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

[AMG-DS]

(02-18-2021, 08:40 AM)peter Wrote:

(02-18-2021, 04:46 AM)AMG-DS Wrote:

(02-16-2021, 06:43 AM)peter Wrote:

(02-14-2021, 08:18 AM)AMG-DS Wrote: Does anyone have more information on this tiger?

https://tuoitrenews.vn/society/25561/vietnam-hotel-boss-nicked-for-buying-303kg-dead-tiger-to-make-bone-glue

I remember the report because of the remarkable weight of the tiger. I tried to find out more, but came up empty.

The image on the left corresponds to the tiger that weighed 303 kg, the image on the right corresponds to another tiger that weighed 120 kg. Both images show that similar weighing scales were used, and taking into account the green scales, we can compare sizes between the two specimens.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Below is an image showing dimensions on a scale similar to that shown in the image on the right side.

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
So, it can be concluded that the tiger that weighed 303 kg was clearly a large specimen.
What are your thoughts?

I knew about the pictures, but thought it wasn't quite enough to get to a conclusion. What is needed, is a photograph showing the scale, the tiger and, for comparison, a man. A clear statement of the official who was there when the tiger was weighed would also help.  

I, however, do not doubt Indochinese tigers can grow to a large size in some regions. Over the years, I bought a few French books and magazins published in the days Vietnam was a French colony. Back then, all of those in the know (outfitters and hunters) agreed tigers from Annam (Vietnam) in particular compared to most 'Bengal' tigers. American hunters, for this reason, not seldom preferred Vietnam over India. Vietnam also was closer and cheaper. 

Not every book I read is interesting, but some offer a bit more than others. I would recommend 'Im Lande der roten Tiger' (Franz Jozef Graf Seefried, 1963) in particular. Seefried hunted in a little known region close to the border with Cambodia. One of the tigers he shot was a male of 298 cm in total length. I posted a few scans and photographs in the tiger extinction thread. Here's one of the photographs I didn't post:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Informationwise, Oggeri's book ('I killed for a living', Safari press, limited edition, 2010) doesn't quite compare, but it has some nice photographs. A few of them were posted in the tiger thread.  

Most reports about the size of (large) Indochinese tigers were, and still are, not taken very serious. A bit strange, as the skull topping the table on pp. 533 in Pococks paper on tigers (referring to the skull with a greatest total length of 15,5 inches or 393,70 mm) was from Nahtrang, Annam (Vietnam). According to Lt.-Col. C.H. Stockley, a member of the JBNHS, this tiger, shot by H.A. White, had a total length of 10.7 ('The size and markings of Indian tigers', letter of 04-03-1930, in: JBNHS, Vol, 34, Nos 1&2, Misc. Notes, No. V, pp. 553-555). Pocock's paper ('Tigers', 1929), by the way, still is a good read.   

A few years ago, a 'new' skull popped up in a document from, if not mistaken, Finland. The former owner had been shot in Johore (southern tip of Malaysia). According to Mazak ('Der Tiger', third edition, 1983, pp. 147), skulls of Panthera tigris corbetti (adult males) range between 318,5-365,0 mm in greatest total length. The skull described in the document from Finland, however, was 370 mm in greatest total length. The former owner of the skull of 365 mm, by the way, was also shot in that region. 

Here's a nice photograph of a tiger from Malaysia. This male also has a relatively large skull:

*This image is copyright of its original author

    

Quite some time ago, a friend interested in big cats visited an exhibition in the Paris Natural History Museum. One of the stuffed tigers he saw (shot in Vietnam) was larger and more robust than nearly all captive Amur tigers he had seen. His report was confirmed by a vet I knew. He had also visited the exhibition. 

The facility I often visited in the period 1995-2008 usually had captive Amur tigers. One day, the director took me to a new arrival. It was a very healthy circus tiger enjoying a break of a few weeks (his trainer was on leave). His coat was deep orange and the stripes were long, thin and very black. Although not quite as tall, he definitely compared to most captive Amur tigers for length. The difference between them was the circus tiger was in good shape. Every time he was allowed to lift a few weights in the large cage outside, the other big cats immediately bought a ticket to watch him perform. They were as impressed as I was. His trainer said he was from Vietnam.  

I'm not saying captive Indochinese tigers compare to captive Amur tigers. At the level of averages, the difference between both subspecies is quite outspoken. But Indochinese tigers are not small. Same, by the way, for their wild relatives. Male tigers in Thailand (referring to recent information) average just over 400 pounds. 

To finish the post, here's a photograph taken in Thailand a few years ago. The angle, of course, resulted in a bit of distortion, but it was a large male:

*This image is copyright of its original author

A 3 years old male Amur tiger, was caught in the Pozharsky District, Primorsky Territory, last Sunday (07/03/2021), an extremely undersized young specimen, which weighed 110 kg.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply