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

[Greatearth]

I already wrote about this.... I don't think northern Bengals like Terai and Assam (not sure Assam is northern bengal) are bigger than other Bengals besides Sundarban tigers.
They are all similar size. It depends on each individual. Even for Chitwan in the 1970-1980s, they were similar sizes to tigers in other India. M105, M026 (I think this one is typo), and another tiger in the 1990s were only male tigers I could be sure that they were 225-270 kg range. But I heard one different story about M105 or Sauraha tiger was not 270 kg since measuring scale was only up to 225 kg in the 1970s. But I am sure he was definitely close to 270 kg consider he was over 225 kg and big animals can increase 40 kg if they eat a lot. Other males were around 190-210 kg. If I see their pictures with humans, I didn't find that northern bengals are bigger than other tigers in central India and south India. I could feel that western India like tigers in Ranthambore seems slender. But I am sure they are also similar length and height as other Bengal tigers. Anyone could find original tigers in Sariska, it will be great.
Their territory size and main prey are generally similar. What makes northern Bengals are actually bigger than other Bengals tigers? South India is really humid and hot. West India is also hot but very dry. Northern India can be cold in winter. That's why northern Bengal tigers have thicker furs, but western Bengal tigers and southern Bengal tigers look slender. What makes them northern Bengals are actually biggest of all tigers?

Pity that shameful people like french, british, japanese made all of disputes like civil wars and genocide in Asia. This created a black hole for both wild animals and people, especially Southeast Asia. If you study about the world history, these nations must need to be equal level as Germany during the ww2. I always feel like politicians in Asia needs to make more strict laws for those colonial country's people to not get to work (even tourists from those countries must need to pay extra money) animals belong to each Asian countries. They (like Kitchner and Yamaguchi) even tried to ruin our tigers by making 2 subspecies nonsense. Hybridization can offer badly in this case to increase genetic diversity and make white tigers. Why are they interested about animals of Asia instead of worrying about animals in their countries. They are also UK and Japan who created all bunch mess in Asia. It's surprise that Asia don't have high crime rates unlike in central/south american countries while both people are clearing animals from poverty. Most countries in Africa and Asia are well-aware about this these days. That's why it's getting more more difficult to study animals since they are not easily allowing foreigners to study animals belong to their countries. Like African countries were pressured back as that they will withdrew CITES about selling elephants to China and Dubai after CITES is pressuring Africa. Wealthy counties are not even helping financially, but that's their business between Africa and Cites... As for me and our tigers... We CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING about tigers and leopards in Asia because of them (those 3) that everyone are interested in animals belong to Asia.

I think Goodrich is wrong about "overrated" size about Amur tigers. He is person living in 20th-21th century. He never been/exist when tigers were so common. There's no doubt that prey base were higher in the past, and I am sure Amur tigers were not overrated as Goodrich's belief. If we use today's knowledge in Russia, then tigers couldn't survive in small Korean Peninsula even in the past. So Goodrich was wrong if I see historical background and history of Northeast Asia. The funny thing is that John Goodrich is normally staying in the USA now. He rarely goes to Asia to actually get work tigers (especially these days after coronavirus came from China). People like him are top scientist. These people are generally managing conservation works, involve in public media, helping grant writing, editing as peer-review journals, statistics while rangers in Asia are doing all of hard works to save tigers. They also never see wild tigers since it's not easy to see wild tigers besides India and Nepal. But people (even wildfact users) just believe top scientists because of their fame even though they almost never see wild tigers. I will be honest that he probably doesn't know tiger individuals like Munna, Bamera, Ustad, Madla, Wagdoh, because that's not what their interests. They are more interest to saving populations. They are not interest in our interests like size, old records, and each individuals. It's possible that we probably have more knowledge about these than top tiger biologists just publishing peer-review journals.
I remember Pcket user and someone in Finland was arguing about this topic, I side Pcket about this. Tiger biologists don't know much about wild tigers compare to villagers, photographers, guides, naturalists, drivers working for tiger national parks in India unles we are talking about something that involves in statistics, genetics and science. They are more spending their times to writing grants and journals, solving statistics, editing while hiring other people to do field works in general. They also involve in field work, but they are generally doing completely different things than most people think. Reply