DNA samples of Bengal tigers polluted by genes of the Siberian Tiger

[Pckts]

(06-20-2015, 04:24 AM)'Kingtheropod' Wrote:

(06-19-2015, 08:58 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: In fact @sanjay, Bengal and Amur tigers are/were of the same size and weight, in old and modern records. The fluctuations in weight came from the size of the samples and the reliability of the records. Most of the statements that the Amur tigers were larger came from the reports of Baikov and another few about "giant" specimens, but now those are considered unreliable.

Modern research and the few reliable records showed that although Amur tigers do weighed more in the past, they were of the same size than the modern ones, with the exception of the Jankovski tiger at 330 cm in length. However, this is a size also reached for Bengal tigers and in this last case, we do have reliable records of tigers that have exceeded 300 kg.

Finally, we can't trust in Mazák entirely, after all, like Yamaguchi said, Mazák was more guided by his heart than by the data. He used captive specimens for comparison, but those were no larger than the largest wild Bengals on record. Why he ignore those figures (like the giant tiger of Brander)? That is still beyond my understanding.

Check this topic for more details: http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-t...the-tigers

By the way, the Dudwa case was very old and India expended millions of dollars to keep them tigers pure and at the end, there are no longer Amur "genes" in they population. On the other hand, there is a report that suggest that Bengal tigers were introduced to Russia in the old days and that was the cause of the large size of the Amur tigers. So, there are "history" and "stories", but the evidence suggest that both populations, despite they largely different territory, reached the same body size, the same skull size and in some time, the same body weight.
 


 

The presence of siberian tiger genetics may explain why bengal tigers in the north of india are longer then tigers in the south. Indian tigers in the north likely have more amur genes then the south which would probably be devoid of siberian genes.

From my understanding, Amur tigers are longer then bengals generally from the tables you published, correct?



 

 

Head and body length is practically the same.
Far more individuals used for bengals than Amurs, thats why you see at the smallest length and at the largest length both belong to the Bengals. More Amur individuals will bring the numbers even closer together which they already are amazingly close to begin with.

No other bengals other than these two that were from a captive mother have had any Amur genitics in them, blood has been taken from numerous wild bengals and I know that I have never read anything about amur genes being found in Bengal tigers other than these two. 

Even the idea of "captive amurs" being larger is unfounded since there are no real measurements of Captive Bengals since all live in india. 
  Reply