(08-21-2016, 05:08 AM)genao87 Wrote: I believe GuateGojira mentioned that the Amur was heavier but the Bengal somewhat longer.

I also remember his drawing where he put the Bengal above the Siberian but that was before I read about the Amur being heavier than the Bengal.    I also feel as you guys if the Siberian was abundant that it would be higher in weight than the Bengal.  Also GrizzlyClaws mentioned that he believes that the Siberian was larger in the past.

*This image is copyright of its original author

(08-22-2016, 02:58 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: It seems that captive amur tigers are the same size as wild bengals - around 210 kg. As far as I know captive tigers tend to be smaller than wild ones, so in good conditions amurs could be even heavier than bengals. Some captive amurs are real monsters - 250+ kg, perhaps decendants of lengendary manchurian tigers.

(10-13-2016, 04:01 PM)Pckts Wrote: Remember @Sabre  captive Bengal tiger weights are non existent more or less, every tiger you've seen is either a n. American tiger, Amur or Sumatran, the only place that has pure bred captive Indian bengals is India.
Amurs and bengals have been hunted for many years and still bengals top the list for weight, body length is close with a edge to amurs but very much overlapping. 
There's a thread here called "king of the tigers" feel free to contribute your info there.
Welcome

(10-13-2016, 03:43 PM)Sabre Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 02:58 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: It seems that captive amur tigers are the same size as wild bengals - around 210 kg. As far as I know captive tigers tend to be smaller than wild ones, so in good conditions amurs could be even heavier than bengals. Some captive amurs are real monsters - 250+ kg, perhaps decendants of lengendary manchurian tigers.

Sadly, it's impossible to tell the exact size of the Siberian tiger since they've been suffered from genetic bottleneck and low prey base.
The Siberian tiger prey base in the Russian Far East these days are only 0.2-0.5 per 100 square km. This is even LOWER than prey base of the Meru Betiri national park of the Java island, which was the last remaining population of the Javan tiger during 1970 to early 1980s. The prey base of the Meru Betiri was 0.7~1 per 100 square km.
Java was already overpopulated by human,  Meru Betiri was only 580 square km, the only habitat for the last Javan tiger, and Java island was too overpopulated since 1900s. That's why Javan tiger became extinct. The Siberian tiger is still surviving since their habitat is low human populated area.
However, I've seen the Korean documentary of the Siberian tiger cubs are killing weaker cubs while their mom is gone due to hunger. It's all due to low prey base by human is hunting their prey like deer. One large male Siberian tiger name Victior from 2011 was 305 cm long, but his weight was only 175 kg. Similar length of huge male bengal tiger, but his weight is just a littlie bit heavier than large female bengal tiger.

I heard people are saying that bengal is the largest due to size of Kaziranga, Mannas, Chitwan, ...etc.
Prey base of the bengal tiger in Chitwan national park is 3-3.7 per 100 square km. Extremely high base. Similar as majority tiger reserves of the India, Nepal, and Bhutan.

But truth fact is that captive Siberian tiger is DEFINITELY surpassing size of captive bengal tiger and wild bengal tiger. Top largest captive tigers are Siberian, not bengal.

If people study biology courses, then they should think what is the reasons of the Siberian tiger became smaller in wild. It's IGNORANT to conclude bengal is larger than siberian just because northern bengal sizes are heavier than siberian tigers these days. If wild bengal is bigger, then caprive Siberian tiger like Sabre, Baikal, Baja, Duke, Japiur, Romeo, and gigantic Siberian tigers are in Harbin... etc are DEFINITELY BIGGER AND HEAVIER than any of male bengal tigers are in Kaziranga, Taboda, Manas, ... etc.
There are some records of the gigantic Siberian tiger records from the Russian hunters, but majority biologists/naturalists/conservationists view it as unreliable. But I think it's just silly to view it as unreliable just because it is hunting record. Maybe there was some records were exaggerated. But I don't believe everything was unreliable. One hunter name Barclay, he was a hunter from British empire 100 years ago. When he was in Korea 100 years ago. He even recorded it as "I believe that members of this race(Siberian) are deeper chested than other varieties, and would surely weight more, length for length." because people are  believing common wrong belief of the bengal tiger is the largest and most violent subspecies. 

The largest male Siberian tigers are all from the Manchuria, especially the Herilongjiang and north part of Jilin. If I go back to 150 years ago, then I am sure the Siberian tigers from Manchuria are bigger than northern bengal tigers.

(10-13-2016, 07:20 PM)Shardul Wrote: For example, Ranthambhore tigers are heavily inbred since there hasn't been any gene flow coming into the reserve since the last 3 decades, at the very least. But the big males there easily weigh 250 kilos. So using your logic, 150 years ago, bengals should have been weighing more than 300 kilos?