(03-23-2015, 01:34 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: The STP male Amurs average 193 cm in body length, while Sunquist and Sunquist has Chitwan published as 195 cm on average for males. It'd be a bit higher if we were to add the two other 270+ kg males I found about. The longest body length of modern record is of an Amur male at 208 cm (101 cm tail, 309 cm total, 179 kg mass) I believe. I think Dhasa of Nagarhole measured 311 cm total but his body length was 204 cm. So, overall I'd say they're equal in length with regard to statistical significance. Not sure about height, but I'd favor the modern Amur to be taller as they seem to be evolving for cursoriality at this point.

Edit: I see Pckts found the summary. Hunter vs. modern records makes some difference, but I think that's just due to sampling error.

 

(03-23-2015, 03:19 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: "n literature, Pocock (1939) says that the average standing height for male Bengal tigers is of 91 cm, and seldom exceeds this, but these were captive specimens and he doesn’t give any range or sample number. Mazák (1983) give an average standing height of 93.3 cm (n=5), with a maximum of 99 cm and a minimum of 89 cm, again from captive specimens. Finally, Brander (1923) give an average figure of 99 cm (n=42) for males measured “between pegs”, and a maximum of 110 cm.The official figure for the male Amur tiger, in shoulder height, is of 95 cm, based in 11 specimens. I was able to found only 10 specimens with shoulder height, so that’s why I only calculate a figure of 93 cm. "

 
If you go off these, Technically the Bengal is taller. .
But its a matter of cms and will depend on tiger to tiger I suspect.


Nice tiger you posted. Looks to big big boy

 

(03-23-2015, 03:28 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(03-23-2015, 03:19 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: "n literature, Pocock (1939) says that the average standing height for male Bengal tigers is of 91 cm, and seldom exceeds this, but these were captive specimens and he doesn’t give any range or sample number. Mazák (1983) give an average standing height of 93.3 cm (n=5), with a maximum of 99 cm and a minimum of 89 cm, again from captive specimens. Finally, Brander (1923) give an average figure of 99 cm (n=42) for males measured “between pegs”, and a maximum of 110 cm.The official figure for the male Amur tiger, in shoulder height, is of 95 cm, based in 11 specimens. I was able to found only 10 specimens with shoulder height, so that’s why I only calculate a figure of 93 cm. "

 
If you go off these, Technically the Bengal is taller. .
But its a matter of cms and will depend on tiger to tiger I suspect.


Nice tiger you posted. Looks to big big boy


 

Ok, bengal tigers are taller. And they should be also longer, I think...otherwise they would be more square-like

OMG

...btw I have been misinformed by Peter, who wrote this (in extinction thread)

"I can't agree with your verdict on Mazak's assessment regarding Amur tigers. Mazak based his conclusions on the data he had. When his book was published, there was no doubt that Amur tigers, at the level of averages, topped most lists by a margin. They still do. Amur tigers are longer and taller than all other big cats. This conclusion is true for both captive and wild Amur tigers. Same for females, I think."

or this:

"Surely, there is no doubt that the Amur tigers are the longest wild cats at this day, although the Bengal tigers are definitely the heaviest ones (more robust in the girth departments). "

:-)

 

 

(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.
 

 

(03-23-2015, 10:46 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: ...but in a stricto sensu, Amur tigers seems "longer".