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

[Rishi]

(02-28-2017, 12:43 PM)Master Chief Wrote:

(02-27-2017, 10:38 AM)Rishi Wrote:

(02-26-2017, 02:39 AM)Master Chief Wrote: Amur tigers would not be regarded as the largest cat if they weren't the biggest. There is no more recent studies of the Amur tiger more than the 1990s. So I'd like to know how you are so sure that 20+ years later Bengal tigers are bigger. 

The heaviest wild tiger ever recorded is a bengal. 
The largest skull size is of a bengal. 
The longest nose-to-tail ever recorded is an Amur...i think. (Although, both might top at 11feet)

From all the thousands of photos & videos I've seen, Amurs do seem to be taller than bengals & similar in length..in my opinion.

Whilst if you check pictures of Amur tigers in summer, their size & stature look EXACTLY SAME as the bengal tigers.
Come winter, they put on enough FAT & FUR that allows them to outweigh those same bengal cousins & look larger as well..just like a lion's mane would. Check the difference here..

*This image is copyright of its original author

Thus, i guess if you take the whole year, Amurs will score more ON THE AVERAGE... 

I heard that a reliable data of the largest skull was came from the Amur tiger.
The heaviest one was the Bengal, but he was eaten large buffalo before he killed.
Captive ones are absolutely the Amur is the biggest in length, weight, and others.

Sadly, it's difficult to find it out in wild since majority tigers are gone

"I heard that a reliable data of the largest skull was came from the Amur tiger."
Yes...I was wrong, i withdraw my statement.
.
"The heaviest one was the Bengal, but he was eaten large buffalo before he killed."
Any WILD tiger, greater than 350kgs was probably gorged...


.
"Captive ones are absolutely the Amur is the biggest in length, weight, and others."
Ofcourse, their body is genetically designed to survive the harshness of the North by fully utilising every bit of nutrient available & hold more fat.
.
"Sadly, it's difficult to find it out in wild since majority tigers are gone."
You are free to present any CONCRETE data (Not those, my granpa saw 12' tiger) from the past.
.
Scientists in Russia report that no tigers immobilized by the Russian team have weighed as much as those in Chitwan. It probably is a function of habitat quality. Siberian tigers have the potential for being the largest, and captive ones are larger than captive Bengals. But in the wild the prey base in Russia is not abundant enough for those tigers to NATURALLY ACHIEVE their full potential. Prey is more scattered and the Russian tigers need huge territories to capture sufficient food, so much more energy is expended in the food quest. Reply