Amur Tigers

[Sabre]

(10-14-2016, 12:42 PM)Apollo Wrote: Hi Everyone,

I like to repost what I posted in Tiger videos only thread and also add some more points.


When it comes to Bengals and amurs, the old hunting records and the modern scientific records all show that bengals were heavier animals than amurs.
The silght difference in body length in favor of amurs may be due to different measuring procedures.
IMHO the Northern bengals in the Terai belt along with Northeastern Bengals (Kaziranga, Orang, Manas etc excluding Sunderbans) should be the biggest and heaviest living cats.

You have to remember that even Bengals had a very hard time in the past. They were decimated in hundreds by the Britishers and the Indian Maharajas after the introduction of rifles.
Even amurs were not hunted in that scale.
In Terai arc, Assam and Western ghats during hunting expeditions hundreds of Bengals were killed in weeks time. Regional extinctions started occuring and large genetic lineages were lost forever.


If you want to talk about ancient bengals and amurs before iceage. I think @GrizzlyClaws is the man. 
According genetic studies, genetic bottlenecking occured in both the subspecies during the end of the iceage.


Regarding Manchurian tigers there are no solid scientific evidence showing they are bigger than amurs from other parts, but the old hunters and natives say that.
Since we are able to see variations in Southern, central, northwest, northeast and northern bengals, it is safe to assume that amurs also showed some degree of variations.

For any large amur (size and weight) hunted in the wild (old or new doesnt matter) we have equally large and bigger bengals hunted in India, Nepal. The records shows this.
For any enormous giant amur found in old hunting pictures we can match that easily with the giant bengals hunted in India, Nepal.
Other than this we dont have much evidence to work with in regards to the size difference between amurs and bengals in the wild.
Anything else is pure speculation and personal preference.
When it comes to modern scientific records in the wild, its the bengals which were bigger.


Now regarding genetic depression between amurs and bengals, I see you all compare it at a whole subspecies level.
Well that doesnt work in Bengals that way, because there are several small genetically isolated populations in Bengals which were much more genetically inbred and descended from a much more smaller population.

Example: The entire Northwest population of Bengals (Ranthambore, Sariska, Kuno, Sawaimadhpur etc) descended from not more than 5 to 10 tigers at the very best.The first tiger in Ranthambore was seen by forest officials after 3 years of it being announced as a tiger reserve.

Bengals were hunted and decimated by the old British and Indian hunters, the hunting stopped because there were very very few to no tigers found in the forests. 
Several hunters and there men were unable to find Bengals even after sweeping the entire forests because there numbers dwindled so low.
This is the case in westernghats, terai, central, northeast, northwest and every where in India.
The tiger numbers given during the begining of project tiger were all false and wrong.


Remember most of the tigers what they call amurs or bengals are not purbred animals at all.
It was a trend in captivity to call big tigers to be amurs and smaller tigers to be bengals. That was the reason for all these confusion.
Its just like calling bigmaned lions to be barbaries.
Most of the freak specimens what you see all over the world are crossbred tigers.
Indochinese tigers were also classified as Bengals until 1950s.
There are very few pure Bengals in captivity outside India, Nepal and Bhutan (let alone northern and northeastern bengals).
The Indian zoos are badly maintained (animals were not kept in ideal conditions).

The best way to approach this is, look at the purebred and studbook amurs compare there size with wild bengals.
Remember the captive amurs wont have the preybase problems and it will also have the luxury to carry more weight because its not necessary to be very fit to catch its prey. Meaning the captive amurs will definitely have an advantage of growing bigger due to better and easier nutritional availability than wild bengals.

But for our surprise the results were not much different captive purebred amurs average around the same size as wild bengals. I guess it explains alot.
This shows how special Northern and Northeastern bengals were when it comes to pure size.

Hi Apollo. But hmmmm
Are you serious? Are you just making this up or you've actually got it from proper sources? I remember I've read about your speaking of northern Bengal tiger 
So
1) prove me that captive Bengal tigers and siberian tigers in conserving program zoos are not pure breed.


2) siberian: 30 populations with 15 different genetic variation from 1960s VS Bengal: 1000 populations of the Bengal tiger? Which subspecies would suffered by genetic bottleneck if you count the number?

3) "But for our surprise the results were not much different captive purebred amurs average around the same size as wild bengals. I guess it explains alot.
This shows how special Northern and Northeastern bengals were when it comes to pure size."
Are you really serious?? Have you really studied ecology, genomics, and how does environmental influence in phenotypic and size? Genetic and size determinations doesn't even work like your statement at all unless you're comparing obviously size difference tigers like Sundarbans vs northern populations or comparing different subspecies

3) The Leipzig zoo In Germany is dealing every captive siberian tiger family and few other tiger subspecies for conserving the tiger.
"Remember most of the tigers what they call amurs or bengals are not purbred animals at all.
It was a trend in captivity to call big tigers to be amurs and smaller tigers to be bengals. That was the reason for all these confusion."
How did you made this idea? Or where did you hhear this thing?? Why would any proper zoos involving conserving the tigers would do things like what you just said

5) When I was working in zoo. Every zookeepers and researchers are discussing about conserving tiger genetic, searching mate by looking up the family trees and genetic variations. Private tiger owners certainly have a mix breed.
Prove me where did you hear your idea of "Remember most of the tigers what they call amurs or bengals are not purbred animals at all."
????

5) Every zoo who has a potential family tree of the siberian tiger is surpassing the size of the Bengal tiger

6) Is there any photos and reliable records of northern Bengal tiger was bigger than Sungari river tiger from the Manchuria?

7) old skeleton and museum collections clearly proves that the Manchurian tiger is larger than tigers lLiving in Russian far east.
Where did you read your writing of "Regarding Manchurian tigers there are no solid scientific evidence showing they are bigger than amurs from other parts, but the old hunters and natives say that."
????

Please prove me these lists.
Are you really doing any research of tiger, knows the tiger keepers in zoos involving program of conserving the tiger, and personally knows any tiger researchers? Or you are just tiger fan boy who's just reading anythings from the Internet?

I've been studying Pantherinae for a long time and i know keeper, actual biologists/conservationists studying big cat.
After I read your comment. I was wondered where did you get this informations or did you just made up your idea. Reply