+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: General Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-general-section)
+--- Forum: Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-debate-and-discussion-about-wild-animals)
+--- Thread: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? (/topic-where-is-the-biggest-bengal-tigers)
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - LonePredator - 01-14-2022
Isn't the average weight of modern Bengal Tigers equal to 221kg? So then should we really consider 220kg Tigers as big? They're techically just average sized
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 01-14-2022
(01-14-2022, 09:47 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Isn't the average weight of modern Bengal Tigers equal to 221kg? So then should we really consider 220kg Tigers as big? They're techically just average sized
Generally wild Bengals average around 200kg
220kg is considered large, 250kg is considered XL and anything over that is an exceptional cat.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - LonePredator - 01-16-2022
(01-14-2022, 10:42 PM)Pckts Wrote:(01-14-2022, 09:47 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Isn't the average weight of modern Bengal Tigers equal to 221kg? So then should we really consider 220kg Tigers as big? They're techically just average sized
Generally wild Bengals average around 200kg
220kg is considered large, 250kg is considered XL and anything over that is an exceptional cat.
@GuateGojira had given the data of Bengal Tigers being 221.5 kg on average in modern times. And since that data comes from multiple credible sources combined. I think that it's pretty much undisputable. I have attached it below
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - GuateGojira - 01-16-2022
(01-16-2022, 03:40 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira had given the data of Bengal Tigers being 221.5 kg on average in modern times. And since that data comes from multiple credible sources combined. I think that it's pretty much undisputable. I have attached it below
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Been honest this is a very old comparative image, the sample was only 136 males overall and did not included Sundarbans specimens. That is why the last image that I made shows that male Bengal tigers overall (historic and modern) had an average of 200 kg, including Sundarbans and young specimens from the past, with a sample of 169 males.
However, if we take only confirmed modern records and excluding Sundarbans, then the average is of 218.4 kg with a sample of 17 males. However, this sample do not include the 7 males reported by other posters in this forum via Facebook and other two from news reports, which I still don't manage to confirm, plus the large male of 285 kg reported by Dr Jhala. This is the list:
*This image is copyright of its original author
If we include these 7 males the average weight will be of 222.6 kg, but as the male of 285 kg included stomach content, in that case we need to adjust him. If we use 20 kg to adjust that male, the net weight will be of 265 kg and the overall average of the modern males will be of 221.8 kg, with the sample of 24. If we use 35 kg (the maximum amount actually recorded), the net weight will be of 250 kg and the overall average of the modern males will be of 221.2 kg, again with the sample of 24.
I still don't use this average because I will like to confirm those 7 extra males, but I don't see any reason why you can't use it. So, this is the data that I have, for the moment, overall males at c.200 kg, and modern males only at c.221 kg.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - LonePredator - 01-16-2022
(01-16-2022, 08:20 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(01-16-2022, 03:40 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira had given the data of Bengal Tigers being 221.5 kg on average in modern times. And since that data comes from multiple credible sources combined. I think that it's pretty much undisputable. I have attached it below
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Been honest this is a very old comparative image, the sample was only 136 males overall and did not included Sundarbans specimens. That is why the last image that I made shows that male Bengal tigers overall (historic and modern) had an average of 200 kg, including Sundarbans and young specimens from the past, with a sample of 169 males.
However, if we take only confirmed modern records and excluding Sundarbans, then the average is of 218.4 kg with a sample of 17 males. However, this sample do not include the 7 males reported by other posters in this forum via Facebook and other two from news reports, which I still don't manage to confirm, plus the large male of 285 kg reported by Dr Jhala. This is the list:
*This image is copyright of its original author
If we include these 7 males the average weight will be of 222.6 kg, but as the male of 285 kg included stomach content, in that case we need to adjust him. If we use 20 kg to adjust that male, the net weight will be of 265 kg and the overall average of the modern males will be of 221.8 kg, with the sample of 24. If we use 35 kg (the maximum amount actually recorded), the net weight will be of 250 kg and the overall average of the modern males will be of 221.2 kg, again with the sample of 24.
I still don't use this average because I will like to confirm those 7 extra males, but I don't see any reason why you can't use it. So, this is the data that I have, for the moment, overall males at c.200 kg, and modern males only at c.221 kg.
But do the Sundarban Tigers mate or interact with the mainland Tigers in any way or are they completely isolated and restricted to the mangroves?
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - GuateGojira - 01-16-2022
(01-16-2022, 08:23 AM)LonePredator Wrote: But do the Sundarban Tigers mate or interact with the mainland Tigers in any way or are they completely isolated and restricted to the mangroves?
Actually, Sundarbans tigers are completelly isolated and did not interact with mainland tigers. I have the genetic study from Singh et al. (2015) and this is part of they conclutions:
"Demographic analyses suggest that Sundarbans tigers have diverged recently from peninsular tiger population within last 2000 years. Sundarbans tigers are the most divergent group of Bengal tigers, and ecologically nonexchangeable with other tiger populations, and thus should be managed as a separate “evolutionarily significant unit” (ESU) following the adaptive evolutionary conservation (AEC) concept."
This means that Sundarbans tigers are not different enough to be classified as a different "subspecies", but they are different enough to be classified as a different "population". It seems that is the case with all modern "subspecies" but I will try to discuss this latter. To give you an idea of the significance of the conclution of Singh et al. (2015), remember that the Amur tiger was separated from the Caspian tiger at only about 200 years and they are already classified as a distinct subspecies by classic Zoologists (Driscoll et al., 2009). This means that Caspian and Amur tigers are more related than Sundarbans with mainland tigers. However, as most of genetic studies ignore this fact, Sundarbans tigers are still classiffied as Panthera tigris tigris - Bengal tiger.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - LonePredator - 01-16-2022
(01-16-2022, 09:23 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(01-16-2022, 08:23 AM)LonePredator Wrote: But do the Sundarban Tigers mate or interact with the mainland Tigers in any way or are they completely isolated and restricted to the mangroves?
Actually, Sundarbans tigers are completelly isolated and did not interact with mainland tigers. I have the genetic study from Singh et al. (2015) and this is part of they conclutions:
"Demographic analyses suggest that Sundarbans tigers have diverged recently from peninsular tiger population within last 2000 years. Sundarbans tigers are the most divergent group of Bengal tigers, and ecologically nonexchangeable with other tiger populations, and thus should be managed as a separate “evolutionarily significant unit” (ESU) following the adaptive evolutionary conservation (AEC) concept."
This means that Sundarbans tigers are not different enough to be classified as a different "subspecies", but they are different enough to be classified as a different "population". It seems that is the case with all modern "subspecies" but I will try to discuss this latter. To give you an idea of the significance of the conclution of Singh et al. (2015), remember that the Amur tiger was separated from the Caspian tiger at only about 200 years and they are already classified as a distinct subspecies by classic Zoologists (Driscoll et al., 2009). This means that Caspian and Amur tigers are more related than Sundarbans with mainland tigers. However, as most of genetic studies ignore this fact, Sundarbans tigers are still classiffied as Panthera tigris tigris - Bengal tiger.
Thank you! And yes I totally agree, the way subspecies are separately classified gets really confusing in such instances.
And I am guessing that living in the 'islands' of Sundarbans might be a reason why the Sundarban Tigers are so small in size. Something like island dwarfism maybe just like in the case of Sumatrans.
And with this information I think it is safe to say that when we usually say Bengal Tiger, we mean the mainland Indian Tigers, might as well just consider the data of the mainland population in such instances as the Sundarban only has very few of them and since the Sundarban ones are so different in size
And yes, I also read about the Caspian and Amur Tiger being almost identical. Although I'm not sure, I think I read somewhere here in the forum that Caspian Tigers are genetically indistinguishable from Amur Tigers. I don't know if that's the case but it's still shocking that Caspian Tigers were considered a separate subspecies from while Sundarban Tigers are not considered separate from Indian Tigers
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 01-25-2022
Another person who’s seen both mentioning that Uma is larger than Bheem.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Ashutosh - 01-25-2022
Compare both the males in their primes. Bheem from 2014-16 was bigger than Uma at any point in his life. Bheem is about 2+years older. Bheem is most definitely taller and longer. Uma has a larger head, but Bheem’s neck and shoulders are Waghdoh-like (in his prime at least).
Bheem was undoubtedly the largest cat of Bandhavgarh for a good amount of time. Uma has never been the largest cat in Kanha. The video of Jobhi and Bheem truly showed how big he actually was.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 08:29 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: Compare both the males in their primes. Bheem from 2014-16 was bigger than Uma at any point in his life. Bheem is about 2+years older. Bheem is most definitely taller and longer. Uma has a larger head, but Bheem’s neck and shoulders are Waghdoh-like (in his prime at least).
Bheem was undoubtedly the largest cat of Bandhavgarh for a good amount of time. Uma has never been the largest cat in Kanha. The video of Jobhi and Bheem truly showed how big he actually was.
Bheem never had the muscle composition Uma did. Chest, limbs, abdominal, head and neck would all most likely favor Uma. Bheem had a nice mane which may contribute to a large looking neck but that isn’t the same as a neck that’s all full of muscle. Claiming anything about their height/length dimensions is impossible unless you measure both. And it’s arguable if Uma was the largest cat in Kanha but it doesn’t matter since Kanha generally produces larger cats than Bandhavgarh, this also noted by many. Overall it’s been said by numerous people who’ve seen both, Uma is the larger of the two.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Ashutosh - 01-25-2022
@Pckts, and there are lots of people who say otherwise. More importantly, very few saw Bheem in his prime with a cut on his nose which is post 2018 when he is already 10+ years old. Bheem was called “road barabar male” or a male who measures the breadth of the road by guides. So, most definitely longer than Uma. As for muscle density, early Bheem pictures (2014-16) clearly show his musculature. A 10+ year old Bheem put down 5.5 year old Pannalal.
Uma isn’t a tall tiger and that’s why all his attributes seem enhanced. Bheem on the other hand was exceptionally tall. Just look at him towering over Jobhi. Uma wasn’t even taller than Jamuntola male.
If you want to compare Uma to someone, how about Tarzan? Both born in 2009. Tarzan was in a different league to Uma altogether.
And, there is no evidence about Kanha producing bigger cats. One of the largest tigers ever recorded came from Palamau Tiger Reserve, which is more akin to Bandhavgarh than Kanha.
[attachment=7283]
Yes, this giant was shot in Hazaribagh near Palamu Tiger Reserve which IS NOT a sal forest.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 01-25-2022
@Ashutosh
"and there are lots of people who say otherwise."
Which people and are they as qualified as the one's I've posted. Meaning have they seen both cats numerous times and from close proximity?
"More importantly, very few saw Bheem in his prime with a cut on his nose which is post 2018 when he is already 10+ years old. Bheem was called “road barabar male” or a male who measures the breadth of the road by guides. So, most definitely longer than Uma."
This photographer saw Bheem just about in his prime so that's not an excuse
And Bheem certainly hasn't shown any length differences between himself and Uma, in fact most large males take up most of the road width.
"As for muscle density, early Bheem pictures (2014-16) clearly show his musculature. A 10+ year old Bheem put down 5.5 year old Pannalal. "
Bheem doesn't have near the musculature that Uma has and he never has. In fact use him vs Jobhi as a perfect example. It was Jobhi how was the more muscularly dense Tiger, Bheem was just a little larger in frame dimensions.
"Uma isn’t a tall tiger and that’s why all his attributes seem enhanced. Bheem on the other hand was exceptionally tall. Just look at him towering over Jobhi. Uma wasn’t even taller than Jamuntola male."
Uma certainly is a tall Tiger, I'm not sure where you got that claim from.
And I think you need to watch the Bheem vs Jobhi video again, their size difference is minimal and in terms of weight they're extremely close.
https://i.imgur.com/M7IEzXa.jpg
In regards to Uma v Jamuntola, Uma was taller and heavier, it's obvious in the videos and photo's.
Not to mention, another of my friends saw Matkasur, then Bamera son then CM. Back to back to back, he's well known here, and he said CM was quite a bit larger than both while Bamera son was larger than Matkasur. And we all saw how much larger Uma was than CM who's a massive Tiger in his own right.
"If you want to compare Uma to someone, how about Tarzan? Both born in 2009. Tarzan was in a different league to Uma altogether."
Tarzan is absolutely smaller than Uma, this is confirmed by numerous photographers who've seen both. I heard it straight from the horses mouth when I was there actually. Tarzan was definitely top notch in Pench but he wasn't as large as the Kanha big boys. In fact, the Sangam male was said to be as large if not larger than Tarzan just so you know. Tigers like BMW, Ryakassi and Handsome were not near Sangams size either.
"And, there is no evidence about Kanha producing bigger cats. One of the largest tigers ever recorded came from Palamau Tiger Reserve, which is more akin to Bandhavgarh than Kanha."
Of course there is, as of now the heaviest cat *scientifically* on record came from Kanha and the largest male average comes from Kanha.
And Bandhavgarh is half the size of Kanha at best with half the Tigers and less big prey. There's nothing there that is going to attribute to a larger cat.
"Yes, this giant was shot in Hazaribagh near Palamu Tiger Reserve which IS NOT a sal forest."
Branders monster Tiger was shot in a Sal forest and he's larger than this cat so I'm not sure the point?
On top of the fact that numerous hunters and researchers have said the same with plenty of experience in both forests and it's also repeated by modern naturalists today.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 01-26-2022
And here is a perfect example of Bheem compared to Mr X *Bamera Son*
Credit's to @qstxyz
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-size-comparisons?page=52&highlight=size+comparisons
Post #777
You can just exactly how close Mr. X and Bheem are.
Bheem is a little larger but not much and you get the of how large CM is since he was quite a bit larger than Mr. X so he's at least as large as Bheem but probably larger IMO.
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 01-26-2022
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Where is the biggest bengal tigers? - Pckts - 01-26-2022
Here you can see Bheem and his brother, Mangu taking up similar distances on the road
Bheem
Mangu
*This image is copyright of its original author