(11-16-2014, 01:29 AM)'sanjay' Wrote: So, Captive Amur tigers ( in good condition ) are larger than big wild Kaziranga tigers ?
Note:- I am asking about only dimension and size, I know wild counterparts are way ahead than captives.


 

(11-16-2014, 05:41 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: It's all about food intake.  While the density of tigers in Kaziranga is high, so is the density of prey animals there.  It is that simple.  The most robust individual tigers simply are the dominant males laying claim to the best hunting in the park.  If it feeds, it wll grow.  Even if wild Amur tigers have the potential to be larger than the tigers in Kaziranga, few of them enjoy the "all you can eat" buffet of prey that their southern cousins do.

http://www.aaranyak.org/reports/Kaziranga_Tiger_Final_Report_2009.pdf

 

 

(11-16-2014, 08:21 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: Its fine, Can you post the link you are seeing in your browser  ?

 

(11-14-2014, 07:37 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: GrizzlyClaws: I think that doesn´t answer my question....

Let´s say that wild amurs are 190-200 kg, wild bengals are 210 kg.

Captive bengals are 185 kg, while captive amurs are around 220 kg....and some captive amurs reach extreme sizes...

Why is that?

BTW Peter gave his opinion in Premier League...

 

(11-18-2014, 01:26 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(11-14-2014, 07:37 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: GrizzlyClaws: I think that doesn´t answer my question....

Let´s say that wild amurs are 190-200 kg, wild bengals are 210 kg.

Captive bengals are 185 kg, while captive amurs are around 220 kg....and some captive amurs reach extreme sizes...

Why is that?

BTW Peter gave his opinion in Premier League...


 

I have always said that its the ability for Amurs to put on fat that makes them larger in captivity. But lets also remember, the only place with actual captive pure bred Bengals is India. India also had a huge issue with being unable to feed tiger properly, which seems to be changing slowly but surely. But since we really don't know the body measurements of any Pure bred Bengals or even very few pure bred AMurs as well. Its to hard to really say one is larger or smaller than the other in captivity.

Copters and Gaute both said the same, more or less.
I agree with them as well.

@chaos, in regards to your lean muscle being more athletic than a bulk robust animal.
While I don't like using Humans to compare to animals, I figure it suits this argument fine.

If you take the top 40 RB's of all time in the NFL, none of them have a BMI lower than 25% which is actually quite high, but what does that mean? It means they need to carry mass and power for the job they do, infact many NFL athletes are actually considered obese by normal standards. But they are far more "athletic" than any other human beings, this is because you need mass to power a large body and be explosive. Tigers need to be robust to power a huge frame, they need to be able to explode and overpower large animals. They also need to be able to make sharp cuts since most of the time they may never see the prey until they are very close and will need to be able to stop that mass or turn on a dime. That is why a large tiger doesn't mean its more or less athletic than a smaller one. Just depends on what they need from their surroundings.
 

 

(11-18-2014, 01:26 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(11-14-2014, 07:37 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: GrizzlyClaws: I think that doesn´t answer my question....

Let´s say that wild amurs are 190-200 kg, wild bengals are 210 kg.

Captive bengals are 185 kg, while captive amurs are around 220 kg....and some captive amurs reach extreme sizes...

Why is that?

BTW Peter gave his opinion in Premier League...


 

I have always said that its the ability for Amurs to put on fat that makes them larger in captivity. But lets also remember, the only place with actual captive pure bred Bengals is India. India also had a huge issue with being unable to feed tiger properly, which seems to be changing slowly but surely. But since we really don't know the body measurements of any Pure bred Bengals or even very few pure bred AMurs as well. Its to hard to really say one is larger or smaller than the other in captivity.

Copters and Gaute both said the same, more or less.
I agree with them as well.

@chaos, in regards to your lean muscle being more athletic than a bulk robust animal.
While I don't like using Humans to compare to animals, I figure it suits this argument fine.

If you take the top 40 RB's of all time in the NFL, none of them have a BMI lower than 25% which is actually quite high, but what does that mean? It means they need to carry mass and power for the job they do, infact many NFL athletes are actually considered obese by normal standards. But they are far more "athletic" than any other human beings, this is because you need mass to power a large body and be explosive. Tigers need to be robust to power a huge frame, they need to be able to explode and overpower large animals. They also need to be able to make sharp cuts since most of the time they may never see the prey until they are very close and will need to be able to stop that mass or turn on a dime. That is why a large tiger doesn't mean its more or less athletic than a smaller one. Just depends on what they need from their surroundings.
 

 

Quote:Some giant captive Amurs are very fit, but they have just reached the prehistoric size.