WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
@GuateGojira you seems to be familiar about tigers of norther india. It also seems to me like the bengal tiger in the west are of genetically smaller specimen. As it wouldn't suprise me due to logistical challenges and convience they would catch tigers from sundarbans region which is near bay of bengal which was a big hub during that time and british strongerhold from early days. If the tigers near the Himalayas are truely bigger. I don't know the history of when did those bengal tigers were transported, but if it was before 19th century i doubt they even had much acess to the Norther region. North east india was pretty wild place. Kumaon where stories of big tigers occur was part of nepal. And foreigners werenot allowed in nepal till 1950s. British got those territory only in 1816 even there transporting such cargo from such far seems challenging Also the terai was all dense forest people wouldn't even want to live there due to malaria and British didn't even had control over it and they designated it as lawless land. Also malayan tigers were classified as bengal tigers everything point the me the forementioned possibility.
Idk much about this topic. So i look forward hearing to what you think about this. Also do you have information on size of bengal tigers in jawalakhel zoo, it a zoo in nepal. Although the tigers are kept in poor conditions they are not small at all. I found a article that said they put tiger in fasting after one got to 220kg. Im curious on how big they are now.  (06-26-2021, 12:25 PM)Khan85 Wrote: However, my doubt was regarding the capture of these animals, precisely how many of them were captured. Actually, I did not consulted Dr Sunquist about this, but read almoust all the available documents about the tigers captured in Nepal. There is no doubt that Seidensticker-Sunquist-Smith captured several tigers in Nepal, but the total of radiocollared tigers was 26, and those are the tigers used in the document of 1983. Recaptures were included, that is why the samples look bigger, but between 1973 to 1980, only 26 specimens were darted and radiocollared. Certainly, after 1980, other tigers we're captured but not radiocollared, as these animals were not darted for study porpuses, but because they were problematic animals (remember that after 1980, the population of tigers increased in Chitwan and the man-eaters phenomenon first started in the región).
Khan85
David Smith won't answer email. You need to know that university professors are receiving 100s emails per day. Especially if he study big carnivores, then he is receiving tons of emails. His university is also huge university. I am sure he is reviving more than 100 emails everyday. This is the same for Dr. Sunquist, but I heard Dr. Sunquist is really nice guy from few people who went to the UF. Not sure about Smith guy. Just because they're studying tigers doesn't guarantee that they are nice people. (I saw this from jaguar people) I know some people are writing emails professors to work big cats for their studies without knowing their mentor levels and personalities. You shouldn't work with the person if he or she is a douche even if he or she is studying your favorite animals.
I already wrote about this.... I don't think northern Bengals like Terai and Assam (not sure Assam is northern bengal) are bigger than other Bengals besides Sundarban tigers.
They are all similar size. It depends on each individual. Even for Chitwan in the 1970-1980s, they were similar sizes to tigers in other India. M105, M026 (I think this one is typo), and another tiger in the 1990s were only male tigers I could be sure that they were 225-270 kg range. But I heard one different story about M105 or Sauraha tiger was not 270 kg since measuring scale was only up to 225 kg in the 1970s. But I am sure he was definitely close to 270 kg consider he was over 225 kg and big animals can increase 40 kg if they eat a lot. Other males were around 190-210 kg. If I see their pictures with humans, I didn't find that northern bengals are bigger than other tigers in central India and south India. I could feel that western India like tigers in Ranthambore seems slender. But I am sure they are also similar length and height as other Bengal tigers. Anyone could find original tigers in Sariska, it will be great. Their territory size and main prey are generally similar. What makes northern Bengals are actually bigger than other Bengals tigers? South India is really humid and hot. West India is also hot but very dry. Northern India can be cold in winter. That's why northern Bengal tigers have thicker furs, but western Bengal tigers and southern Bengal tigers look slender. What makes them northern Bengals are actually biggest of all tigers? Pity that shameful people like french, british, japanese made all of disputes like civil wars and genocide in Asia. This created a black hole for both wild animals and people, especially Southeast Asia. If you study about the world history, these nations must need to be equal level as Germany during the ww2. I always feel like politicians in Asia needs to make more strict laws for those colonial country's people to not get to work (even tourists from those countries must need to pay extra money) animals belong to each Asian countries. They (like Kitchner and Yamaguchi) even tried to ruin our tigers by making 2 subspecies nonsense. Hybridization can offer badly in this case to increase genetic diversity and make white tigers. Why are they interested about animals of Asia instead of worrying about animals in their countries. They are also UK and Japan who created all bunch mess in Asia. It's surprise that Asia don't have high crime rates unlike in central/south american countries while both people are clearing animals from poverty. Most countries in Africa and Asia are well-aware about this these days. That's why it's getting more more difficult to study animals since they are not easily allowing foreigners to study animals belong to their countries. Like African countries were pressured back as that they will withdrew CITES about selling elephants to China and Dubai after CITES is pressuring Africa. Wealthy counties are not even helping financially, but that's their business between Africa and Cites... As for me and our tigers... We CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING about tigers and leopards in Asia because of them (those 3) that everyone are interested in animals belong to Asia. I think Goodrich is wrong about "overrated" size about Amur tigers. He is person living in 20th-21th century. He never been/exist when tigers were so common. There's no doubt that prey base were higher in the past, and I am sure Amur tigers were not overrated as Goodrich's belief. If we use today's knowledge in Russia, then tigers couldn't survive in small Korean Peninsula even in the past. So Goodrich was wrong if I see historical background and history of Northeast Asia. The funny thing is that John Goodrich is normally staying in the USA now. He rarely goes to Asia to actually get work tigers (especially these days after coronavirus came from China). People like him are top scientist. These people are generally managing conservation works, involve in public media, helping grant writing, editing as peer-review journals, statistics while rangers in Asia are doing all of hard works to save tigers. They also never see wild tigers since it's not easy to see wild tigers besides India and Nepal. But people (even wildfact users) just believe top scientists because of their fame even though they almost never see wild tigers. I will be honest that he probably doesn't know tiger individuals like Munna, Bamera, Ustad, Madla, Wagdoh, because that's not what their interests. They are more interest to saving populations. They are not interest in our interests like size, old records, and each individuals. It's possible that we probably have more knowledge about these than top tiger biologists just publishing peer-review journals. I remember Pcket user and someone in Finland was arguing about this topic, I side Pcket about this. Tiger biologists don't know much about wild tigers compare to villagers, photographers, guides, naturalists, drivers working for tiger national parks in India unles we are talking about something that involves in statistics, genetics and science. They are more spending their times to writing grants and journals, solving statistics, editing while hiring other people to do field works in general. They also involve in field work, but they are generally doing completely different things than most people think.
@GuateGojira Hello, I’ve seen the data you have have presented here and your data is just undisputable.
However, I have a question regarding the 389kg Royal Bengal Tiger specimen. Don’t you think that estimating it’s weight at 322kg could be an underestimation since it’s very unlikely for a tiger to have 67kg of stomach content especially when he was said to have eaten about 7 hours prior to the time he was hunted?? Perhaps about 355-360kg could be more accurate in this case (11-20-2021, 01:22 PM)LonePredator Wrote: However, I have a question regarding the 389kg Royal Bengal Tiger specimen. Talking about the Smithsonian tiger is like a rabbit hole, too many things to take un count. I tried to make a good post about this specimens but I never got the time. I can tell you that a big male tiger can eat up to 35 kg in 24 hours, confirmed, but regularly is between 14 - 19 kg, including big males. The Smithsonian tiger certainly could not eat over 45 kg, that is an exageration, but based on the facts that I have, it seems that the weight itself is also exagerated or taken with an innacurate scale I will provide more details on this case. (06-26-2021, 06:51 AM)peter Wrote: Discussions about the size of wild tigers is serious business. Not a few of those interested have an agenda. Meaning they doubt everything not to their liking. Biologists also are involved in debates about the size of big cats. Goodrich said wild Amur tigers are 'overrated' and Kitchener and Yamaguchi had serious doubts about the weight of the Sauraha tiger. They think he was baited when he was weighed. This means they doubt information published by their peers. Like I said, it's serious business. There are two points that I will like to take in count: 1 - Dr Goodrich on Amur tigers: There is no doubt the the US-Russian scientists that worked with the Siberian Tiger Project made an excelent work. The measurements and weights that they recorded showed that the reputation of the Amur tiger as the biggest of the cats was not correct in modern days. However, they also accepted that some old records were also reliable and shows that at some point the Amur tigers were as big as the current Bengal tigers. In fact, my studies shows that both cats are of the size, with skulls of c.380 mm in GL and weights of around 250 - 270 kg. So I think that Dr Goodrich is correct if we use only the records from the STP, but since then, the Amur Tiger Programme directed only by Russian scientists has found heavier tigers in other regions from the Amur river, showing that this population is probably incresing in size and at some point maybe they will reach they old size and I think that this will happen probably in the Manchurian region or in the Russian border with China as in this area is where the old records of giant tigers were the most, not in the Sikhote Alin region. 2 - About the Sauraha tiger: Dr Kitchener and Dr Yamaguchi worked in a chapter of the book "Tigers of the World" from 2010 and there they say that they found that the figure of 261 kg for the heaviest Nepalese tiger is not reliable as the tiger was baited and could weight as low as 215 kg! Sadly, this shows that they have no idea of what the scientists from the Smithsonian/Nepalese tiger project was doing in Chitwan NP. * First, it is not only ONE tiger that reached that figure but TWO, the males M-105 and M-126, both captured by the scientists team between 1973 until 1980. * Second, the claim that all tigers were baited or even gorged is incorrect. The document of Dr Dave Smith and colleges from 1983 clearly says that while baits were used to lure the tigers, many of them were captured some times without baits and only using the radiocollar signal and those specimens were obviously those that had more time under the study, and male M-105 nicknamed the "Sauraha male" is a perfect candidate as it was captured at least 4 times as we know. * Third, they assume that the tiger was gorged with at least 46 kg! This is nonesence. Again, Dr Tamang in his document of 1982 clearly says that the maximum amount ate by a tiger, that they actually recorded, was of 34 kg, and Dr Sunquist in his paper of 1981 says that the average amount consumed by a tiger in 24 hours is between 14 - 19 kg. In this case, it is possible that Dr Yamaguchi based his claim in the fact that Dr Schaller estimated that the maximum amount that a tiger can eat in 24 hours is about 1/5 of its weight, which Dr Sunquist estimated was about 45 kg for a large male (his large male was about 225 kg in his calculation). However the truth is that Dr Schaller recorded only ONE meal for a male tiger and was of 27 kg in a day, and Dr Sunquist says that he don't remember any tiger that was gorged in the moment of the weighing, which definitelly discard the figure of 34 kg for any of the tigers captured. We must remember that the tigers, when captured, they were disturbed from they kills and they probably did not eat in full, so the idea that the large M-105 had 45 kg in his stomach is something out of question. * Forth, the tiger (or tigers as there were two) did NOT weighed 261 kg but they bottomed the scale of 600 pounds used by the team! This fact was confirmed by Dr Dave Smith and Dr Eric Dinerstein, which mention that both males weighed over 270 kg. In this case, IF the idea of Dr Yamaguchi was real, these males could weight as low as 227 kg, not the 215 kg that he proposed. But as we know that these males were obviously not gorged (and probably not even baited in the case of M-105), we can use the figures reported by Dr Sunquist (between 14 - 19 kg) to estimate its empty belly weight and using the figure of 272 kg as the real weight, the "empty" figure will be about 256 kg, but as the scale was bottomed, this shows that there was extra weight and they could have actually weighed no less than 260 kg "empty". Interestingly, the figure of 261 kg came from an chest girth-weight equation and the figure that I estimate is about the same, so the figure of 261 kg do not represent a single heavilly-gorged specimen as Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) suggest, but the weight of two big males empty belly. This shows how important is to know the background of a situation before to make assumptions, but sadly they statements are published already and most of the people will ignore the facts that I described above because they are not in a book, but scatered in several documents.
Body mass of the Bengal tiger - UPDATE:
Ok people, I finally had the time to update the information about the size and weight of the Bengal tiger. I made the entire tables again, measurements and weights, and I corrected some values using new information, specially that from Nepal and re-ordered other specimens depending of they locality. The results do not change to much, specially in the average figures but is important to mention that all the averages are "weighed" this time, so the results are the weighed average of all the populations, including Sundarbans. This is the result: IMAGE UPDATED As you can see, the variation with or without Sundarbans is very few, so we can conclude that overall the historic and modern specimens together had an average of abouth 200 kg in males and 132 kg in females. This values are the one that I used in the new image of all the tiger subspecies/populations. Please check that I use the 5 males from central India that were confirmed to others posters but not by me. I decided to include them but I put a note about that (it says "Yet to confirm") and about the male of 285 kg reported by Dr Jhala, I estimate it at 250 kg "empty" for calculation purposes, but could be heavier definitelly. Also, in the sections were there are too many references you can go the the square below and with the color you can see which are the references for those values. Now, here is the new updated comparative image of the tiger populations: IMAGE UPDATED Please save this one and delete the old one (check that this one has the WildFact Logo and the date is from 2022). Also the average of the Amur and the Indochinese tigers are weighed too (more details in the Amur tiger figures in a future post). Finally, you can see that in the Bengal tiger section, all the sources are for measurements, the ones of the weights are recorded under Valvert (2022) and is the image above. So the old PDF documents from Scrib that some people still quote is no longer correct or reliable, you can delete it and same only these images from 2022. Now, as many people do not like the old records because they may include young or old-ill specimens, or simply because they do not believe in them, I made two tables only with modern records, the first is for Bengal only and the second one is a comparison with all the populations where tigers has been captured and weighed, no hunting records in these ones and certainly only adults over 3 years old. IMAGE UPDATED IMAGE UPDATED So, this is the information that I have for the moment. If I get more data I will updated again. I will like to address something that I think is important, normally we only focus in the average figures but as other poster mentioned, the average may change and are not fix. Other figure that we don't see is the Mode, which is the value that is more common in a sample and from the group that I have I found two modes, one at 190 kg and other at 225 kg. Now, when I made a distribution and frequency table, check what I found:  *This image is copyright of its original author The biggest number of animals are recorded in the range between 220 - 230 kg, which suggest that most of the prime males are in this area. Also, according the Dr Jhala, adult males over 4 years weight between 200 - 260 kg, and in modern records there are no males less than 180 kg, which again suggest that the value of 200 kg may be an underestimation. Finally, check that for reliability purposes, the maximum weights accepted are those from the males from Nepal (272+ overall and 261 adjusted), but here is the list of the other specimens that are heavier than them:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is an screenshot of one of my old posts, there is more information about them. And just to let you know, If I include this exceptional males, the average overall increase only up to 203 kg, so no big deal. I don't take in count the Smithsonian tiger, I will make a post about it soon. I will like to know more about the males captured in Ranthambore and Tadoba, as those were full grow adult males, but for the moment this is what I have. Greetings and cheers.  (05-17-2015, 10:22 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Comparison image: Hi Guate The shoulder height of the Amur tiger being 95 cm tall, and the head-body length being 195 cm, it seems a little longer than the proportion 2, usually tigers are qround 1.85-1.93, have the height of the Amur tiger been updated? I think it should be 97-99 cm, not as short as 95 as it seems not proportional to its body length? (01-23-2022, 03:27 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: Hi Guate Good observation, and actually there is a situation there. The head-body length of the Amur tigers was measured, apparently, over curves, maybe not to exagerated as the old records, but still there should be a difference of at leas 10 cm, so the head-body straigh is about 180+ cm. In that case the shoulde height is correct, but in a video that I saw it shows that the arm of the measured tiger was not straight and was measured in sections, so that will provide an underestimation of the true height, that means that the shoulde height could be higher. But for the moment, this is the data that we have.  (01-20-2022, 09:15 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Body mass of the Bengal tiger - UPDATE: Thanks for the informations. I generally believe "modern" bengal tigers are around 210 kg or 205 kg idk. I have been active on tigers for a while and the datas are usable but not that kind of stuff were i would say "gotcha" , which i hope happens in the future. As i know Cristiansen provided apparently a sample of 13 Bengal tigers with a weight of 213 kg, 35 African lions with a weight of 203 kg (Both bengals and african lions were mostly wild) and Siberian Tigers with a weight of 227 kg n=17 (50% wild and 50% captive)... the wild ones were 206 kg if i remeber it. But i doubt anyone will do a research just based on body size like Smuts (he did other things as well but you get my point) did on lions. Branders data is maybe comparable but i digress. There arent many tigers to do such kind of intensive study. IDK if you included it but Habib actually replied someone that he weighed a male of 180 kg and his heaviest was 240 kg, which has to be the RTR tiger named T24 Ustaad. Also i noticed the difference between collaring and rescuing, treatment a bit. For collaring they will use standard - big ones or better said those who are "worth" being tracked. Whiles the ones in recues are generally smaller (not always smaller) mainly also bcs of the non terretorial tigers. Thats the conclusion i got from the numbers. Also idk if you were aware of that but the c.285 kg male of Dr. Jhala was the male named Punchkatta who broke the 225 kg scale when he was weighed. The male was from my enquiries also reliable as Dr. Jhala confirmed it to me. Here is the mail Shadow got from Jhala and the user Khan85 got the weight of c.285 kg.  *This image is copyright of its original author Also i wouldnt adjust these gorged specimens and just let them with a note. Gorged generally is between 20-30 kg so the estimated empty weight of 250 kg would represent then the minimum empty stomach weight. Appreciate your work and tables. (01-26-2022, 02:09 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Thanks for the informations. Great information and I appreciate the feedback. In fact, I am aware of all the points that you mention it here, so let me share my point of view on them. 1 - At this moment, with the sample of 27 males that I have (5 still not confirmed to me directly) I got an average weight of 220 kg. This, of course, may change if we have more specimens in the future, which I hope so. 2 - I will love to see the samples of Dr Christiansen, specially to check the sources. I will also would like to see the references for the Amur tigers and check how he got such a large average (in relation with mine) for the population, is he including new weights from the Amur Tiger Programme? This are the things that I will like to know in order to use his information. Dr Christiansen is a very reliable person. 3 - The study of Smuts is impecable, but could not be done with tigers, not in the same form. Dr Smuts used hunted lions too in his sample, so he could be 100% sure if the animal had or not stomach content. This can't be done with modern tigers, and the only one that more or less done it was the Maharaja of Cooch Behar, which is the only one that took the time to report the tigers that were gorged and those that were empty belly. 4 - From mister Habib, I still don't have the pleasure to speak with him (I will love to do it!), but I am informed by a second person about the reliability of the weight of 240 kg for tiger Ustad (in fact, is included in my tables), but I do not know about the male of 180 kg. I will like to have more details about the tigers of Ranthambore, specially by the fact that Dr Jhala said that those are particularly large. 5 - About the difference between "rescued" and "studied", I noted that with the Sundarbans tigers. In fact ALL the tigers in my sample from that area are "rescued" or "problematic" specimens, some of them even unable to hunt. Sadly, those are the only ones reported and that is why I still use them. I am sure that healthy Sundarbans tigers may be a little heavier, like the Sumatran tigers, but for the moment this is what I have. Other thing, I noted that Indian scientist do not like to much to share they information, but it will be perfect if one of them, in the future maybe, could make a document like those from the Siberian Tiger Project, which include all the detaiils of they captures. 6 - Finally, about the tiger of 285 kg reported by Dr Jhala, I will like more information about it too, but actually I do decided to include it in my tables. Now, I adjusted it at 255 kg, folllowing Dr Karanth that substracted 30 kg from his tigers, so I think that for the moment the figure of 255 kg "empty" is accurate. And is also included already in the sample of Central India.  (01-26-2022, 07:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:The 185kg male was Gabbar from Tadoba.(01-26-2022, 02:09 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Thanks for the informations. This was confirmed to me as well as Jai's weight of 220kg empty, Choti Tara at 85kg, and her two male cubs at 162 and 173 (01-26-2022, 10:27 PM)Pckts Wrote: The 185kg male was Gabbar from Tadoba. Ohhhh, in that case Gabbar is already included, no problem. I included Jai too. So, no new male for the moment. (01-26-2022, 10:27 PM)Pckts Wrote:(01-26-2022, 07:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:The 185kg male was Gabbar from Tadoba.(01-26-2022, 02:09 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: Thanks for the informations. No, The male i was talking about is a different one. One user asked about the range of the adult tigers BH collared and the answer was 180-240 kg. I found the picture here it is |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 11 Guest(s) |