ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[Pckts]

(12-17-2018, 10:42 PM)peter Wrote:

(12-17-2018, 12:22 PM)Apollo Wrote: Khumba male

mating pair from Ranthambore

I asked Apollo to post the video of the Jilin tiger (post 1,973) and both videos in which Ranthambore tiger feature (post 1,974) in this thread, because they're special.

Jilin tigers are Amur tigers, but there is no contact between tigers in Sichote-Alin and those of northeastern China. Chances are they could develop in a different way, that is. The largest Amur tigers were shot in Manchuria. A century later, I wonder if we will see something similar in the near future. Northeastern China roughly compares to Sichote-Alin, but the photographs I saw suggest the vegetation could be a bit more lush. More cover, that is. Tigers in the southwestern part of Sichote-Alin (and those in northeastern China) hunt bears more often than elsewhere. A result of more cover or a result of a lack of large prey animals (in northeastern China, tigers attack domesticated animals at times)? Quite a few tigers in southwestern Sichote-Alin and northeastern China are recent migrants. Maybe they lack knowledge in the wild boar department?  

Ranthambore tigers belong to Panthera tigris tigris, but they seem different from tigers in northern, southern, central and northeastern India. Less stripes, shorter stripes and more black. A bit longer and taller and seemingly not as massive as in other regions in India. Even the infamous man-eater who was arrested and jailed some time ago, although well over 500 pounds in his prime, was different from the tanks occasionally seen in central and northeastern India. This although measurements suggest they could top the list for India.

In a way, they remind me of Kalahari lions. These lions could top the list for Africa, but also seem less massive than in southern Africa and the Crater.

Could be a result of adaptation to more arid conditions. Preyanimalwise, semi-deserts are less productive than lush forests, safari-like landscapes and hills in more tropical regions. In spite of that, Ranthambore tigers and Kalahari lions seem a bit longer and taller than tigers and lions living in more productive regions. 

Many thanks, Apollo.

People I have spoken with who have seen both have told me that they see no difference in height between Ranth. and C. Indian tigers that they've seen.

I also have my doubts about that, I see no reason for them to be Taller or Longer than any other Tiger, there is no benefit there and the prey they hunt is no different than Tigers else where, in fact, the prey there is small to mid size but missing the large bovines, Rhino or Elephant that should require more size. 

Take Khumba for example, I have seen many videos of him where I say he is definitely a good sized male Tiger but I have also seen many videos of him where I think he's probably a normal sized male with a slimmer frame. I'll post a few below and you can compare if you'd like.

[color=#1d2129][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

If I'm being honest, judging off of the videos I've posted above, I'd say he's actually a smaller Male Tiger, at least according to weight, he's frame doesn't strike me as being taller or longer though.
I've said it before but Ranth. Tigers to me are slimmer in frame and that may give the appearance of being Taller but when I see their videos I find it hard to view any height difference from the evidence. Even for arguments sake, lets say there is a difference in height, no way would we be able to see that with the naked eye, it's going to be too minimal imo.  



Lastly I'll say this, Ranthambore is a Dry deciduous forest which is actually the most common type of forest in all of India

*This image is copyright of its original author

I'm not sure that the most common of forests will produce extraordinary findings.
I know not all here will agree but this is my opinion based off of what's presented. Reply