+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Terrestrial Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-terrestrial-wild-animals)
+---- Forum: Wild Cats (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-wild-cats)
+----- Forum: Tiger (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-tiger)
+----- Thread: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur (/topic-who-is-the-king-of-tigers-bengal-or-amur)
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - GrizzlyClaws - 08-24-2022
The largest Amur in the history could perhaps dwarf any other Bengal except the Northeastern Bengal.
Unfortunately, they never got an opportunity to weigh any of those Assam monsters.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - Pckts - 08-24-2022
(08-24-2022, 02:18 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The largest Amur in the history could perhaps dwarf any other Bengal except the Northeastern Bengal.
Unfortunately, they never got an opportunity to weigh any of those Assam monsters.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Branders Tiger outsized any reliably measured wild Amur by a significant margin. Unfortunately Amurs data base is significantly smaller.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - GrizzlyClaws - 08-24-2022
(08-24-2022, 02:57 AM)Pckts Wrote:(08-24-2022, 02:18 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The largest Amur in the history could perhaps dwarf any other Bengal except the Northeastern Bengal.
Unfortunately, they never got an opportunity to weigh any of those Assam monsters.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Branders Tiger outsized any reliably measured wild Amur by a significant margin. Unfortunately Amurs data base is significantly smaller.
Many scientists don't want to risk their life to sedate any of those monsters, hence Amur's database still stuck with those smallish specimens from Sikhote-Alin.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - Pckts - 08-24-2022
(08-24-2022, 03:00 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(08-24-2022, 02:57 AM)Pckts Wrote:(08-24-2022, 02:18 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The largest Amur in the history could perhaps dwarf any other Bengal except the Northeastern Bengal.
Unfortunately, they never got an opportunity to weigh any of those Assam monsters.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Branders Tiger outsized any reliably measured wild Amur by a significant margin. Unfortunately Amurs data base is significantly smaller.
Many scientists don't want to risk their life to sedate any of those monsters, hence Amur's database still stuck with those smallish specimens from Sikhote-Alin.
It’s a shame since so many were hunted but never documented properly. Now they’re just a wasted fur rug somewhere.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - GrizzlyClaws - 08-24-2022
(08-24-2022, 03:12 AM)Pckts Wrote:(08-24-2022, 03:00 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(08-24-2022, 02:57 AM)Pckts Wrote:(08-24-2022, 02:18 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The largest Amur in the history could perhaps dwarf any other Bengal except the Northeastern Bengal.
Unfortunately, they never got an opportunity to weigh any of those Assam monsters.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Branders Tiger outsized any reliably measured wild Amur by a significant margin. Unfortunately Amurs data base is significantly smaller.
Many scientists don't want to risk their life to sedate any of those monsters, hence Amur's database still stuck with those smallish specimens from Sikhote-Alin.
It’s a shame since so many were hunted but never documented properly. Now they’re just a wasted fur rug somewhere.
Same applied to Bengal as we don't see any real monster got sedated, except the 550 pounds Madla which was a really old record, but none of the recent tigers got sedated.
But by judging the appearance of the recent Amur tigers, we can assume that they have become heavier and stockier as the wild condition of their natural habitat has been improved with more access to the rich protein.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - Leosingh008 - 08-24-2022
Hi guys, I'm new here. I wanted to give some good information about the male Siberian tiger Gamin, I spoke to Craig Kennion, and he stated that he weighed Gamin at 276 kg on an empty stomach can i send a screenshot?
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - Pckts - 08-24-2022
(08-24-2022, 04:03 AM)Leosingh008 Wrote: Hi guys, I'm new here. I wanted to give some good information about the male Siberian tiger Gamin, I spoke to Craig Kennion, and he stated that he weighed Gamin at 276 kg on an empty stomach can i send a screenshot?
Craig and Gamin are well known here. We’re taking about Wild Amurs.
Welcome Btw
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - LonePredator - 08-24-2022
(08-23-2022, 10:56 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: @GuateGojira
The length for the Siberian tiger is listed as 195 cm but is along the curves, right? So what would be a good length estimate for in a straight line? Is there a method?
Also the height of 95 cm I heard, is not the full height to the end of the paw from shoulder tip. So what would be a good full height?
I have noticed that the length in straight line is about 94-96% of the length over the curves so for a 195cm length over curves, the length in straight line should be about 185cm.
And one more thing is that subtracting any number from the ‘over curves length’ is not a good way to estimate the real length because if it’s a big Tiger then you’ll have to subtract more and if it’s a small Tiger then you’ll have to subtract less so subtracting a particular length will not give you the correct number.
I have noticed that a suitable relation between length over the curves and length in straight line is as follows:
Length(straight) = 0.95 x Length(curved)
Of course this can also vary many times, for example, in some Tigers it will be 0.93 and in some 0.95 but it should work better than the subtracting method.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - LonePredator - 08-24-2022
@GrizzlyClaws The record of the largest Bengal and likely the largest Tiger of all time (in terms of dimensions) came from Col. Ramsay who shot a Tiger in the Terai region in North India. This Tiger was 12 feet (365cm) in total length (over curves) and had a tail of 114cm.
So it was 251cm in head-body length over curves and the HB length in straight line should also be no less than at least 231cm going by Mazak’s 20cm for the largest Tiger. But from the relation I have seen between curved and straight length, it would probably be a little longer than 231cm.
This Tiger also had a chest girth of 160cm. This Tiger should dwarf any other Tiger ever recorded in terms of dimensions, whether Amur or Bengal.
And if we talk about the size of current Amurs and how ‘bulky’ they are, then we know that the Siberian Tigers in Primorye region in Russia are also bulky. Even the Tigers which were weighed in the Siberian Tiger Project were also bulky.
PT85 looked like a very healthy and bulky Tiger but only weighed 199kg while Luk who also looked bulky weighed 212kg.
Here is a Tiger T7 in Panna who is also very bulky but he only weighed 180kg. Here you can see what he looks like.
So I think the length and height would be a better indicator of the overall weight of the Tiger rather than bulkiness but to be completely sure, a real weight on a scale should be the only way to go.
From what we currently know about the Chinese Tigers, we can’t say anything about their size and we can’t really say that they are any bigger than the Russian Tigers or if they are as big as Bengals because 220-230kg is relatively common for Bengals and even weights upto 250kg don’t really seem that large for Bengals.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - GrizzlyClaws - 08-24-2022
This young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 was sedated in April 2021 when he was about 2 - 2.5 years old, and weighed about 225 kg.
He was hungry therefore attacked the villager nearby, therefore we can assume he was empty-bellied during the sedation.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - acutidens150 - 08-24-2022
(08-24-2022, 07:20 AM)LonePredator Wrote:(08-23-2022, 10:56 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: @GuateGojira
The length for the Siberian tiger is listed as 195 cm but is along the curves, right? So what would be a good length estimate for in a straight line? Is there a method?
Also the height of 95 cm I heard, is not the full height to the end of the paw from shoulder tip. So what would be a good full height?
I have noticed that the length in straight line is about 94-96% of the length over the curves so for a 195cm length over curves, the length in straight line should be about 185cm.
And one more thing is that subtracting any number from the ‘over curves length’ is not a good way to estimate the real length because if it’s a big Tiger then you’ll have to subtract more and if it’s a small Tiger then you’ll have to subtract less so subtracting a particular length will not give you the correct number.
I have noticed that a suitable relation between length over the curves and length in straight line is as follows:
Length(straight) = 0.95 x Length(curved)
Of course this can also vary many times, for example, in some Tigers it will be 0.93 and in some 0.95 but it should work better than the subtracting method.
Thanks for clearing my doubt!
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - JUJOMORE - 08-24-2022
More about Hassinger's tiger.
Normally the size of a large tiger skull corresponds to a large body size, although it is true that there is no exact correlation in such a way that the largest skull will not always belong to the largest tiger, although it can give us at least an approximation .
We have the measurements of the skull of Hassinger's tiger, 14 inches long by 9 inches wide, 23 inches totall (35.56 cm x 22.86 cm, 58.42 cm total) and we can compare them with the skulls recorded both in Rowland Ward, XXVII edition as well as in the SCI XII edition. Bearing in mind that not all the hunted tigers are recorded, we found no fewer than 34 bigger skulls at Rowland Ward, the largest of which was 16 ½ inches long, 11 ¼ wide, total 27 ¾ (41.91 cm x 28,575, total 70,485 cm) and another 7 more in the SCI. Apparently the skull that we have seems relatively small to belong to the largest measured tiger.
We can look for another reference, Bengt Berg, in his book "El tigre y el hombre", tells that the largest tiger he hunted, in Bengal, weighed 565 English pounds (256.5 Kg) and when freshly dead it measured "between pegs" nine feet and seven English inches (2,922 m). The same tiger, measured the next morning, with muscles already stiff, measured just nine feet four inches (2,845 m). This is probably the tiger that appears in Rowland Ward, hunted by this author in 1933, in the 14th position of the classification with a measurement of 14 11/16 x 10 7/16, total 25 ⅛ inches (37.3 cm x 26.51, total 63.5 cm) and so, we would also have one of the best records of skull size, length and weight of a specific tiger.
The same author says that the size of the hunted tigers not only influenced the prestige of the hunter, but also that of the host and sometimes that of the State, so when it came to princely hunts, a tape measure was sometimes used with Swedish inches (2.474 cm) shorter than English inches (2.54 cm) to get a few extra inches.
Rowland Ward, XXVII edition
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - Pckts - 08-24-2022
(08-24-2022, 07:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: This young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 was sedated in April 2021 when he was about 2 - 2.5 years old, and weighed about 225 kg.
He was hungry therefore attacked the villager nearby, therefore we can assume he was empty-bellied during the sedation.
Do you have any verification of his weight?
That would put him near the males weighed in Kanha at the same age who bottomed 225kg scales.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - LonePredator - 08-24-2022
(08-24-2022, 03:06 PM)Pckts Wrote:(08-24-2022, 07:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: This young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 was sedated in April 2021 when he was about 2 - 2.5 years old, and weighed about 225 kg.
He was hungry therefore attacked the villager nearby, therefore we can assume he was empty-bellied during the sedation.
Do you have any verification of his weight?
That would put him near the males weighed in Kanha at the same age who bottomed 225kg scales.
225kg is likely an estimate and not an actual weight. This weight came from a news website article. And on the other hand, another website article had claimed 200kg for this male so it’s most likely an estimate and not an actual weight. I’ll try to find the other article.
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - GrizzlyClaws - 08-25-2022
(08-24-2022, 03:06 PM)Pckts Wrote:(08-24-2022, 07:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: This young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 was sedated in April 2021 when he was about 2 - 2.5 years old, and weighed about 225 kg.
He was hungry therefore attacked the villager nearby, therefore we can assume he was empty-bellied during the sedation.
Do you have any verification of his weight?
That would put him near the males weighed in Kanha at the same age who bottomed 225kg scales.
He was sedated and captured alive, most likely got weighed by the authority.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-rare-siberian-tiger-caught-after-attacking-a-villager-in-heilongjiang-2422044