(03-12-2018, 11:27 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Greatearth says: It would be the same for the Brown bear, Grizzly bear, Kodiak Bear, and Polar bear since elephant and rhino are too big and extremely powerful.
 
I agree. Unlike the big cats, a bear is not equipped to stalk and attack animals with a massive size advantage. A bear relies more on brute strength and physically overpowering his adversary than does a big cat. Pachyderms are just too big and powerful for any bear species. In fact, in the ancient Roman arena, a grizzly ( European brown bear ) was pitted against a rhinoceros. There was no fight; only a killing.

(05-14-2018, 10:49 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: I spoke to Varun Thakkar a while ago, a person who has been around for atleast a good 20 years. he has seen Kingfisher, Umarpani, Wagdoh and Jai. when i asked him about the biggest out of the four in terms of height, overall body length and just dimensionally bigger. Jai was the biggest according to him, also Jai if im not mistaken was weighed post monsoon. that’s like the toughest time of the year for tigers, 238 kilograms on a scale, 18kg for the error value for the scale. 220kg empty stomach, in winters Jai was easily far bigger so obviously a very large male. too bad he was poached and from the sounds of it, Jaichand is also gone, most likely poached. what a tragedy, Wildlife Institute of India is no longer competent and cannot provide answers for why so many tigers went missing under their rightful eyes. Umred Karhandla is the present day Panna. every tiger that grows to full maturity there is poached sooner or later. Srinivasa, Jai and Jaichand are a prime example of that.

(05-15-2018, 03:02 AM)Greatearth Wrote: It is the same as people who claiming Bengal tiger in Sundarban is the same size as Bengal tiger in mainland India. You can't really tell it by just watching them for a long time. 

(05-15-2018, 02:25 PM)Greatearth Wrote: Pckts



Since you brought up the Serengeti lions. I am really curious, which animal is larger between tiger and lion? I do know tiger is the largest, strongest, and most powerful cat. But it looks different when I see photo of them together in captivity like the everland, black jaguar white tiger foundation, and other big cat sanctury. Male lion looks bigger than tiger, but I guess this is because of manes. I do know lion has a larger skull and taller shoulder in general. My professor (he is 80 years old) said people used to believe lion was bigger through out human history, but they realize the tiger is the largest and ultimate existing cat after studying them recently in 1900 (1900 is recent compare to 5000 years of human history after civilizations).
I've seen photo of Indian Royal home before, but male asiatic lion skins were longer (head to body) and bigger (width) than Bengal tiger skins. But I don't know the Bengal tigers were male or female. I hear all the time that african lion is bigger than asiatic lion. Is it true that tiger is the largest cat?
I study about these animals, but I don't have a real experience of big cats. Especially, if it is measuring big cats in museum, captivity, and wild. Which animal is the biggest cat? Is it really tiger? And I am asking to everyone who really know about big cats.

(05-15-2018, 04:50 PM)Rishi Wrote:

(05-14-2018, 10:49 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: I spoke to Varun Thakkar a while ago, a person who has been around for atleast a good 20 years. he has seen Kingfisher, Umarpani, Wagdoh and Jai. when i asked him about the biggest out of the four in terms of height, overall body length and just dimensionally bigger. Jai was the biggest according to him, also Jai if im not mistaken was weighed post monsoon. that’s like the toughest time of the year for tigers, 238 kilograms on a scale, 18kg for the error value for the scale. 220kg empty stomach, in winters Jai was easily far bigger so obviously a very large male. too bad he was poached and from the sounds of it, Jaichand is also gone, most likely poached. what a tragedy, Wildlife Institute of India is no longer competent and cannot provide answers for why so many tigers went missing under their rightful eyes. Umred Karhandla is the present day Panna. every tiger that grows to full maturity there is poached sooner or later. Srinivasa, Jai and Jaichand are a prime example of that.

I totally agree with him ↴

(05-15-2018, 03:02 AM)Greatearth Wrote: It is the same as people who claiming Bengal tiger in Sundarban is the same size as Bengal tiger in mainland India. You can't really tell it by just watching them for a long time. 

If someone says, that this tiger...

*This image is copyright of its original author

..is larger than, this tiger...

*This image is copyright of its original author

..then it calls for second opinion, or atleast not taking his words as gospel just because he's Varun Thakkar. Especially if there are conflicting claims with Wagdoh by others. (i'm not even considering what Minh Ha says about Jai.)

(05-16-2018, 01:00 PM)Greatearth Wrote: I was always curious about this because male lion always looked bigger in photo and video from photo, TV channel, video from big cat sanctuary, everland, and other places.

I've seen captive lions a lot, but they don't really look big as I hear in book and internet. They were definitely big, but not big as I expected.

Quote:Yes, it was that photo! Thanks to find other photos and the location! I thought it was trophy hunting room by Indian royals. I only saw the first and second photo from many different angles. That male lion skin is larger than 2 tiger skins, just tigers are longer due to long tails. Actually, lion skin at 5th photo above bookshelf looks bigger than any of tiger skins in the room. I've seen skulls of the Bengal tiger, Asian lion, and Indian leopard. Lion skull was the biggest. That's why I was wondering is it really true that Bengal tiger is larger than Asiatic lion, and even larger African lion.

(05-15-2018, 09:08 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(05-15-2018, 02:25 PM)Greatearth Wrote: Pckts



Since you brought up the Serengeti lions. I am really curious, which animal is larger between tiger and lion? I do know tiger is the largest, strongest, and most powerful cat. But it looks different when I see photo of them together in captivity like the everland, black jaguar white tiger foundation, and other big cat sanctury. Male lion looks bigger than tiger, but I guess this is because of manes. I do know lion has a larger skull and taller shoulder in general. My professor (he is 80 years old) said people used to believe lion was bigger through out human history, but they realize the tiger is the largest and ultimate existing cat after studying them recently in 1900 (1900 is recent compare to 5000 years of human history after civilizations).
I've seen photo of Indian Royal home before, but male asiatic lion skins were longer (head to body) and bigger (width) than Bengal tiger skins. But I don't know the Bengal tigers were male or female. I hear all the time that african lion is bigger than asiatic lion. Is it true that tiger is the largest cat?
I study about these animals, but I don't have a real experience of big cats. Especially, if it is measuring big cats in museum, captivity, and wild. Which animal is the biggest cat? Is it really tiger? And I am asking to everyone who really know about big cats.

I've gone fairly in depth on the topic here https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-comparing-cats-a-discussion-of-similarities-and-differences-between-felids?page=3
But to keep it short and sweet, Lions appear taller and leaner while tigers appear shorter and stockier.
Body length is close, too hard to determine with the naked eye.

In regards to Black Jaguar White Tiger, the largest cats he has are in the big pride which consists of Male lions and lioness and two tigress and one male Tiger, the male Tiger "Alcyone" is as large as the largest Lions in the Big pride "Ali and Han" while being 6 months younger, while the largest females he has are 1 lioness and 1 Tigress, both around 160kg I believe.
In captivity, I have seen huge Lions and huge Tigers, both overlapping greatly, the heaviest big cat I have seen in captivity is a Lion while the biggest in frame was a Tiger but he wasn't as thick as the lion, but I have seen other Tigers who were as thick as the lion but they were smaller in body dimensions. I have never seen an Amur in Captivity though and we all know that they do very well there and I have seen enough photos of them together to form opinions on the subject. 
Thanks to @Betty  I have seen a ton of them together as well as doing my own searches, you can see quite a bit here https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-zoos-circuses-safaris-a-gallery-of-captivity?pid=54899#pid54899
And strictly going off of that, I'd say Tigers are probably a bigger cat over all. 
But my personal experience from what I have seen in the wild is that there is no way to know which is actually "larger," 
They come in many sizes and big is big, when you see a 200kg+ cat, you're awestruck, simple as that.
Here is  my comparison image of two of the big cats I saw, they were similar distance from me, I had to enlarge the lion a bit to match the tiger but that can have to do with many factors. But either way, do you really think you can tell the difference in weight with the naked eye?

*This image is copyright of its original author

Females of each species were a bit easier to tell the difference in for me,
Their frame dimensions seem similar but Tigress seem to be a bit more muscular than Lioness, but again, that could just have to do with particular individuals.

In regards to skins,
@Rishi  found a great image that should shed some light on the subject for you...
"The Laxmi Niwas Palace of Bikaner, Rajasthan (it's a hotel now) built in 1904 before the hunt-ban, has multiple Indian tiger & lion skins by the Maharaja back in the days.

14 of the most prized ones are hung side by side in the Billiard Room."

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(05-15-2018, 01:35 PM)peter Wrote:

(05-13-2018, 09:33 AM)Rishi Wrote: Big News unearthed by Suhail! @peter @parvez @Jimmy @SuSpicious @Sully @Greatearth

(05-13-2018, 08:46 AM)Suhail Wrote: Does bengal tigers have bigger cousin at home?
Or new sub species of tiger in india?
This article tells about that.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/does-the-bengal-tiger-have-a-bigger-cousin-at-home/article23867331.ece&ved=0ahUKEwiV3byi44HbAhWMtY8KHSN5ALAQqQIIHCgBMAA&usg=AOvVaw1c6tY4uPVLKGe4y2Euj74T

Does the Bengal tiger have a bigger cousin at home?
ITANAGAR, MAY 12, 2018

*This image is copyright of its original author

Two rescued cats in an Arunachal zoo intrigue experts

Two tigers with features distinct from the well-known Royal Bengal variety have led to research interest on whether India hosts more than one sub-species of the big cat. 

Rescued as orphans from India's north-easternmost corner, Ipra and Chipi were eight months old when they were found near Anini in Arunachal Pradesh’s Upper Dibang Valley district bordering China, in December 2012. They were shifted to the State capital Itanagar’s Biological Park almost a year later from Roing, the headquarters of an adjoining district at 7,000 ft above sea level.

Ipra the male, and Chipi the female had two other siblings, but one died of pneumonia and the other was presumed killed like their mother.

The two survivors have grown to be bigger, more aggressive and endowed with a coat shade different from the Royal Bengal tigers (RBTs) in the park. Officials say the Anini tigers do not have a white patch behind their ears like usual Bengal tigers. “The tigers from Anini are five-and-a-half years old, but they are markedly larger than the captive-bred Bengal tigers that are older than them. They also appear morphologically different from Bengal tigers and have a different colour coating,” the Park’s curator Raya Flago told The Hindu.

Genetic test

“We sent blood and hair samples to the Laboratory for the Conservation of Endangered Species of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology(LaCONES) in Hyderabad for a genetic test two years ago. But we are yet to get the report,” Mr. Flago said.
Arunachal Pradesh’s Chief Wildlife Warden Ruselo Kemp said the department would push LaCONES for the test report. “Until we get it, we cannot say the Anini tigers are different though they appear so to trained eyes,” he said. 

Kamal Azad of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) said experts had marked the “non-Royal Bengal-like” appearance of the Anini tigers and explored the scope for a study with the Wildlife Institute of India (WII). Forest officials in Arunachal Pradesh said the only tiger sub-species bigger than the Royal Bengal (Panthera tigris tigris) is the Siberian or Amurtiger(Panthera tigris altaica). An adult Royal Bengal male grows up to 3.1 metres from head to tail while the Siberian reaches 3.3 metres.

“Siberia is far off and the only species that comes geographically close to the Royal Bengal is the Indo-Chinese or Corbett’s tiger (Panthera tigriscorbetti), which is found in Laos, Cambodia and Thailand,” Mr. Flago said.

The RBTs found in Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal besides India are also known to range across Myanmar.

Yadvendradev V. Jhala, WII’s large carnivore expert, said the reported size of the Anini tigers does not match that of the Indo-Chinese that are smaller than the Royal Bengal. “The physical features of the two tigers at Itanagar zoo officials make them worthy of a study.” he said in Dehradun. 

Highest tiger territory

*This image is copyright of its original author

The Anini tigers were rescued from Angrim village on the edge of the 4,149 sq. km Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary, which is at an altitude of 3,200 metres. The NTCA has proposed to make this sanctuary a tiger reserve because of a “sizeable population” of the animals.
If so designated, the sanctuary, established in 1992, will be India’s highest tiger reserve. Bhutan is the only other country as of now to record the presence of tigers at 4,100 metres. But Arunachal Pradesh’s Forest Department is facing resistance from the local people besides running low on manpower for managing the proposed tiger reserve.

“The sanctuary is too vast, taking up almost half of Upper Dibang Valley district’s area (9,129 sq km) and encompassing many villages. We have only five staff from social forestry division managing the sanctuary,” Mr. Kemp pointed out. 

During his visit to the area in January, the local people told Mr. Kemp that they fear their rights would be curbed if the sanctuary is upgraded to a tiger reserve. Officials said some villagers in the district hunt for food, though there have been no reports of conflict with tigers.
Wildlife experts feel the case for a tiger reserve could be stronger if the “peculiarity” of the Anini tigers is genetically established.

Very interesting.

If authorities think they could be different, action is the best answer. Research is needed, but the sanctuary (Dibang) could do with more protection as well. This, by the way, would hold for most of India. Copters was right when he, in the tiger extinction thread, said too many tigers have disappeared in the last years. Central India in particular has been hit by poachers.   

As to the tigers discussed in the post. The info I have says tigers have been present in southwestern China, northern Myanmar and northeastern India for a very long time. This region is both elevated and isolated. Isolation often has a negative effect on size, but the region just east of northeastern India is extended and quite empty (referring to humans). In the Middle Ages, tigers were often seen in the eastern part of Tibet. In the centuries that followed, they disappeared in most of China. It could be that some survived in southwestern China, northern Burma and northeastern India, as this region is not attractive for humans. If true, they could be related to P.t. amoyensis.

Chinese tigers were smaller than P.t. tigris and P.t. corbetti, but China is a very large country. Tigers shot in the western part of central China during the Great Leap Forward seem to have been larger than those shot in eastern and southeastern China in the first half of the last century. In some districts, they were known for their size (see the series on Chinese tigers in the thread 'On the Edge of Extinction - A - The Tiger'). The western part of China is very elevated and still had 5-10 tigers in 2011.   

Altitude seems to have an effect on the size of mammals. Humans are smaller than average, but 'mountain tigers' often are quite large. Himalayan tigers most probably are the largest wild cats today. Tigers living at altitudes of 10,000 feet and over (Bhutan) could be as large, if not larger. Bengt Berg shot his largest tigers just south of Bhutan and he wasn't the only one who noticed the size of tigers in that region.    

The remark on the difference in size between P. t. tigris and P. t. corbetti, although true, is a bit wanting. I've plenty of reliable records of large tigers shot in the northern part of what used to be Burma and there are more regions in southeastern Asia that produced tigers similar in size to those shot in central and northern India. Most regions were well-stocked and, again, elevated. The 'well-stocked' part is important. Wild herbivores often moved to elevated regions. One reason was more food. Another was less humans. Tigers following the herds and able to overcome competition of other tigers settled, which no doubt had an effect on the size of tigers in that region. 

Food however isn't the only reason. Himalayan tigers don't hunt large herbivores all the time and tigers just east of the plateau in central China most probably also struggled in the food department at times. Amur tigers, at home in hill country as well, also often settle for smallish animals. Everything I read suggests they never compared to Indian tigers in this respect (food). But they were large and, with the exception of weight, still compete with Indian tigers in this department. There has to be another explanation, that is. 

In old India, hunters often wrote about the difference between 'Bengal tigers' and 'hill tigers'. The Bengals, although longer, didn't really compare, they thought. Hill tigers were more robust and more aggressive. All in all, one gets the impression that tigers evolved in elevated regions. They adapted to low-lying flood plains and dense forests when the opportunity was presented, but the most impressive individuals were often shot in hill country. What we see today is no different from the situation some centuries ago, so it seems.

(05-15-2018, 02:41 PM)Greatearth Wrote:

(03-12-2018, 11:27 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Greatearth says: It would be the same for the Brown bear, Grizzly bear, Kodiak Bear, and Polar bear since elephant and rhino are too big and extremely powerful.
 
I agree. Unlike the big cats, a bear is not equipped to stalk and attack animals with a massive size advantage. A bear relies more on brute strength and physically overpowering his adversary than does a big cat. Pachyderms are just too big and powerful for any bear species. In fact, in the ancient Roman arena, a grizzly ( European brown bear ) was pitted against a rhinoceros. There was no fight; only a killing.

I would absolutely believe that elephant and rhino just killed brown bear in roman record. But who recorded it? And where was it recorded?
Like I hear all the time that tiger normally defeated and killed lion in roman arena since when I was a kid from book. But I am always wondering where did these information came from.