Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[Pantherinae]

(05-21-2015, 01:08 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(05-21-2015, 12:35 AM)'Pantherinae' Wrote: Hey every tiger fanatics and experts I was having a discussion with another bigcat entusiast today and we where discussing who's the biggest know atleast male tiger in the past 10-15 years. Except kaziranga tigers

I was thinking to Ask you guy's? Who do you think is the 10 biggest male and can you try to estimate their weights? (I know it's pointless to estimate, but would still be interesting to hear you're thought's


 

As you stated, its absolutely impossible to tell for sure.
I wont even try to guess, I think if we exclude Kaziranga, Terrai Arc, Corbett, Dudwa etc.

I'm saying that Jai is the largest tiger I have seen but its impossible to know for sure.

 

yeah it would be hard to say for sure! 

you think Jai is bigger than Wagdoh? I did not think of Jai, but he's surely massive and looks like a bigger framed tiger than Wagdoh.  
I said Wagdoh or Madla (Madla is what I would call the perfect tiger, tall, long and very muscular) earlier, the other guy said Munna, but that can't be right?

   Reply

[Pckts]

(06-27-2015, 04:58 AM)'illkilla' Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

chest day boys!

 

Where is this guy from?

Big tiger for sure. 
  Reply

[Pckts]

(06-30-2015, 06:08 AM)'illkilla' Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

 

Just wild tigers and try to give a description of where the tiger is from, etc.

  Reply

[Pckts]

(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. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
 

 

Im discussing the Amur comparision with Warsaw and he is stating that its not correct because Amurs were measured over the curves while bengals where measured between the pegs.
Im just curious if all Amurs used were between the pegs or curves, if the sizes were adjusted, etc.

Thanks Guate

  Reply

[tigerluver]

@Pckts, Kerley et al. (2005?) cites Nowell and Jackson (1996) as a guide for measurements. Here is the picture from that document on p. 315:

*This image is copyright of its original author

And here is Nowell and Jackson (1996): http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/fil...ldcats.pdf Reply

[Pckts]

(07-27-2015, 11:19 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: @Pckts, Kerley et al. (2005?) cites Nowell and Jackson (1996) as a guide for measurements. Here is the picture from that document on p. 315:

*This image is copyright of its original author

And here is Nowell and Jackson (1996): http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/fil...ldcats.pdf

 

Thank you, so it looks like its done in a straight line.
  Reply

[GuateGojira]

(07-27-2015, 10:31 PM)Pckts Wrote:

GuateGojira\ dateline='\'1431840172' 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. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
 

 

Im discussing the Amur comparision with Warsaw and he is stating that its not correct because Amurs were measured over the curves while bengals where measured between the pegs.
Im just curious if all Amurs used were between the pegs or curves, if the sizes were adjusted, etc.

Thanks Guate

 

@tigerluver made an excellent explanation, so I will only support his words. The specimens measured by the Siberian Tiger Project (S.T.P.) were taken in a straight line, like the document of Nowell & Jackson (1996) stated. This is clearly explained by Kerley et al. (2005), however in the same debate in AVA, Warsaw claimed that this was not the case, although he was unable to provide evidence, only his/her weird and long posts. However, I showed the direct evidence, provided photographs and it was showed that in fact, those tigers were measured in straight line.

In my comparative image, I used only body measurements from the S.T.P. for the Amur tiger because I was unable to found the original sources of the "old" measurements quoted by Heptner & Sludskii, and at the end, my previous tables here showed that there is no significant difference between the body of the "old" and the "modern" Amur tigers, the difference is only in the weight and obviously the chest girth. Reply

[Pckts]

Im just going to post what Warsaw posted here

[u][i]"In my comparative image, I used only body measurements from the S.T.P. for the Amur tiger because I was unable to found the original sources of the "old" measurements quoted by Heptner & Sludskii,"[/u][/i]

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

From Mammals of the Soviet Union Geptner et al.
Page 138,139
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/...7/mode/1up






Per warsaw. Reply

[GuateGojira]

Warsaw always twist the data and the words of others.

Like you most remember (and all the people that have followed this forum since the beginning), I explained very well why I used the data from Heptner & Sludskii, as it was the only one available with body measurements from the old records. Peter and I had discussions about the reliability of the data, however we get to the conclusion that the measurements were "useful" and at some point, more or less reliable.

However, for that same reason, I only used the measurements from the Siberian Tiger Project in my comparative image, because they are the only 100% reliable and if we compare the old and new sizes, they are about the same, indepently if the "old" measurements were taken "over curves" or "between pegs". Now, if the old sizes result to be taken over curves or not, we can't be sure, as the table of Heptner & Sludskii is full with mistakes, like most of the Russian literature. Is like Valliant said: in the old Russia, there was a thin like between the "story" and the "legend". Warsaw and his twists is the best example of this.

Now, what Warsay is trying to prove is that my image of 2015 include this "old" measurements, which is not the case. He/she is so stupid that he/she can see that the measurements of Heptner & Sludskii are only included in my document of the size of the Amur tiger (the one that I constantly actualize), and are there only for comparison. Sadly, Warsaw is unable to see beyond his/her biased nose.

The experience has show that is silly to discuss with Warsaw, because he/she never listen to the evidence and constantly run in circles, so I stay with the evidence: Amur tigers were measured in straight line and the document of Kerley et al. (2005) clearly say it, as they used Nowell & Jackson (1996) as base for method of the measurements. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(05-02-2015, 09:02 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Body size of the Amur tiger - version 2015:

Here are my new tables about the size of the Amur tiger, actualized at 2015, with all the records that I could found at this date.

This new version have some corrections from previous ones, besides it includes the table of the historic specimens, in order to show the variation among the subspecies in time. In the case of the modern males, I used the average data from Kerley et al. (2005) in some measurements, because it had a larger sample, and by extension, more representative. With modern tigresses, despite the equal sample size and data, my average values were not the same than those of Dr Kerley, so I used mine, as are based in the same data published by her in 2005.

Erase the old versions that you already have and save this new one, together with the attached document (also available in Scribd).

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Enjoy the reading. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
 

This is what I am talking about. Check that there is no mixed data, those from the modern studies (table 1 and 2) are completely separated from those of the "old" records (table 3 and 4). Besides, the objective of the inclusion of the "old" records is to see how little, if any, variation has been in body size for this tiger population.

Interesting to see that Warsaw always said that the data from tigers in the old literature is unreliable, but that of the bears doesn't. He don't even deserve my attention. Let him/her bark in Carnivora, I am not interesting in discussing with a biased ignorant. Reply

[Pckts]

@GuateGojira

Does this report https://www.panthera.org/sites/default/f...13-025.pdf
have anything to do with the tigers used on the table presented?

The names of the scientist here are not used as references so I wanted to make sure.
Warsaw is trying to say they are involved in the measurements used, I also don't see any mention of being measured "over the curves" on the report but he said they are.

Thanks for your time. Reply

[GuateGojira]

Check that the document don't mention anything about measurements. Warsaw only quote this document because of the picture, specially by the fact that the tape seems loose in the back of the tigress. HOWEVER, the problem with Warsaw statements is that no photograph show the act of measuring, what we see here is Nikolai placing the tape over the back before the tape been stretched over the back. If Linda Kerley and all her team wrote that the tigers were measured in straight line, following the protocols established by Nowell & Jackson (1996), of course that I will believe in them.

Warsaw is just trashing the tiger, like always, so I suggest to you to ignore him, he is not important. Reply

[Pckts]

(08-12-2015, 09:01 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Check that the document don't mention anything about measurements. Warsaw only quote this document because of the picture, specially by the fact that the tape seems loose in the back of the tigress. HOWEVER, the problem with Warsaw statements is that no photograph show the act of measuring, what we see here is Nikolai placing the tape over the back before the tape been stretched over the back. If Linda Kerley and all her team wrote that the tigers were measured in straight line, following the protocols established by Nowell & Jackson (1996), of course that I will believe in them.

Warsaw is just trashing the tiger, like always, so I suggest to you to ignore him, he is not important.

Also, that document only captured Tiger cubs outside of a tigress with cubs who was killing dogs.
None of the tigers nor the people involved with the report are used on your tables. Reply

[GuateGojira]

Those people are not quoted because they are not primary sources, nor they published anything directly. I quote the writer of the articles, and we believe in them, after all, what reason they could have to lie about how they measure they cats? It is illogical to think otherwise. Reply

[Pckts]

@GrizzlyClaws @Kingtheropod

So is the Baikal that was killed the same Baikal that weighed 850lbs?

Here is what warsaw showed on his stud book and what not

*This image is copyright of its original author

name Baikal (Birth Date:3 Sep 1995)
Toronto Zoo= Birth 3 Sep 1995
ST JOHN =Cherry Brook Zoo Transfer 4 Jul 1997
WINNIPEG = Assiniboine Park Zoo Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada=Transfer 5 Jun 2009

General Contact Information:
Cherry Brook Zoo Inc.
901 Foster Thurston Drive
Saint John, NB E2K 5H9
http://www.cherrybrookzoo.com/contact.html

"Baikal was on loan from a Toronto zoo and arrived in Winnipeg in 2009 from Cherry Brook Zoo in Saint John, N.B. for the purpose of mating"
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/09/25/ti...e-park-zoo
Male tiger in NB heading to Winnipeg in hopes of mating with female in zoo
SAINT JOHN, N.B. - Every young man needs to move out of his parents' house and sow some wild oats.
Baikal the tiger is no different.
Baikal is a 12-year old Siberian tiger who has lived at the Cherry Brook Zoo in Saint John for 10 years in an enclosure with his 20-year old mother, Pam.
This is his last weekend at the.
http://www.obj.ca/Business/Agriculture/2...e-in-zoo/1

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply