|
Experience with Wild Cats
|
You're right. The more fat part is probably true, it's a necessity for them. Though, maybe part of the reason is that all the giant Amurs we have on record date post 1940. I think's that the problem. They come from the population of only 20-30. The allegedly 325+ kg were pre-1940 for the most part. Yes, old records can be dubious, but throwing them out isn't the way to go either.
On the same token, maybe captive Bengals don't reach their wild maximum in captivity because the captive starter population was possibly inbred, and also lacked the large tiger genes. 
@Pckts
hello, the thing with the weight is that yeah maybe I'm a little sceptical, but it's no harm in that. as many here states, is animal not just at 300 kg, but even exceding that weight. 320-340 kg. Thats animals probably weighing 100 kg's more than bamera. And thats a massive difference in the same wild animal species and sex. Also National georapich. Said that wagdoh was 220 kg, is it sceptical to say I think thats an underestimation? When it comes to bengal and amur tigers. I do think the bengals are carrying a little more fat. Look at KZT-023 he is fat aswell as many other tigers from Kaziranga. i have never seen such fat induviduvals in the siberian sub species.  (07-03-2014, 03:14 AM)'Pantherinae' Wrote:Thats just for the Doc. Waghdoh has never been weighed. There are other docs that quote siberians at 700lbs or lions at 600lbs. They are simply over or underexagerations.'tigerluver dateline='' Wrote: I've never heard of Nat. Geo.'s estimation. Source please?
I think I found the title, "Secrets of Wild India: Tiger Jungles." Unfortunately, I can't find the footage anywhere. Though, it's likely Nat. Geo. was referring to Wagdoh as just a normal tiger, as in they do not recognize his identity, which is what they do commonly in their documentaries. They classify Bengal average 220 kg I believe. Nat. Geo. still sticks to the idea of your average Amur being 300 kg while being able to reach 409 kg. They did that for an average looking Amur tiger a while back I believe. I think the only documentary that recognized individual tigers was the "Tigers of Emerald Forest."
(07-03-2014, 03:26 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I think I found the title, "Secrets of Wild India: Tiger Jungles." Unfortunately, I can't find the footage anywhere. Though, it's likely Nat. Geo. was referring to Wagdoh as just a normal tiger, as in they do not recognize his identity, which is what they do commonly in their documentaries. Nat. Geo. still sticks to the idea of your average Amur being 300 kg while being able to reach 409 kg. They did that for an average looking Amur tiger a while back I believe. I think the only documentary that recognized individual tigers was the "Tigers of Emerald Forest." All of the Docs with weights quoted for lions or Tigers are pure estimates. The only doc that has a weight captured is the Madla documentory. Here is another guy on Youtube who also states Bamera being large but Waghdoh or Munna being 1.5x's the size of him. "Do you know that very large male tigers leave 20x20cm pugmark, with about 14-15cm paw width? Munna's paw width alone is around 20cm. Check out this vid for his sheer size and note the massive paws (in fact, everything about him is massive, especially the head): watch?v=mrT9PUp92fc Pattewala male is also similarly huge: watch?v=PyVh6BYJFNI Again, note the gigantic head size. Those are top-of-the-line tigers. Pattewala has been killed by poachers in mosoon 2010 though.  *This image is copyright of its original author asianbuffalo10 months ago in reply to marcus hagen "Bamera is not a good tiger to compare with huge males. what's so special about him? Someone who has seen Bamera first hand many times and never considered him anything more than "just a big guy not more than 9ft", has seen the Karai ghati male in kanha and surpised by his sheer size. Another said while Bamera is big, Munna is HUGE. Munna is 1.5 times the size of Bamera too, and is bigger even than Wagdoh. I don't care about weights, appearance-wise, huge males are easily 1.5x the size of Bamera"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqLmMMYIPMQ
Nice eye witness accounts. I've been under the impression that Kanha tigers weren't big except for Konda and his son (can't remember the name).
Munna being bigger than Wagdoh is a bit of a shock to me. Never expected Munna (his name meaning little boy) being that big. So in India, do you think it'd be just to say Tadoba and Kanha house the biggest specimens? Though, at the rate of poaching in Kanha (Konda, his son, Pattewala), we may lose that population.
Here is Munna, He certainly looks to be a Massive tiger though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEU_sewg1JI "Currently one of the dominant male tigers of Kanha National Park is a tiger named Munna. Munna is famous for his large size, big head and has symbol "CAT" written on his head." Wow, check this vid out. Start watching at 1:19 Munna is definitely a big boy and this is from June 14' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QL7oLZ1px0 Munna - Large male from Kanha Tiger Reserve  *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 http://wildtigerwatch.blogspot.com/2011/...tures.html  (07-02-2014, 10:03 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Also Peter, did you ever have a chance to compare captive and wild Bengal skulls? I know you stated they were denser than other species, was there any different between captive and wild? As I'm still working on the tables, I can't offer any details at the moment. In general (all big cats), wild skulls are a bit longer, narrower across the arches, more elevated at the orbit, very smooth in appearance (no superfluous growths anywhere) and more massive and heavier as a result of a high bone density. The teeth are usually larger, wider and stronger than in captive skulls. In large species and large (male) skulls, the difference between wild and captive is usually more pronounced than in smaller species and smaller skulls. Lion skulls seem to be more affected by captivity than tiger skulls. Captive lion skulls are quite a bit wider, relatively flatter and more rugged than wild skulls. In spite of all the extra growths, they are not as heavy as wild skulls. Same in general terms in tigers, but less outspoken. The Indian tiger skulls I saw were shorter than lion and Amur skulls, but relatively more massive. Watch the word 'relatively'. In absolutes, lion skulls top the list in most departments. Male tiger skulls of large subspecies, averagewise, have a wider rostrum, longer and larger canines and a more massive (not larger or higher) sagittal crest. I don't know why Indian skulls are relatively massive, but it is seen in both captive and wild skulls. Skulls, generally speaking, seem to confirm what is seen in photographs. Lions have relatively and absolutely large skulls and a big front (shoulder, chest and spine), but they lack the mass seen in tigers of similar size. This, however, is only true in Indian tigers. The differences between lions and other tiger subspecies seem to be very limited. 
I have been to Ranthambhore, Kanha, Kabini and Periyar. Saw 5 tigers in Ranthambhore, 4 in Kanha, none in kabini (but saw a cool leopard) and Periyar. Was very close to visiting the Masai Mara last year, but had to cancel the trip unfortunately
 .Want to visit Corbett this year hopefully. I just want to say that watching your favourite animal in the wild is the most amazing experience a wildlife lover can have. If you have a favourite animal, you must see it in its natural environment atleast once in your lifetime. 
@sanjay, Please do visit Corbett. If you live in India and love wildlife, you should try and visit as many as parks as possible, not just tiger reserves. You will be surprised at the stunning diversity of birds and animals our country has and the sheer beauty of our forests.
Regarding profession, I am stuck in a job, which restricts the frequency of visits I can make. And I don't have any volunteer experience. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 13 Guest(s) |