WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
Even in smaller size than bengal Amur still have bigger Skull than bengal?
 (07-30-2019, 09:40 AM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Even in smaller size than bengal Amur still have bigger Skull than bengal? In fact, the evidence is not quite clear. Based in Mazák, Amur tigers have slightly larger skulls, but the diference is just about 1 cm. In hunting records, both have reached the c.400 mm in skull length. So, I will say that they skull sizes are about the same, but overall the Amur tiger skulls are more wider and a overall massive construction.
Update: capture numbers and table of Smith et al., 1983.
Sorry for the contant change, but I made some updates in the table of the description of the 26 tigers of Chitwan NP. This is based in that fact that I made a comparision with the number of captures that I found and those of the tiger of Smith et al., (1983). This is the original table:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here we can see the number of the sample and I found that actually the number of the subadult females and subadult males do not represent recaptures but the real number of animals captured. Check this: Cubs: Table says "7" but we only know one (F103 with 52 kg). All those need to be taken as "recaptures". I will explain that latter in the table. Subadult females: table says "4", specimens captured is also four (103, 111, 118 and 122). * Based in the figures we can reconstruct the four weights of that sample: 98, 114, 143 and 145. * From these we know that F103 weighed 114 kg at 18 months old. The other three weights belong to the other three females, but we don't know which belong to who, so I will leave it like that. * The figures in the table are especific weights, not number of captures. Subadult males: table says "12", specimens captures is also 12 (104, 110, 112, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124 and 125). * We only know the especific weight of one of them: M104 with 159 kg. We don't know the weight of the others but I speculate that the highest weight (216 kg) is probably of the oldest of them M123. * None of them was captured as adult before 1980, and if one of them was captured after 1980 as adult, is not included in the table. * The figures in the table are especific weights, not number of captures. Adult males: table says "7", but we know that only three were captured before 1980 (102, 105 and 126). * We speculate that M105 (Sauraha male) was captured 4 times. M126 was captured also 2 times, but only once before 1980, so we can conclude that from 3 males we know 6 captures and we hypotesize, based on facts, that male M105 was captured one more time between 1976 and 1979. * The figures in the table are number of captures, not especific weights. Adult females: table says "19", but we know that there were only seven original females (101, 106, 107, 108, 109, 113 and 115) and the other four subadults females were surelly captured latter as adults (103, 111, 118 and 122). So is a total of 11 adult females. * However, on the last four females, we need to see that those animales were probably not entirely "adults". In fact if we see the description of Tamang (1982) in page 64, he says that F103 was clasified as "adult" when she had only 30 months old, which is about 2.5 years, which is less than the "over 3 years old" = "over 36 months old" normally used to clasify a tiger as an "adult". This means that the figure of "140 kg" as an average in Smith et al. (1983) is an underestimation because of the inclusion of specimens not yet "adults". * Knowing the number of real captures of the adult females 101 (3) -106 (2) -107 (2) - 108 (1) -109 (1) and tigerss 103 as "adult", we have a number of captures of 10. Latter I can say that I am sure that the other three subadult females 111-118-122 were captured as adults (specially F118 which was weighed as adult after been euthanized). So we have 10 known captures plus the other 3 captures of the "new" tigresses as adults, we have a figure of 13 known captures. Let's add the females 113-115 which were captured at least once, we have a total of 15 known captures. So, where are the other 4 captures? We can only speculate but certainly it seems that the original females, especifically 109-113-115 and 103, were captured at least one more time, giving a total of 19 captures. * The figures in the table are number of captures, not especific weights. So, using only known animales, with the biggest weight known, the table should be like this:  *This image is copyright of its original author * This use only the original weights, not adjusted. * Also we use only use the known weights of the females (5 females of the original 7) which ignore the weights of the adult females 113-115 and includes the weights of the "new" adults females 103-118. * The section of the males use the figure of "261 kg" for the males M105 and M126. Using the real weights of" 272 kg+" for these large males the average for the males is of 237 kg. * The sample of males says "4", but is because it includes the male "Banga Bhale", so that is why the total gives 27 instead of 26. * Cubs should be taken as recaptures, as those 7 animales were 100% surelly weighed latter as subadults. However we only know F103 of that sample. I think that, for the moment, this sumarize the information about body mass of the tigers in Chitwan NP, captured from 1973 to 1980, plus two males captures in or before 1984. This is the update of the table in post 430:  *This image is copyright of its original author Erase the old one, keep this new one. I did not updated it in the post 430 because as I infer that the reader will know how the investigation had evolved until now and will need to read all my post to get the idea. Greetings to all. 
Just 1 single captivity account, nothing more, nothing less.
Siberian tiger killed in fight to the death with big cat ‘pal’ at Chinese zoo Keepers tried to separate the beasts but were unable to stop younger rival delivering fatal bite to his victim’s throat  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author A woman looks at a tiger at a zoo in China. Photo: Handout A Siberian tiger was killed on Sunday after being attacked by a Bengal tiger with which it shared an enclosure at a zoo in southwestern China, local media reported. The deadly encounter happened about 10:40am on Sunday morning at Kunming Zoo in Yunnan province, news portal Yunnan.cn reported on Tuesday.  *This image is copyright of its original author The body of the slain Siberian tiger lies in its enclosure at Kunming Zoo in Yunnan province. Photo: Handout The victim was an 18-year-old Siberian tiger named Maomao, while his attacker was a 14-year-old Bengal tiger called Xiaohu, the report said. Yang Ge, director of the zoo’s animal management department, said that the big cats knew each other well and regularly scuffled, but had never before got into a serious fight. “There were some minor conflicts between them.” Yang was quoted as saying. “They sometimes bit each other, but only in a playful manner, and nothing serious.” Keepers at the zoo witnessed the attack and tried to separate the big cats, but were unable to save Maomao, the report said. “Xiaohu was younger and stronger, but we never thought he would launch a lethal attack,” Yang said, adding that Xiaohu dispatched his rival with a bite to the throat, which would have caused suffocation. The whole thing was over in about a minute, the report said. The zoo said it would report the incident to the local forestry authority and process Maomao’s body according to the regulations. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2106286/siberian-tiger-killed-fight-death-big-cat-pal-chinese-zoo  (10-08-2019, 09:50 PM)Pckts Wrote: Just 1 single captivity account, nothing more, nothing less. I know this case from 2017: It was the second case of a Bengal tiger dominating a Siberian tiger that I saw on video (another one being a non-fatal fight at Everland, I think), and one of those cases of fights or fatal incidents between different subspecies or types of tigers, the other non-fatal ones being: Amur tiger vs 2 Bengal tigresses, video from 2009: Amur tiger using its size and strength to dominate a Bengal tiger, video from 2010: White tiger dominates Sumatran tiger, video from 2012: Additionally, in 2017, 2 normal Bengal tigers fought with 2 white tigers and killed one of them at a fenced area of Bannerghata National Park, India: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...tiger.html  (10-08-2019, 09:50 PM)Pckts Wrote: Just 1 single captivity account, nothing more, nothing less. I wonder which one is the bigger individual. Not sure if the other tiger is really a Bengal tiger. But if it is indeed a Bengal tiger, we can see a nice comparison between a male Bengal tiger and a male Siberian tiger. The male Siberian tiger got a bigger skull than the Bengal, despite both having the same shoulder height.
Most likely Amurs in Everland then the White Bengal Tigers
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24117279 The headline on that video was created by fans not the zoo. The Lions there were Africans as well and I remember others claiming they were asiatics. Any of those fan made videos have no credible claims, they're used as "evidence" by someone to claim superiority of their favorite animal.
To me, in captivity Amurs and in wild Bengals.In most Indian zoos purebred Bengals are abundant and are small compared to wild ones in terms of shoulder height, length and weight.Most I've seen in zoos were 380-400 lbs (estimate). Amurs are on average 480-500 lbs and are taller in captivity according to @peter and old AVA poster Eagleraptor with some reaching 600 lbs.In wild, Bengals have an advantage in weight,length and shoulder height.
NEW comparative images:
Ok ladies and gentlemen, I have created my new base for comparative images, which means that new images are coming again!!! For example, check the new comparative image of the largest tiger subspecies/populations:  *This image is copyright of its original author As you can see, I improved the amount of information and it has more details. Also, like I said before, the excalation of the animals look smaller in comparison to the old images because this time I used skeletons to scalate the animals. I will try to remake the old images with this format, begining with the lions, and obviously will create new images from new animals. Hope you like it, save it for future references. Greetings to all.
New comparative image of all the tiger subspecies/populations:
 *This image is copyright of its original author For details see this link, post 2434: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-...s?page=163 I put it here because I have many data on size in this topic, but some of that information needs to be updated. Greetings to all.  (03-10-2020, 09:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: New comparative image of all the tiger subspecies/populations: Guate, First, thanks for another very interesting material. However, I think that the size of modern Amur tigers are underestimated. There are some pics of very impressive wild tigers in Russia here in Wildfact; I would not be surprised if some of them reach 250 kg+. I believe only the young/not very healthy are weighted. Wild Bengals and Amur might have similar size, but ok, it is just speculation.  (03-10-2020, 09:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: New comparative image of all the tiger subspecies/populations: Great image! Could you make one comparing the largest populations of jaguars, primarily Pantanal and Llanos jaguars against Malayan, Sumatran, Javan and Bali tigers? Their sizes appear to overlap so it'd be interesting to see how they measure against each other. (04-02-2020, 10:06 AM)strana Wrote: Guate, Hello, thank you for your words. About the size of the Amur tiger, in fact the data on the image takes in count both historic and modern weights. Surely there are photos of very impressive male in the Russian Far East, but sadly none of them has been weighed, so for the moment the biggest male recorded between 1992 to 2012 (the last year when weights were published) was of 212 kg. Now about the sample, it is not true that only young or not-healty males were weighed, let me explain to you first. In 2005 Dr Slaght and other scientists published a chapter in the monograph of the Amur tiger published by the Siberian Tiger Project (in Russian only), especifically the chapter No. 6. Now, in that document they calculated an average weight of 176.4 kg (n=18; range: 125 - 205 kg) for males and 117.9 kg (n=13; range: 113 - 129 kg) for females. However those figures includes specimens that were not in good shape, in fact the weight of 125 kg was for male in such a bad shape that was eutanized! Also, the sample includes specimens over 3 years old, as for scientists an animal is "adult" when they are sexually mature. Now, in order to get a more reliable average figure I investigated all the reports about the Siberian Tiger Project, plus the new males/females captured by the Amur Tiger Programme and I excluded the specimens in bad shape, although it was not posible to exclude the specimens between 3-4 years old for obvious reasons. At the end, my result was of an average weight of 190 kg (n=23; range: 155 - 212 kg) for males and 121 kg (n=15; range: 110 - 136 kg) for females, taking in count only the specimens captured between 1992 and 2012. For the moment those are the most reliable figures about the body mass of the Amur tigers, but take in count that after the year 2000 more males of 200 kg or over had been captured, so I think that there is a big posibility that males over 215 kg are now there in the Russian Far East. If we use the weights of the Amur tigers in the past, we can see that they were of about the same size of the Bengal tigers, with confirmed weights of about 250 kg and the skulls shows that they could be slightly longer too. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 17 Guest(s) |