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.
11-04-2015, 09:11 PM( This post was last modified: 11-04-2015, 09:14 PM by Dr Panthera )
(11-04-2015, 07:44 PM)Apollo Wrote: Hi guys,
Ive never replied in this thread before.
I personally think this thread is necessary, only for debating purpose.
Many people say that Amurs are bigger than Bengals.
But I dont think so
I would say Bengals are either equal or infact bigger than Amurs.
Bengals always been the bigger cat historically and in present.
Amurs are never bigger in height or length than bengals.
Its just an assumption.
Ive seen many captive amurs and bengals (captive and wild).
I like to say just one thing for you folks you got to see a wild bengal tiger from (north east, north west and north of india) before saying an amur is bigger than bengal.
These Bengals are taller than amurs and lion (south africa).
As a general rule African lions are the tallest, Amur tigers are the longest, and Bengal tigers are the most robust of cats, there is however a great deal of overlap.
Unfortunately large samples of scientific accurate measurements are only available from Russia, the Serengeti, and Kruger, all scientific records of Bengal tigers are from small samples 2 to 17 which are statistically irrelevant.
I believe with a larger sample of Bengal tiger records an accurate range that includes 80% of the animals can be estimated..so we could say that 80% of the males of Amur,Bengal, and lions are in the range of 180 to 210 kg and 80% of the females would be 110-140 kg , I would want a sample of over one hundred specimens to support that.
I do not understand the fascination of " the largest" male around and all the debate and fuss about it..the territorial males at their prime and largest size do not comprise more than 3% of the total tiger or lion population, the largest scientifically measured tigerT105 in Chitwan 261 kg is as relevant as 72 kg ten year old Sumatran tiger ( Sunquist and Prianta respectively ).
In tiger ecology, research, and conservation all tigers matter, and in estimating feeding requirements, necessary prey base, and home range we consider the females of a species and not the males. Tigresses from Bengal and Amur eco types and lionesses are roughly the same 110-140 kg and they are what matters the most.