meal at most 24 hrs ago. Metabolic-wise, tigers would be even quicker. Of course, if something is eating constantly throughout the day then you'll have a inflated mass, but if the bait was consumed a while ago, the bait lost is greater than the food in the belly.
really old post but... if you want to make your estimates more accurate, use the barrel of the gun which is 25 inches from Winchester pre64 model 375
06-25-2021, 07:21 PM( This post was last modified: 06-25-2021, 07:24 PM by Charger01 )
(07-20-2019, 09:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Short note: Update on the post of Nepalese tigers.
I made an update in my post No. 430. I was thinking about the numbers and I conclude now that in fact there were only 3 adult male tigers captured during the period of 1973 and 1980. This make sense as after the death of M102 in 1976, the large male 105 dominated practically the entire Chitwan NP until his death in 1979 and in that moment he was fighting with male 126 for dominance in the eastern part of the park. So it is obvious that no other dominant male was in the region until the death of Sauraha male. Paradoxically it seems that the dead of this male was the real reason why they stopped collaring new males and stick with the sample of 26 specimens.
From the point of view of the fans of “size and weights”, it is bad news that no other animal was captured, but for the scientists and fans of the “behavior of animals”, the Sauraha male was the best thing that could happen, as male 105 bring a period of peace where the behavior of tigers was studied in detail, where many cubs were raised and shows that an stable “kingdom” is the best thing that could happen to recover the tiger populations.
Greetings to all.
I got an interesting reply from Dr. Sunquist regarding this.
It was a long debate that how many males were captured in Chitwan during the study. This is what Dr. Sunquist told me in respect to this -
Quote:Tigers were sometimes recaptured, but the interval between captures was often a year or more. I don't know if the weights were added to the list or not. Perhaps Dr. Smith could shed some light on your question.
What I think of it is that, Dr. Smith might have captured animals after Sunquist left the study in 1974 (im not sure when he left). Even if there were recaptures, Dr. Sunquist doesnt know if the recapture weights were added to the list as different animal. So there might be seven different males, some of which were captured by Dr. Smith during the later part of the study. The only person who I think can clarify this is Dr. Smith, whom I wrote to in February (as Dr. Sunquist suggested) but unfortunately got no reply.
06-26-2021, 06:51 AM( This post was last modified: 11-22-2021, 01:51 AM by peter )
(06-25-2021, 07:21 PM)Khan85 Wrote:
(07-20-2019, 09:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Short note: Update on the post of Nepalese tigers.
I made an update in my post No. 430. I was thinking about the numbers and I conclude now that in fact there were only 3 adult male tigers captured during the period of 1973 and 1980. This make sense as after the death of M102 in 1976, the large male 105 dominated practically the entire Chitwan NP until his death in 1979 and in that moment he was fighting with male 126 for dominance in the eastern part of the park. So it is obvious that no other dominant male was in the region until the death of Sauraha male. Paradoxically it seems that the dead of this male was the real reason why they stopped collaring new males and stick with the sample of 26 specimens.
From the point of view of the fans of “size and weights”, it is bad news that no other animal was captured, but for the scientists and fans of the “behavior of animals”, the Sauraha male was the best thing that could happen, as male 105 bring a period of peace where the behavior of tigers was studied in detail, where many cubs were raised and shows that an stable “kingdom” is the best thing that could happen to recover the tiger populations.
Greetings to all.
I got an interesting reply from Dr. Sunquist regarding this.
It was a long debate that how many males were captured in Chitwan during the study. This is what Dr. Sunquist told me in respect to this -
Quote:Tigers were sometimes recaptured, but the interval between captures was often a year or more. I don't know if the weights were added to the list or not. Perhaps Dr. Smith could shed some light on your question.
What I think of it is that, Dr. Smith might have captured animals after Sunquist left the study in 1974 (im not sure when he left). Even if there were recaptures, Dr. Sunquist doesnt know if the recapture weights were added to the list as different animal. So there might be seven different males, some of which were captured by Dr. Smith during the later part of the study. The only person who I think can clarify this is Dr. Smith, whom I wrote to in February (as Dr. Sunquist suggested) but unfortunately got no reply.
There's plenty of info on the Nepal project. A lot of it was posted on AVA, Carnivora and this site. You have to find it in order to get to a timeline and a conclusion on the number of tigers captured and recaptured. You also have to find out who was when where. I know it's a lot of work, but it's the only way to get to good answers.
Discussions about the size of wild tigers is serious business. Not a few of those interested have an agenda. Meaning they doubt everything not to their liking. Biologists also are involved in debates about the size of big cats. Goodrich said wild Amur tigers are 'overrated' and Kitchener and Yamaguchi had serious doubts about the weight of the Sauraha tiger. They think he was baited when he was weighed. This means they doubt information published by their peers. Like I said, it's serious business.
I've quite a few records I consider reliable of tigers well exceeding the length of the Sauraha tiger. These individuals, shot in northern India and Nepal, well exceeded 10 feet in total length measured 'over curves'. One of them, at 10.9, was 705 pounds. What I have, strongly suggests tigers in northern India and Nepal could be the largest wild big cats today (referring to averages).
The Sauraha tiger, although large, wasn't exceptional in size. In spite of that he exceeded a 600-pound scale in his prime, meaning he was a robust individual. As an adult, he also added just over 3 inches in total length. This, again, confirms wild male tigers grow for a long time.
There's more info about tigers in northern India and Nepal in the tiger extinction thread, including numerous tables based on books written by Hewett and Smythies. I also used information I found in the JBNHS.
(07-20-2019, 09:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Short note: Update on the post of Nepalese tigers.
I made an update in my post No. 430. I was thinking about the numbers and I conclude now that in fact there were only 3 adult male tigers captured during the period of 1973 and 1980. This make sense as after the death of M102 in 1976, the large male 105 dominated practically the entire Chitwan NP until his death in 1979 and in that moment he was fighting with male 126 for dominance in the eastern part of the park. So it is obvious that no other dominant male was in the region until the death of Sauraha male. Paradoxically it seems that the dead of this male was the real reason why they stopped collaring new males and stick with the sample of 26 specimens.
From the point of view of the fans of “size and weights”, it is bad news that no other animal was captured, but for the scientists and fans of the “behavior of animals”, the Sauraha male was the best thing that could happen, as male 105 bring a period of peace where the behavior of tigers was studied in detail, where many cubs were raised and shows that an stable “kingdom” is the best thing that could happen to recover the tiger populations.
Greetings to all.
I got an interesting reply from Dr. Sunquist regarding this.
It was a long debate that how many males were captured in Chitwan during the study. This is what Dr. Sunquist told me in respect to this -
Quote:Tigers were sometimes recaptured, but the interval between captures was often a year or more. I don't know if the weights were added to the list or not. Perhaps Dr. Smith could shed some light on your question.
What I think of it is that, Dr. Smith might have captured animals after Sunquist left the study in 1974 (im not sure when he left). Even if there were recaptures, Dr. Sunquist doesnt know if the recapture weights were added to the list as different animal. So there might be seven different males, some of which were captured by Dr. Smith during the later part of the study. The only person who I think can clarify this is Dr. Smith, whom I wrote to in February (as Dr. Sunquist suggested) but unfortunately got no reply.
There's plenty of info on the Nepal project. You have to find it in order to get to a timeline. The timeline is needed to get to a conclusion on the number of tigers captured and recaptured. You also have to find out which biologist was when where and in what way the tigers were measured. I know it's a lot of work, but it's the only way to get to good answers. If you don't, you have no option but to rely on conclusions of others. Not ideal, as most of them have an agenda.
Discussions about the size of wild tigers is serious business. The reason is many of those interested have an agenda. Meaning they doubt everything not to their liking. This is in particular true for tigers of large subspecies (tigris and altaica). Biologists, often indirectly, also are involved in debates about the size of big cats. Goodrich said wild Amur tigers are 'overrated' and Kitchener and Yamaguchi had serious doubts about the weight of the Sauraha tiger. They think he was baited when he was weighed. This means they also doubt information published by their peers. Like I said, it's serious business.
I've quite a few records I consider reliable of tigers well exceeding the length of the Sauraha tiger. These individuals, shot in northern India and Nepal in the recent past, well exceeded 10 feet in total length measured 'over curves'. One of them, at 10.9, was 705 pounds and my guess is he wasn't the only one exceeding that mark (700 pounds). What I have, strongly suggests tigers in northern India and Nepal could be the largest wild big cats today (referring to averages).
The Sauraha tiger, although quite large, wasn't exceptional in size. In spite of that, he exceeded a 500-pound scale as a youngish adult and a 600-pound scale in his prime, meaning he was a robust individual. As an adult, he also added just over 3 inches in total length. This, again, confirmes wild male tigers grow for a long time.
There's, as you know, more info about tigers in northern India and Nepal in the tiger extinction thread, including quite a number of tables based on books written by Hewett and Smythies. I also used information I found in the JBNHS.
Hello Peter
Thanks for the information about the size of these tigers.
However, my doubt was regarding the capture of these animals, precisely how many of them were captured.
I was in total agreement with Guate's conclusions on this, but after this reply from Dr. Sunquist, it raised some questions for me. Because (correct me if im wrong) Dr. Sunquist was the only one consulted to clear this up and he tells that he is not sure about it.
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
