Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - Printable Version

+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Terrestrial Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-terrestrial-wild-animals)
+---- Forum: Wild Cats (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-wild-cats)
+----- Forum: Tiger (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-tiger)
+----- Thread: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur (/topic-who-is-the-king-of-tigers-bengal-or-amur)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 05-15-2014

(05-15-2014, 02:27 PM)'Apollo' Wrote:
(05-14-2014, 09:38 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: The only female is the one on the far left next to Caesar and she is the same family as the other 3 males, they where his first tigers and bought at the same time. The bengals may or may not be full grown, but the siberians are younger than they are. I believe the siberians are age of 3 or so when first introduced to the bengals.
The 3rd tiger from the left is Prince and the 2nd tiger from the right is Cambodge (largest siberian) and also the tiger that attempted to attack prince for many days until finally taught not to.

If the amurs are 3 years old and the Bengals are older than that (so the 4 bengal tigers should be adults or closer to adulthood), then there should be a greater sexual dimorphism in size between the 3 male and 1 female bengal tigers. But it is not the case when you see the picture.
Since those 4 tigers are adults and the 3 males and 1 female are closer in size to each other. I think its highly possible that these tigers are either smaller subspecies or the unique sunderbans tigers (smaller tigers show lesser sexual dimorphism in size)

*This image is copyright of its original author

(05-14-2014, 09:42 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Also one note, he says that the bengals where brought from "Bengal"
So he doesn't know what type of sub species they are, obviously. This could also be the reason that the popular beliefe that the Siberian is the largest cat, because most of these circus trainers probably never had a Pure wild bengal from somewhere like Assam or Panna etc.... As well as siberians being able to put fat on easier than bengals and their massive furry coats all lead to the old popular idea that siberians are larger than bengals, which after lots of research seems to be the opposite.

Since he says "BENGAL"

Bengal is a geographical and ethno-linguistic region in South Asia. It lies in the eastern region of the Indian subcontinent, at the apex of the Bay of Bengal, and is dominated by the fertile Bengal delta. The region was politically divided in 1947 and today comprises the nation of Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal.

This is exactly the Bengal region

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is nothing but Sunderbans fertile plains and mangrove forests.
So these 4 Bengals could be sunderbans tigers (bengal tigers from sunderbans).
This could explain the size difference between those bengals and amurs.

Definite possibility.

Now onto your sexual dimorphism argument, which is pointless because this is already confirmed by the man who bought and trained them. And each individual cat has its own slightly different physical traits.
Alex Lacy, a famous and and well know circus trainer in brittan for Ringley Bros (before they banned big cats in the circus) said that his male and female bengals show almost no sexual dimorphism and females get as large as 500lbs and as large as his males. I have also heard this from another trainer, forget his name. While in the wild it is obvious that huge sexual dimorphism exists, there are still many cases of massive tigress who are larger than some males. There is a 500lb fit tigress in Australia. Larger than lots of male tigers. I think there are actually 2 500lb tigress, but not possitive.

Now onto Richard point.
Tigers from Assam or Nepal, are the largest known tigers. They are heavier than any others measured, past or present. Even their physical dimensions are larger than any other tigers. Now take into account how all tigers were classified as Bengal (except siberian and sumatran) and the fact that many Tiger subspecies are much smaller than tigers from other places. If you look at captive weights for Bengals, they are every bit as heavy as captive weights for Siberians, now a days. Obviously the 800 lb monsters are in their own class but we don't know body lenght, shoulder height, chest and limb girth, etc. So we actually don't even know if they are truly larger than the many huge Bengals that are already measured. And that would be the only way to tell if Captive siberians are indeed larger than their wild relatives or the Bengals that are being measured.

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 05-15-2014

http://www.laceys-lions.com/alexander_lacey_englisch/tiger/alextigerstart.html
Here you go.
Read the left side under "stripped fascination"

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 07-25-2014

Who was male M126?

For a long time, we know him just as the male that reached over 600 lb, together with M105 (The Sauraha male). But, who was this huge tiger? Which is his story? Well, I have found a few remarks on him, that will help us to understand his life, which seems a success one, although not free from conflicts and fights, like the life or ANY tiger in the wild:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As we can see, M126 was a large dominant male that dominated the eastern area of Chitwan. However, is very interesting that he and other males were not able to be "territorials" until the dead (accidental and not natural) of M105. This is evidence of the great power of the Sauraha male and how he manage to control the entire Chitwan area, despite the constant invasions of other males. This is another evidence that the lies of the "tiger-haters", that say that Nepal tigers don't fight, are false and idiotic.

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 07-25-2014

Besides, here is more evidence of how important is the role of the dominant male tiger, the king, in the tiger life:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As we can see, and based in other documents, the dead of the Sauraha male was a disaster, as most of the new males were unable to mantain the power of the area and the tigresses don't even succefully breed. A powerfull male in an area is fundamental to create peace and order in the kingdom.

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 07-25-2014

Finally, a petition of a friend, here is the full document about the weight and method of capture of the tigers in Chitwan.

Download the attached file. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 08-19-2014

Weight of Panna tigers:

Tigerluver, here is the document (attached file) and image with the data on the tigers captured and weighed in Panna.

*This image is copyright of its original author

I also put here the image fo the email of Dr Chundawat stating that the real weight of Madla (M-125) was of over 250 kg.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Hope this helps. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - TheLioness - 08-19-2014

So the 220-230 kg is a empty belly estimate? What of M-91 same?

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 08-19-2014

Sincerely, I don't know if the 220-230 kg is an empty belly estimate, although it is possible. Still, I think that adjusting tigers by 30 kg is rater exaggerated, unless than those particularly large males have gorged, which seems unlikely. Nepalese tigers, at least, seems to eat less than that, with a top figure of c.19 kg, based in baits and wild kills, which is more reliable than only estimate at "sight" the stomach content. Still, it is a good possibility, but most be proved and Dr Chundawat don't answer emails. Besides, Madly bottomed the scale, so how much is "tiger" and how much is "food" is problematic in this case. I still use the figure of 250 kg from Dr Chundawat, as it was confirmed by him, this avoid any confusion.

About the male M-91, that was the first dominant male of Panna, a large resident that kept all other males away until his death. This is the "dead king" mentioned in the documentary "Tigers in the Emerald forest".

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 08-19-2014

The real issue is, how much did Madla weigh over 250kg?
You can subtract 10kg plus gorged weight, but how much can you add?
Was he 10kg over, 20, 30, 50kg?
Who knows for sure.

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 08-20-2014

Since Corbett is said to have some absolutely huge Tigers that Rival Kaziranga, I will post a few images and vids below

*This image is copyright of its original author

Tiger Attack in Corbett

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - tigerluver - 08-20-2014

Is it just me or do Corbett tigers seem a bit lankier? Maybe that's just a product of them being taller than usual. Since a 322 cm specimen weighed 389 kg from that area, gorged or not, I guess I can't statistically call them lanky.

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 08-20-2014

They seem taller to me as well. Its hard to tell for sure though. Same with Ranthambhore, I think it has to do with them being on the "lanky" side like you said. But there are still some bulky beasts like Khalu (sp) and Tyson

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 08-20-2014

I do notice that Corbett Tigers seem to have the neck like Waghdoh or Dendu though. Very large neck areas on them...

*This image is copyright of its original author

Khali

*This image is copyright of its original author

This guy looks to be bulky from Corbett I believe

*This image is copyright of its original author

Credit to P. Tigris
"In 1910, Jim Corbett shot a tiger in North India, this one weighed 317 kg (700 lbs).
In the 1930s, Jim Corbett shot the Bachelor of Powalgarh tiger, thought to be "as big as a Shetland pony" by the famous hunter Fred Anderson. This big guy measured 3.23m, as opposed to 3.35m of the 389 kg giant killed in 1967. His book: "Man-eaters of Kumaon". Picture of this tiger shows that its build is on a par with the 1967 giant. This Kumaon district is in northwest India, bordering Nepal to the east. It is where the famous Corbett national park resides.
In 1942, a large tiger killed in Chitwan, Nepal mentioned by E. A. Smythies in his book "Big game shooting in Nepal": 320 kg, or 705 lbs.
1955: Colonel Kesri Singh observed a tiger killing a big tusker all by itself also in Assam, Northeast India. This deed is recorded in his book “The tiger of Rajasthan” as: "Death by a Thousand cuts". He also stated that all that’s left behind, apart from the huge elephant carcass, are this tiger’s pugmarks which are as big as a dinner plate. This confirmed the shear weight and size of this massive tiger is on a par, or equal with the giant 389 kg tiger killed in North India in 1967. "

*This image is copyright of its original author

Corbett Tiger

Corbett Maneater who was shot

*This image is copyright of its original author

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 08-20-2014

One last thing on Khali, possibly the largest tiger seen in Corbett in recent times

*This image is copyright of its original author

estimated weight is 650-750 pounds (295-340 kgs), making it one of largest male tiger in wild. It is not an unreachable weight for male tigers from this park, after all largest wild tiger weighing 857 pounds was captured in this reserve in 1967. The great "Bachelor of powalgarh" is also from this reserve. Modern tigers are just descendants of these great tigers of past.

*This image is copyright of its original author

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 08-20-2014

I have observed and interesting fact from all these images: there is no such thing as an average coat pattern in Bengal tigers!!!

From all those images, some of these specimens looks like Amur tigers, others looks like Indochinese and there is even one that looks like a Sumatran one! This is the reason why Dr Kitchener pointed out the fact that the modern subspecies classification, based in the morphology of a few specimens, is "invalid" and should not be used anymore. The variation of coat pattern in Bengal tigers is huge, just like its size: the largest Bengals are as large as the largest Amur tigers (320 kg) and the smallest Bengals are as small as the smallest Bali tigers (75 kg)!

Now, about this paragraph:
Credit to P. Tigris
"In 1910, Jim Corbett shot a tiger in North India, this one weighed 317 kg (700 lbs).
In the 1930s, Jim Corbett shot the Bachelor of Powalgarh tiger, thought to be "as big as a Shetland pony" by the famous hunter Fred Anderson. This big guy measured 3.23m, as opposed to 3.35m of the 389 kg giant killed in 1967. His book: "Man-eaters of Kumaon". Picture of this tiger shows that its build is on a par with the 1967 giant. This Kumaon district is in northwest India, bordering Nepal to the east. It is where the famous Corbett national park resides.
In 1942, a large tiger killed in Chitwan, Nepal mentioned by E. A. Smythies in his book "Big game shooting in Nepal": 320 kg, or 705 lbs.
1955: Colonel Kesri Singh observed a tiger killing a big tusker all by itself also in Assam, Northeast India. This deed is recorded in his book “The tiger of Rajasthan” as: "Death by a Thousand cuts". He also stated that all that’s left behind, apart from the huge elephant carcass, are this tiger’s pugmarks which are as big as a dinner plate. This confirmed the shear weight and size of this massive tiger is on a par, or equal with the giant 389 kg tiger killed in North India in 1967. "

There is a myth in the web that Jim Corbett weighed a tiger of 317 kg, but this is false. Corbett did not weighed any of his tigers, and apparently he only measured two of all his hunts. The tiger that weighed 317 kg was hunted by Captain M D Goring-Jones in Central Provinces (Wood, 1977). There is another enormously fat hermaphrodite specimen hunted in the Nilgiri Hills and reported by Fraser (1942), bus this specimen was not weighed and only estimated at 317 kg (Wood, 1977). So, there are two different 700 pound tigers, one actually weighed, the other just estimated and none of them was hunted-weighed by Jim Corbett.

To be sincere, I think that the Bachelor of Powalgarh looks larger than the Guinness tiger of 389 kg, but this could be only my perception. Even then, the fact that the Bachelor was a HUGE specimen most be taken more seriously, after all, even when this male probably measured "only" about 310 cm in total length between pegs, we don't know how much of this is for the tail, so this giant could be as large as the record tiger from Brander (221 cm in head-body), as far we know, and the pictures support my claim.