Amur Tigers

[GuateGojira]

(03-23-2015, 12:15 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote: Amurs are tallest and longest - in this sense they are really the largest felids on earth. Bengals are more muscular and therefore heavier.

I´d say that people have tendency to think that taller and longer felid is also heavier than shorter and more muscular (and in fact heavier) felid.
 

 

These are the topics that I like to discuss! [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Amnon, to be sincere, measurements show that both Bengal and Amur tigers are practically of the same size, I will explain it but I will focus in males:

Male Amur tiger had an average head-body length of 195 cm (after 1992, n=13) and 194 cm (before 1970, n=4), and the shoulder height is of 95 cm (after 1992, n=11) and 93 cm (before 1970, n=4). Take in count that the measurements after 1992 came from the Siberian Tiger Project while those before 1970 came from the very few more-or-less reliable figures in literature. It is interesting to see that the average figures are about the same and the maximum figures seems to be the same case (208 cm [modern] against 210 cm [old]), with just one freak specimen reported at 330 cm between pegs (about 220 cm head-body). The only thing that changed was the chest girth with averages of 119 cm (after 1992, n=13) and 139 cm (before 1970, n=3) respectively. Sadly, these are the only reliable figures, all other reports of lengths of 290 cm in head-body and girths of 200 cm are from skins or exaggerations.

Male Bengal tigers had an average head-body length of c.190 cm (before 1960, from Cooch Behar, Brander and others, n= over 100!) and 195 cm (after 1970, n=5). We could say that modern tigers are "longer" but in fact, the sample is too small to get an accurate conclusion (just like in the case of the Amur ones). However, a rouge comparison suggest that there is no big difference, and although "5 cm" seems something in the paper, in a live animals this difference means practically nothing. On the shoulder heights, the few records from the wild show that they had an average height of c.100 cm, all from hunting records, but taken between pegs. No modern height figures are available. On the chest girths, only two measurements are available (127 and 140 cm, both from Nepal), and both match the old records, so I think is fair to suggest that they have not changed at all.

Now, if we make comparisons, figures like 195, 194 and 190 cm are, in lato sensu, the same! It is possible that with a higher sample, the Amur tigers will measure the same than the larger samples of Bengals, just like in the case of the modern Bengal records. It is fair to say that they are of the same body length, but in a stricto sensu, Amur tigers seems "longer". Take in count that in both samples (Amur and Bengal) are probably included young or barely "over 3 years old" specimens, so the figures of full grow males over 4 years old "only" could be higher, in both cases.

On the shoulder height department, there is, again, not a great difference. In fact, we most remember that the "shoulder height" that we are using from the Siberian Tiger Project is taken from the shoulder to the heal and in some cases, the leg was not straight but shrunken, like is show in an old documentary about Amur tigers (I will post the name latter, I don't have it right now). So, I guess that if those measurements were taken in the same way that the hunted Bengal tigers (straight line, between pegs), the results should be the same or more close to. At the end, the statement of Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) should stand: "Tigers stand taller at the shoulders than at the rear, with Bengal and Siberian tigers measuring about a meter high at the shoulders".

For more details, you can check these topics:
http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-brander-...he-records
http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-t...the-tigers

However, if you want a direct, simply or "popular" explanation, I can "conclude" that both varieties (or "subspecies") measure about the same, which will be more than 190 cm in head body and about 100 cm in shoulder height, in males. Chest girths and weights are the only thing where these specimens really differ.
  Reply