There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(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.
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?
How is it possible for one tiger in one isolated reserve to pollute an entire population? In fact, Dudhwa National park and Katarniaghat wildlife sanctuary are not even contiguous, even though both are part of the Dudhwa tiger reserve. The Bengal tiger population is not one metapopulation, it is split into a lot of smaller sub populations that are isolated from one another. Please explain how can "siberian gentics" from one mixed tigress from Dudhwa pollute tiger gene pool from other reserves in the Terai like Corbett, Chitwan, Bardia and Rajaji? It seems like some people have decided that 'Siberian genetics' only can result in large tigers.
DNA samples of Bengal tigers polluted by genes of the Siberian Tiger
