**tigerluver wrote:**

KingT, by chance could you get Baikal height, this could help us deduce his femur length.

Also, thoughts on my finding on the Hertler and Volmer methods?

Excellent find. I have also “cracked” the system
some months ago, but I let it go because I focused on other formulas.

Volmer (2005) use a female Sumatran tiger (Coll.
No. 92259) as the base, however if you see the Appendix 7, the order of the table is
incorrect (compare with that of the leopard). So I correct it and also found that she takes three measurements of
each bone and latter she averages them, and the final result was used to obtain
the weights.

It is interesting to see that the figure of
252.66 kg for the skull is incorrect, because she used the Basal length (318
mm), while Van Valkenburgh formula (1990) uses the Condylobasal length (c.340
mm). So, the correct figure will be 311.1 kg (288.0 kg with the correction).

Besides, if you read Hertler & Volmer
(2007), they use the figures of the 100% column, but other figures are
completely different. From my point of view, I think that none of the weights from
the documents should be used. Why? Well, in the case of Volmer (2005), at least
we know the method and I was able to reproduce all the results, but in the case
of Hertler & Volmer (2007), they should copy them previous results but at
the end, they presented different values in some cases.

I also applied this method to the specimens of
Dr Christiansen and I found that the error between the calculated values and
the real ones is very high, in the specimen CN5697, the weight increased by
61.4 kg! (282.4 against 221 kg).

I do have other three complete specimens (one Amur
male, one female-no subsp. and one unsexed specimen-no subsp.) that we can use
to corroborate or discard this method, but like I said before, it will be
futile and pointless as the method of Volmer (2005) give unreliable results,
from my point of view.