(05-17-2015, 10:22 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Comparison image:

This is it, here is my final statement about this topic: the comparison of size.

Check my new image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here I made a comparison between the Amur and the Bengal tiger, using modern and historic measurements. The explanation is this:

1. Amur tiger:
The body measurements in the image are only those of Kerley et al. (2005). Why I did not post those of the historic specimens? Well, because although they are reliable in they description, many of them don't came from first hand sources, so I decided to use only those from scientific references. Besides, apart from the giant male of 330 cm from Mazák, all the other specimens are of the same size than modern animals, except in the chest department. On the side of the weights, the source is my new document of 2015, already posted here.

2. Bengal tiger:
On the department of body size, I choose to use Brander and the Maharaha of Cooch Behar, as they measured between pegs and are the most reliable with the largest samples. I also used those from Dr Sunquist (1981), although all the specimens fit in the ranges of the two previous sources, except for female T-107, which is the longest female recorded in Nepal-India (282 cm). On the weight side, I used my new document for Bengal tigers, also from 2015, which summarize most of the reliable weights, including Hewett, for example. I will post the images latter. The change here is that I separated the "old" weights from the "new" scientific weights, in order to see the differences in time. On the body size department, both historic and new measurements are the same, so there is no problem in using both, although we most take in count that the smaller figures in the old records probably came from young specimens, that in modern records simply don't exist.

At the end, like I said before, we can see in the images that although there are differences in the "paper" of barely 5 to 10 cm, when we see the two animals (of average size) together, they are practically of the same size, although the Bengal one is more robust in comparison. I expect to be criticized by the Amur-tiger-fans, but they most accept the fact that the measurements and weights presented, support the fact that Bengal are the heaviest cats on Earth right now and that they are of the same body size, both historically and modern, and between the two subspecies.

Greetings to all.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Apart from the obvious adds, I included new Bengal tiger weights (check the sample size) and also the skull measurements of Mazák (1983). You can erase the old image and keep this new one.

In a next post, the comparative image of the Mainland tiger and the Sundarbans tigers.

Greetings to all.

---

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 09-15-2015

By the way, here is the new table of the scientific records of the Bengal tigers (those between 1970 - 2015).

*This image is copyright of its original author

Save it for future references.

Greetings to all.

---

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 09-15-2015

Body size of the B.A.C. (Bengal, Amur and Caspian) tigers:

I am suffering of insomnia, or maybe is because tomorrow is the Independence day of my country and I have a day off, but I am not going to waste time. So, I manage to join the data of the three largest tiger subspecies/populations (depending of your belief) in one single comparative image. Check it out:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see, the three tiger groups are very close in average size (although I suspect that Caspian tigers are shorter, like the Sub-Saharan African lions), but there is no doubt that in the extremes, Bengal tigers top the scale and the tape. I also add the largest skulls reported in literature, in order to provide a "plus". On the other hand, I excluded the chest girths and I provided just an overall average weight, in order to save space, but if you see the original images there is no problem.

On the skull situation, I decided to included the figure of 385 mm for the largest Caspian skull, quoted by Heptner & Sludskii (1992). I am aware that the other measurements don't fit (ZW of 205 mm and CBL of 305 mm). However, if the real measurements were 250 and 350 mm respectively? Maybe, if in some way, we could found the original source in Russian, we could see the real document.


Well, enjoy the image, I am going to sleep.

Greetings to all.

---

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Thebingthing - 09-15-2015

(09-15-2015, 05:58 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Thebingthing, we are greatly obliged by your favor of you sharing this specimen with us. If you could take another measurement if it's no problem? Could you measure the mandible length? Measure it first by choosing one side. Stick the measuring tape to the symphysis (tip of mandible) and keeping the tape in contact with the mandible, measure up to the furthest point at the back of the mandible. This will be one measurement.

The other measurement I'm looking for is the mandible as a whole. Measure the mandible from the symphysis to further point, but keep the tape in the middle of the jaw rather than running it parallel to one side. 

Here's a pictorial representation of the measurement. Follow the lines to as far of the mandible as possible. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Many thanks!

Hi @tigerluver

I just gave it a measure and it is 220mm down the central point and 230mm along the edge of the mandible.

I hope that helps.

Jonathan

---

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - sanjay - 09-15-2015

@GuateGojira , Happy independence day my friend. You have made some excellent images

---

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 09-15-2015

Sunquists response on how he measured the Chitwan Tigers

*This image is copyright of its original author

And since this is the only email I have seen in response to this question

*This image is copyright of its original author

Its safe to assume that is correct.

---

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 09-16-2015

Don't worry @Pckts, I do have a clear and long answer from Dr Sunquist where he explain the entire issue.

I just can say that Wave is wrong (accidentally or intentionally) in his assumptions, at least for Indian and Nepalese tigers. For Amur tigers, I don't have an answer yet, but certainly his interpretations (an that of Warsaw) of the text in Kerley et al. (2005) is incorrect.

Await for my next post, I will explain the entire issue.

---

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - Pckts - 09-16-2015

Great Guate, Im glad you were one of the people he was speaking about.
Im excited to see his response. I wonder how many people actually asked him?

I had no idea any body else was asking him or I would of held off on my question. Either way, good work.

---

RE: Who is the "King" of the tigers? - GuateGojira - 09-21-2015

The size of the Sundarbans tigers:

Here is the comparison between the Sundarbans tigers and the mainland tigers:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As we can see, the difference is dramatic mostly in the weight, while in the body size, Sundarbans tigers are no smaller than the Indochinese tigers. In fact, if we see the only two weights from 1933, those figures are not so low, in comparison with other tiger populations, however, this seems something in the past, as modern tiger in the area are decreasing. One male captured in 2008 weighed 150 kg and is the heaviest, but the next one, captured in 2010 weighed only 115 kg. However, there is the problem that all the specimens captured since 2006 are in bad to very bad conditions, were found near villages hunting farm animals and some of them were even unable to hunt. One male of 98 kg was captured after it killed a goat, which means that this already small weight could even include some stomach content! The only specimen that was classified as in good condition was an old female of 12 years old that weighed 80 kg.

So, the problem is how representative are these weights for the entire population. Are all these tigers in such a bad conditions? Tigers in the area are breading, which means that at least some territorial specimens most be in best condition, check this images, specially the first one, check the size compared with the man at the top of the cage:

*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

These animals, although small, don't look so thin or in bad shape as the captured specimens in the list. However, at least that some specimen could be captured in they natural environment, we will be unable to know if this is the "normal" situation, physically speaking. Let's remember that the largest prey available in this area is the chital deer of 50 kg and the wild boar, slightly smaller.

For comparison purposes, if we calculate and average weight "overall" of the modern Bengal tigers (including Sundarbans) we get an average figure of 200 kg (n=21) for males and 123 kg (n=34) for females.

---

RE: Bengal Tiger Vs Amur Tiger, comparison analysis base on modern theories - BoldChamp - 10-31-2015

Its about a tie in my opinion. They are both similar in size, fight in precisely the same manner, etc.

---

RE: Bengal Tiger Vs Amur Tiger, comparison analysis base on modern theories - Apollo - 11-04-2015

Hi guys,

Ive never replied in this thread before.
I personally think this thread is necessary, only for debating purpose.
Many people say that Amurs are bigger than Bengals.
But I dont think so
I would say Bengals are either equal or infact bigger than Amurs.
Bengals always been the bigger cat historically and in present.
Amurs are never bigger in height or length than bengals.
Its just an assumption.
Ive seen many captive amurs and bengals (captive and wild).
I like to say just one thing for you folks you got to see a wild bengal tiger from (north east, north west and north of india) before saying an amur is bigger than bengal.


These Bengals are taller and longer than amurs and lions (south africa).

---

RE: Bengal Tiger Vs Amur Tiger, comparison analysis base on modern theories - Dr Panthera - 11-04-2015

(11-04-2015, 07:44 PM)Apollo Wrote: Hi guys,

Ive never replied in this thread before.
I personally think this thread is necessary, only for debating purpose.
Many people say that Amurs are bigger than Bengals.
But I dont think so
I would say Bengals are either equal or infact bigger than Amurs.
Bengals always been the bigger cat historically and in present.
Amurs are never bigger in height or length than bengals.
Its just an assumption.
Ive seen many captive amurs and bengals (captive and wild).
I like to say just one thing for you folks you got to see a wild bengal tiger from (north east, north west and north of india) before saying an amur is bigger than bengal.


These Bengals are taller than amurs and lion (south africa).

As a general rule African lions are the tallest, Amur tigers are the longest, and Bengal tigers are the most robust of cats, there is however a great deal of overlap.
Unfortunately large samples of scientific accurate measurements are only available from Russia, the Serengeti, and Kruger, all scientific records of Bengal tigers are from small samples 2 to 17 which are statistically irrelevant.
I believe with a larger sample of Bengal tiger records an accurate range that includes 80% of the animals can be estimated..so we could say that 80% of the males of Amur,Bengal, and lions are in the range of 180 to 210 kg and 80% of the females would be 110-140 kg , I would want a sample of over one hundred specimens to support that.
I do not understand the fascination of " the largest" male around and all the debate and fuss about it..the territorial males at their prime and largest size do not comprise more than 3% of the total tiger or lion population, the largest scientifically measured tigerT105 in Chitwan 261 kg is as relevant as 72 kg ten year old Sumatran tiger ( Sunquist and Prianta respectively ).
In tiger ecology, research, and conservation all tigers matter, and in estimating feeding requirements, necessary prey base, and home range we consider the females of a species and not the males. Tigresses from Bengal and Amur eco types and lionesses are roughly the same 110-140 kg and they are what matters the most.

---

RE: Bengal Tiger Vs Amur Tiger, comparison analysis base on modern theories - GuateGojira - 11-04-2015

@Dr Panthera, check this topic: http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-the-king-of-the-tigers

That is the original topic about the comparison, there is all the available data. My conclusion was that they are of the same size overall, with slight differences probably caused by sample size.

Greetings.

---

RE: Bengal Tiger Vs Amur Tiger, comparison analysis base on modern theories - Pckts - 11-04-2015

Technically the largest were 272kg(bottomed out scale) and others bottomed out at 227kg, so true sizes are more than listed. (excluding adjustments)
I don't believe the idea that these cats represent "3%" of the total species available data, unless of course you are including sub adults, females and cubs as well as different sub species.

Out of the males that were adults and measured, ones ranging over the 220kg mark are quite abundant. Much more than 3%, so if we were using the 220kg mark as a gauge for "Large" of course, just figured it seemed like a good number to consider large, since its over the average mark we have available. 
We can only use the sample size available, if you were to use semi reliable hunting records, these marks are actually fairly similar.
We can now add 4 more males to the sample size of 240kg+, 220kg, 185kg, 220kg if we want to.

---