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

[tigerluver]

All good points Peter. Though, the only thing I saw one could say is the tiger's body length. The rest I let numbers do. As always, there is no final solution. Only Hasinger and his crew knows what really happened that fateful day.

I disagree a bit on calling 272 kg enormous for a tiger. Numerous specimens have clocked in higher (4 of 10 (could this be a future spoiler of what I have in store?)... I mean 2 of 8 modern specimens in Nepal already clocked in at at least 270 kg). The long specimens mentioned which were estimated at 300 kg and less are still estimates, while we have actual masses surpassing the 300 kg in smaller framed specimens. 

Finally, on the bear, I caution taking Nat. Geo. figures unless they're published or confirmed with the person. I'm far from knowledgeable on bears, but 409 kg is below average from what I've read, but I'm not shocked if this is proven wrong. Regardless, Nat. Geo. has a bad habit of calling weights for specimens that haven't been weighed. Two instances I remember are the "220 kg Wagdoh" and "363 kg, random Amur male." Of course, if that boar is legitamately 409 kg, the case is even more intriguing. 
  Reply