Search this Topic:
Sun, Nov 14, 2010 2:25 AM
Sun, Nov 14, 2010 3:25 AM
Sun, Nov 14, 2010 3:50 AM
Sun, Nov 14, 2010 5:32 AM
So please, don't put him and that Lion fanboy Jinen in the same bucket.
I suppose I'm a criminal for that?!
Change the topic name pls....make it the Tiger fanboism happy place.
Sun, Nov 14, 2010 11:38 AM
KingDecember wrote:no one has mentioned this guy.......believed to be the largest ever. http://collections.nmnh.s...yMammals.php?irn=7583632some more disturbing images here:http://forums.nitroexpres...;topic=1&Search=truegood news from Kaziranga:http://www.indianexpress..../Saved-the-tiger/710690/
Sun, Nov 14, 2010 12:10 PM
peter wrote:WARSAWI wouldn't say 277 cm. straight line is well above average for India, because it's not. But I agree he was plenty big for his size and close in weight to the Sauraha tiger. A remarkable tiger. That's why Burton wrote about his experience and that's why I posted his photograph. I will, therefore, change the liner notes to" .. posted to show even a tiger shorter than average can reach a great weight at times ... ". I might add the tiger, for head and body length (193 cm.) and weight (>250 kg. when comparing him to the 261 kg. Sauraha tiger), was about as robust as an average male representative of Ursus arctos lasiotus (582 pounds according to Kucerenko).
" .. posted to show even a tiger shorter than average can reach a great weight at times ... ".
I might add the tiger, for head and body length (193 cm.) and weight
(>250 kg. when comparing him to the 261 kg. Sauraha tiger), was about
as robust as an average male representative of Ursus arctos lasiotus
(582 pounds according to Kucerenko).
Sun, Nov 14, 2010 7:38 PM
Burton didn't weigh the tiger, but it was a massive animal and, for girth, very close to the famous Sauraha male, who, according to Guate (I couldn't make head or tails of Sunquist's descriptions), was about 261 kg. (average of all attempts and adjusted for stomach content). This tiger, at 10.3 (312,42 cm.) in a straight line (199,4 + 113 cm.), was similar in size (for head and body length) and one would expect the Burton tiger to be quite similar in weight. I saw photographs of both and concluded Burton's tiger could have been even more massive. For those who didn't see the Sauraha tiger and want to compare both:
Hello peter, actually the correct measurements of the Sauraha male (T-105) are:
Total length: 310 cm in straight line.
Tail length: 113 cm.
Chest girth: 140 cm.
Neck girth: 80 cm.
Weight: 261 kg.
According with Dr Sunquist, the figure of 261 kg was obtained from a regression equation of weight – chest-girth, which obviously resemble the real weight of this specimen with an empty belly. The real weight was of 272 kg+, according with Dr Dinerstein (it bottomed a scale of 600 lb).
Sun, Nov 14, 2010 7:46 PM
Hey Warsaw, this is NOT a “tiger-vs.-bear” topic, nor even “lion-vs.-tiger”, so go away with your irrelevant comments.
Mon, Nov 15, 2010 8:54 AM
Besides, those records from Gerard don’t state which specimens were adults or young, at difference than Brander, Burton, Cooch Behar and the Deccan Rangers. So, the real average total length for a Bengal tiger, measured between pegs, is around 280 cm.
Mon, Nov 15, 2010 3:34 PM
Mon, Nov 15, 2010 4:06 PM
Mon, Nov 15, 2010 4:52 PM
Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:28 PM
Mon, Nov 15, 2010 6:56 PM
Near a river
Mon, Nov 15, 2010 8:01 PM
peter wrote:Thanks for
the link to Inglish' book. You were right regarding the 9.1 tiger shot
by Burton. He was a bit shorter than average in length, but much more
massive than most (which was already stated). I reread Burton's letter
Mon, Jul 12, 2010
Mon, Nov 15, 2010 10:41 PM
You apparently misunderstood. Couldn't have been the length of post. When I made the compliment, I wasn't referring to Col. Fraser's records of tigers shot in the Hyderabad country, but to the James Inglish link. His book ('Sport and Work on the Nepaul Frontier', 1878), I mean. The link to the book, I think, wasn't in your first post (of July 12, 2010). Anyhow, a compliment is a compliment and I hope more posters will read it. Very interesting observations on tigers and other animals.I saw Col. Fraser's records when I went through all editions (of the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society) a long time ago. Although interesting, the Colonel, I think, forgot to explain in what way the tigers were measured. As his 9 adult males averaged 9, 57, I assumed (not sure) they were measured 'over curves'. Most reliable ('between pegs') records of that region I saw indicate Deccan (including Hyderabad) tigers, in that period (a century ago), averaged between 9 feet and 9 feet 3 inches ('between pegs'). I am referring to, for example, the letter of Brig.-Genl. R.G. Burton (December, 1919) to the JBNHS, in which he stated his longest tiger (out of a long series) measured 9 feet 8. And it was known the Brig.-Genl. shot his tigers in the same region ('Old Deccan Days', My tiger-hunting journal in 1899, Brig.-Genl. R.G. Burton, JBNHS, Vol. XXXV, pages 761-770). But assumptions are assumptions. Colonel Fraser should have stated in what way he measured his tigers.The average weight of his 9 adult males (402 pounds) was not very different from the average Dunbar-Brander found (419 pounds) some decades later. It has to be noted his sample (9) was significantly smaller than Dunbar-Brander's (42), meaning 1 or 2 small or large animals could have had a significant influence on the average. If the 330-pound male is left out of the equasion, for example, the average is 411 pounds. If one wants to get to general statements regarding size and weight, large samples are needed. The only ones who provided these were Dunbar-Brander (regarding tigers in the Central Provinces) and the Maharajah of Cooch Behar (regarding tigers in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam). The information they provided, indicate adult male tigers, about a century ago, averaged between 9 feet and 9 feet 3 and 419 and 460 pounds. But tigers from the Sundarbans and the Naga Hills were smaller and those from southern India, Kumaon, Nepal and Assam larger. The information there is, suggests there were a number of very different local races. Different in size, that is.In the end it's about numbers. I collected quite a few records from very different parts of India and these indicate most adult males in most regions, about a century ago, averaged close to what was stated by Dunbar-Brander (although my average for weight is higher). Modern tigers, however, seem to be heavier. The information there is, suggests there were three tiger periods. In the first one (before roundabout 1860), India was covered with forests, tigers were plentiful and very large animals were encountered more often than later. In the second period (1860-1970), most forests disappeared, the human population exploded and tigers suffered. In modern days (from 1970 onward), tigers, although threatened in most parts, seem to flourish in some (if not most) of the Indian reserves, which produced more large animals than in the second period. Meaby it's about circumstances foremost.
Tue, Nov 16, 2010 1:35 PM
The Sauraha tiger photograph is from Sunquist's book ('Tiger Moon', The University of Chicago Press, 1988, ISBN 0-226-78001-5). Bought it some years ago. The tiger was measured by Sunquist. He was emailed by one of the old posters on AVA and his reply was posted. In it, Sunquist stated the animal was 10.3 (312,4 cm.) in a straight line. Where did the 10.2 (or nearly 310 cm.) come from? Did I miss something?
Hi again peter. The real measurements of the Sauraha male are in the document of of Sunquist (monograph of 1981, first image) and in second image.
About the second image, there is no reference of where it came, presumably from a report, but Dr Sunquist say’s its reliable. The only mistake is that the image say "along curves", but Dr Sunquist correct it, as he takes his measurements in straight line. All the other measurements are real and accurate.
Tue, Nov 16, 2010 3:51 PM
peter wrote:Indian jungle (Bengt Berg, 1930's)Near a river
by far, my favorite picture in this thread.It looks amazing!Thanks peter.
Tue, Nov 16, 2010 4:01 PM
By the way, Dr Sunquist weighed the Sauraha male twice (1974 and 1975), but in both occasions, he used a scale of 500 lb. It was until 1980 when Dr Dinerstein and his team used a new scale of 600 lb to get more accurate figures, but again, this great male bottoms it! We must take in count that at this time, this male was no longer captured by baits, but by his radio-collar signal.
Tue, Nov 16, 2010 4:16 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.