WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
 (08-20-2014, 09:44 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: "In 1910, Jim Corbett shot a tiger in North India, this one weighed 317 kg (700 lbs). what does it mean by Central Provinces? Madhya Pradesh? well in that case its a 317 kg Central Indian specimen & not a North Indian Tiger, right?  (08-20-2014, 09:44 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I have observed and interesting fact from all these images: there is no such thing as an average coat pattern in Bengal tigers!!!I don't necessarily agree with this, if you look at Ranthambhore tigers, they seem to have a distinct darker shaded coat and their facial markings seem to be bold and very connected. (if that makes sense) Kanha seem to have a slightly lighter coat and less sharp edges on their facial markings. Raja and tigers from the south seem to have less stripes in the front and a darker coat. Tadabo tigers seem to have lighter coats to me. I would say for the most part, Ranthambhore and Corbett and Bandipur seem to have the most distinctive differences in coats between Indian Tigers, but that is only judging from images and it is very hard to tell. But I also agree that sometimes tigers have very different coats even in the same area as well as images portray a different color or coat as well.  (08-20-2014, 09:44 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I have observed and interesting fact from all these images: there is no such thing as an average coat pattern in Bengal tigers!!! In northern India, tigers were measured 'over curves'. Those who wrote about measurements all agreed it was quite a ritual and accuracy was of utmost importance. Sir John Hewett, Dunbar Brander and others all wrote the difference between both methods ('between pegs' and 'over curves') was 2-5 inches in adult male tigers. In most other regions, the difference between both methods was more pronounced. The hunters mentioned above all hunted with Corbett and all had the same approach regarding measurements. Corbett's Bachelor was 10.7 'over curves'. Mazak (1983) assumed the tiger would have been 305-310 cm. 'between pegs'. However, if we use the differences between both methods mentioned above (2-5 inches), the Bachelor probably ranged between 10.2-10.5 'between pegs'. This means he was at least 310 cm. in a straight line (similar to the Sauraha tiger). Judging from the photographs Corbett published, his tail wasn't exceptionally long or short. My guess is the tiger was well over 200 cm. in head and body straight. Those who saw him agreed the tiger was very tall as well ('as large as a Shetland pony', one hunter said). We can only speculate about his weight, but Corbett was as experienced as they come and he wrote it was the largest tiger he saw. This in a time when there were much more tigers in India than today. I agree it is unlikely Corbett weighed tigers (but there's no doubt he measured many). I read all his books and everything written about him and never found a weight. Sir John Hewett, however, had a weighing machine made in Calcutta and he wrote it was accurate when he used it. The average weight of the males he weighed was between 435-440 pounds about a century ago. It has to be added that his sample had two young adults, if they were adult at all. It also has to be added he wasn't able to weigh all males. Most of these were described as 'heavy' or 'very heavy'. I noticed there was a significant difference in weight between short and long tigers (total length). Long tigers (probably older) were close to 490 pounds. Finally, it has to be remarked that those not weighed were longer than those close to 490 pounds. Not one of the Nepal tigers, quite a bit longer than those shot in northern India, was weighed. Based on what I knew, I decided to construct another table. The result for all males was 470-490 pounds. Nearly a century later, Sunquist got to 221 kg. for 7 males (adjusted) in Chitwan (Nepal). Very close, that is. For now, I'd say tigers in Nepal and northern India (like Corbett) could top the list for weight. Kazirangha tigers seem heavier and more robust, but we know nothing about the length of these tigers and the data I have clearly say there is a strong relation between total length and weight in Indian tigers. My guess is tigers in northern India and Nepal could be underestimated as a result of their length and athletic appearance. This is what I found in captive tigers and it could be true for wild tigers as well. I still have doubts regarding the weight of the Hasinger-tiger shot in Uttar Pradesh, but I am sure some exceeded 700 pounds a century ago. Smythies' record seems more convincing than Gorings Central Indian tiger, because the details do not add up. The conclusion I got to is the Goring tiger probably was very fat. I read many books written by hunters. Most agreed tigers in unmolested regions showed more variation (in size, colour and coat) than between regions. There were differences between regions, but these only showed in large samples. There was a marked difference between north- and south India regarding skull, weight, length, colour and stripe pattern, but Nagarahole tigers, as far as I know, always were an exception to the general rule in that they were larger than expected. The most likely reason was south-west India had a lot of wild country and a lot of large prey animals a century ago. They still live in good conditions and it still shows. Not referring to length (I'm not sure if they were measured in a straight line), but weight. I never saw such robust adjustments as in Nagarahole (about 30 kg.) and the males they weighed some decades ago still well exceeded 200 kg.  (08-20-2014, 08:24 PM)'Vinod' Wrote:Quoting from Wikipedia: "The Central Provinces was a province of British India. It comprised British conquests from the Mughals and Marathas in central India, and covered parts of present-day Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra states."(08-20-2014, 09:44 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: "In 1910, Jim Corbett shot a tiger in North India, this one weighed 317 kg (700 lbs). So yes, this tiger of 700 lb was from Central India and was not weighed by Jim Corbett. Interesting, this animal is a record, but most the treated as an exceptional specimen and not the norm, between 230 and 250 kg is the normal maximum in this region. (08-21-2014, 08:00 AM)'peter' Wrote: The hunters mentioned above all hunted with Corbett and all had the same approach regarding measurements. Corbett's Bachelor was 10.7 'over curves'. Mazak (1983) assumed the tiger would have been 305-310 cm. 'between pegs'. However, if we use the differences between both methods mentioned above (2-5 inches), the Bachelor probably ranged between 10.2-10.5 'between pegs'. This means he was at least 310 cm. in a straight line (similar to the Sauraha tiger). Judging from the photographs Corbett published, his tail wasn't exceptionally long or short. My guess is the tiger was well over 200 cm. in head and body straight.I see that you agree with me that the Bachelor of Powalgarh seems larger than what the simple length suggest. That tiger was huge and taking in count that Jim was not short of height, this huge male tiger looks as large as the largest Amur tiger from Yankovski; Mazák did not saw this, but this was probably because his heart was for the Amur tigers. From the books that I have read from Corbett, I have only saw two tigers been measured: The Bachelor of Powalgarh with a total length of 322 cm and the tiger of Pipal Pani of 312 cm, both over curves. Maybe in other books there are more measurements, but these two are the only ones that I am aware. I have found that both tigers, the record of Smythies and the record from Goring-Jones, are reliable, the problem is the method of hunting. According with Smythies, ALL tigers hunted in Nepal were baited, as the method of hunting (now used to capture tigers) use baits and all the tigers were hunted at kills. Now, how much can eat a tiger in 12 hours? Well, this is simple, Sunquist (1981) found that male-female tigers eat between 14-19 kg in a day (24 hours), based on wild and bait kills. This means that a tiger could eat between 7 to 10 kg in a night, but an exceptional one could eat more. For example, the record for a meal made by a tiger came from a male in Nepal that ingested 35 kg in one day! So, using this figures, the 320 kg tiger from Smythies could weight as low as 285 kg empty, but based in the normal food intake of Nepalese tigers, the empty belly weight of the record male hunted in Nepal was probably between 301-306 kg. Dr McDougal (1977) states that this male measured 328 cm in total length over curves, which means about 311-314 cm between pegs, about the same length than Sauraha. Check the image:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now, take this jewel, from Wikipedia: "Evelyn Arthur Smythies, CIE (1885[sup][1][/sup] - 1975[sup][2][/sup]), was a distinguished forester and philatelist, born of British parents in India.[sup][3][/sup] Smythies was an expert on the ecology of Uttarakhand and Nepal.Smythies was educated at Clifton College,[sup][2][/sup] and received his degree in geology and a diploma in forestry from Oxford in 1908, then served in the Indian Forest Service[sup][4][/sup] from 1908 until 1940, based in Nainital. He was Chief Conservator of the Forest of Nepal from 1940 through 1947.[sup][5][/sup]Smythies' The Forest Wealth of India appeared in 1924. That same year, with C. G. Trevor he authored Practical Forestry Management.[sup][6][/sup]Smythies and Jim Corbett proposed that an area around Ramnagar, Uttarakhand be made a "National Park" to protect the threatened tigers and other living things. These include the tiger, elephant, chital, sambar, nilgai, gharial, King Cobra, Indian muntjac, wild boar, hedgehog, common musk shrew, flying fox, Indian Pangolin, and nearly 600 species of birds. In 1936, the Hailey National Park came into being as India's first National Park. It was renamed the Ramganga National Park after India's Independence, but later it was renamed the Jim Corbett National Park in today's Uttarakhand." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._A._Smythies I am going to be direct now, but based in these evidences, this means that Smythies was indeed a "scientist" in the Victorian sense of the word. So, in this way, we can state that the 320 kg figure is not just reliable but "scientifically" proved and vouched, and thanks to the studies of Dr Sunquist in Nepal, we can adjust the weight and prove that there is at least one verified record of a tiger of up to 300 kg, proving that the often quoted figure is real, although from Nepal, and not from Russia. I think that the tiger of 700 lb (318 kg) was probably also gorged, which means that it probably weighed 298-304 kg. This last tiger measured 304 cm (210 cm in head-body), which suggest it was measured between pegs. It had a shoulder height of 102 cm and a forearm girth of 55.9 cm. Finally, its skull was of 362 x 266.7 cm and weighed 5 lb 2 oz (2.3 kg), the heaviest in Rowland Ward's Records of Big game tiger skulls (version of 1914). 
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.
TIGERS IN NEPAL AND NORTH-WEST INDIA
I read everything written by Corbett. Some of the man-eaters he shot were baited, but others were not. They were shot close to a natural kill and he stalked them. I also read 'Jungle Trails in Northern India' (Sir J. Hewett). In big beats with a lot of VIP's tigers were often lured to baits, but when he hunted without them tigers were as often shot close to a bait as not. He very often used elephants. If I was asked to get to an opinion, I'd say tigers in northern India were not more baited than elsewhere. In many parts of north-west India the vegetation is not as dense as a result of the climate (more alpine). No need for baiting, that is. In other parts of India, the vegetation was more dense. Wiele, in the first decade of the last century, wrote he was able to walk hundreds of miles in dense and undisturbed forests. Anyone interested in a tiger had to use a bait, as they never saw tigers. The photo's I saw of tigers shot in north-west India confirmed in that not many show an inflated belly. Those shot in other regions (including Cooch Behar and Assam) often were and it showed on photographs. Tigers in northern India, like the alleged man-eater on the elephant (referring to the photos posted by PC), often are large animals. They are different from those in other parts of India. Not shortish and massive, but long, tall and athletic. And heavy without doubt. THE HASINGER TIGER Some time ago, I posted a scan of a table I made after reading the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar. I found the difference between gorged male tigers and others of similar size (referring to total length and other dimensions) was about 60 pounds. In Russia, according to Yudakov and Nikolaev, adult male Amur tigers seldom indulge in festivities. They don't eat a lot of the animal they kill and seldom return to kills. We are talking about the Russian winter here. Yet they florish. Could it be tigers living in tropical conditions and smallish, but densely populated reserves eat more than their relatives living in much harsher conditions because of the competition or the conditions? The Hasinger tiger was a large male from Uttar Pradesh. From the photograph I saw, I concluded he compared to other large male tigers (like the Bachelor). Let's assume he really was 10.7 'between pegs', of which the tail was 3.3. He was robust, but not more so than the others I mentioned. If we assume he compared to the giant shot by Smythies, he might have reached 650-700 pounds empty. If we add the 60 pounds I found for gorged Cooch Behar tigers, he might have reached 710-770 pounds gorged. But the photograph says he wasn't gorged and his skull was 14 inches in greatest total length. Definitely below par for northern India. I remember an article about another very large male tiger shot in South-India. There was a photograph and it was clear 'Old One Eye' was long, large in every way and massive. He was exactly 11 feet 'over curves' and the circumference of his inflated belly was unsurpassed. The hunter was a well-known American officer. Let's assume those involved in the estimate (the tiger wasn't weighed) didn't want to let him down. They got to about 700 pounds gorged. Almost 200 pounds less than the (near-)empty Hasinger tiger. The Sauraha tiger. In this photograph, he was at least 600 pounds.  *This image is copyright of its original author Below is the enormous Amur tiger shot by the sons of Jankowski and a Korean professional hunter in July 1943. He wasn't weighed, but estimated at about 300 kg. (660 pounds) after eating a large male brown bear he had killed. Yes, I know male tigers don't kill male brown bears, but this one did according to those who shot him and he only left his skull and paws. Let's assume he too, like a large Cooch Behar male tiger, was about 60 pounds heavier when he was gorged. Or a bit more. That would still leave about 600 pounds empty: very close to the utmost a very large male could reach according to the old Jankowski. This man hunted all his life. V. Mazak took him and his sons way more serious than Baikov. Look at the size of the skull.  *This image is copyright of its original author This is a captive male Amur tiger of similar size (280-300 kg.) and a full-grown Amur tigress (Duisburg Zoo):  *This image is copyright of its original author Back to India. This is the Luckvalley tiger Wiele shot in Nilgiris in the first decade of the last century. The tiger was very old (at least 20 years) and known for his attitude. In spite of his great size, he wasn't able to outfight a very large wild boar who found and guarded the gaur the tiger was after. First the gun for comparison:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now the Luckvalley tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author The Bachelor of Powalgarh. At 10.7 'over curves' (about 10.1-10.2 'between pegs'), he was the largest Corbett saw and shot. He was the most hunted tiger in northern India in his day. Although the photograph is a little angled, it still shows a very large and massive tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author A famous photograph. Assam. Twenties or thirties of the last century. I see two tigers larger than average. But not one was special, as they would have informed us about it:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's Col. Waugh and Old One-Eye. Nilgiris. This tiger was much hunted, but always escaped. Until he couldn't resist a gaur bait. He was 11 feet 'over curves' and estimated at 700 pounds:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author A male Kodiak bear (National Geographic). This is how 900 pounds compares to a human. Compare to the Hasinger tiger and tell me what you saw that I missed:  *This image is copyright of its original author This post isn't about ridiculing much respected members interested in tigers and size. I want to show that 600 pounds empty is enormous in a wild big cat, even if he is enjoying good conditions. Seven hundred is possible, but there's nothing I trust on bigger animals. They could be there, though. If there is a 313 kg. (confirmed) lion (Hectorspruit), there's a tiger of similar weight, as these two are close when it is about maximum size. I read a few books from hunters operating in the extreme size division. They only went after giants and they found them. About similar in size to the ones I mentioned above, but possibly more massive with tales that (at the root) compared to a thigh in an adult human. These animals were never weighed, as the hunters were active in regions without humans and transport of any kind. Besides, they often were alone. If they are there today, they probably are in Kazirangha. But darting a giant has disadvantages and it is about the survival of the species nowadays. That bad? Yes.
All good points Peter. Though, the only thing I saw one could say is the tiger's body length. The rest I let numbers do. As always, there is no final solution. Only Hasinger and his crew knows what really happened that fateful day.
I disagree a bit on calling 272 kg enormous for a tiger. Numerous specimens have clocked in higher (4 of 10 (could this be a future spoiler of what I have in store?)... I mean 2 of 8 modern specimens in Nepal already clocked in at at least 270 kg). The long specimens mentioned which were estimated at 300 kg and less are still estimates, while we have actual masses surpassing the 300 kg in smaller framed specimens. Finally, on the bear, I caution taking Nat. Geo. figures unless they're published or confirmed with the person. I'm far from knowledgeable on bears, but 409 kg is below average from what I've read, but I'm not shocked if this is proven wrong. Regardless, Nat. Geo. has a bad habit of calling weights for specimens that haven't been weighed. Two instances I remember are the "220 kg Wagdoh" and "363 kg, random Amur male." Of course, if that boar is legitamately 409 kg, the case is even more intriguing.
I believe, based in a large database, that between 260-272 kg is the normal maximum for a male Bengal tiger, but now, I have showed that at least two specimens DO reached the figure of 300 kg empty belly. I think that those enormous tigers reported in the early days, like the Ramsay tiger, do reached 300 kg too. Sadly, there are very few corroborated records of those days, and by the way, I will give everything to see the direct book of Smythies, just to see if he published a picture of the 320 kg male tiger, and to see if my assumption that this male was gorged is correct. Image if my assumption was incorrect? I will be very happy [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Some time ago, I posted my "opinion", based in facts, that those male tigers from Kanha, that even provoked a huge (and very futile) discussion, were probably no larger than 260 kg. The result, I was criticized like an "infidel". However, as we can see, the large cats, lions and tigers, seldom exceed the 500 and 570 lb respectively (I am using round numbers, ok?). For example, a male lion of 200 kg is already a large one, but they can, and do, reach weights of up to 250 kg, which from my point of view, is the largest "normal" weight. Now, a figure of 313 kg empty, I HIGHLY doubt it, specially for a man eater. Taking in count the lion food intake, a weight as low as 270 kg, or up to 283 kg seems more reliable. in this part, I agree with Tigerluver, a 600 lb tiger is very large specimen, but the "enormous" title belong to the giants of up to 660 lb. Finally, NO SPOILERS!!! Jejeje, not yet.
In my opinion, 272 kg tigers are your good size fellows, 320 kg equivalent to 7 ft humans, and then the 389 kg specimen equal to the 8-9 ft humans. They've occured, are extremely rare, and often the product of some type of physiological abnormality rather than genetics. Note the 220+ cm specimens have awkward proportions, from small skulls to short tails, maybe these are symptoms. Of course, these giants of giants could be linked to their ancestors, but that's all theory.
Ok Guate [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]. 
And the Ngandong tiger is probably equivalent to the giant fossil Hominid of 8 feet tall on average in the tiger world.
BTW, Baikal despite being a 900 pounder, he was very athletic in his youth, and I don't think the 8-9 feet human individuals can be anywhere comparable in term of fitness.
Always irresponsible to compare a wild animal evolved to be a hunter to a human being evolved to agriculture not hunting. Our needs are nothing close to a big cats.
Just sayen
Obviously the two are very different. My analogy is in the light of percentage of population, nothing more.
I get caught up doing it too, its easy to compare at times.
I think emotions are more comparable than physical traits.
Therefore, i speculate that the Pleistocene tiger could be very close to the modern tigers in term of the agility.
Just more brute physical strength was needed to bring down the larger version of today's preys. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 29 Guest(s) |