There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why captive Bengals are smaller than Wild Bengals?

peter Online
Co-owner of Wildfact
*****
Moderators
#20
( This post was last modified: 11-18-2019, 12:02 PM by peter )

(11-17-2019, 08:09 PM)Hello Wrote: Hi @Pckts , how big are Kanha tigers compared to captive N American and white Bengals.What are the names of those Kanha tigers you saw?

PC's conclusions on the size of tigers in central parts of India are quite clear. His conclusions were confirmed by others who saw wild tigers in central India. 

Apart from that, there are plenty of books written by those who saw hundreds of big cats a century ago. Although most biologists today more or less dismiss information collected by others a long time ago out of hand, most of the books I read were interesting. Not a few of them are a treasure for those interested in habits, measurements and weights of wild big cats a century ago. 

It's admittedly not easy to find good information about tigers hunted in central part of Asia, Russia, China and Indochina, but there's more than you think. Tigers in Indonesia and (British) India, on the other hand, feature in hundreds of books. Back then, hunters, like posters today, often discussed about methods used to measure a big cat. Not seldom, you'll find lengthy descriptions of the method used by a particular hunter. These descriptions enable readers to get to opinions on the way a particular method was applied. 

Those in the know agreed tigers in central parts of India were quite large and robust animals. Most hunters agreed adult male tigers that in central parts of India averaged 9.0-9.6 in total length measured in a straight line. The longest in Dunbar Brander's book was 10.3, but I found records of tigers exceeding that mark. All of them had been measured in a straight line.

Tigers today, if anything, seem a bit larger and, in particular, a bit more robust than back then. As the most probable reasons have been discussed at length in other threads, I propose to leave it at that. Rishi recently posted a (timelapse) video of humans and wild animals using a road. The tiger in that video, although not a giant, is a big animal by any standard.

PC's conclusion on the difference between captive and wild tigers is accurate. I talked to people who saw wild tigers in central parts of India. Like PC, they were struck by the size and energy of the tigers.
4 users Like peter's post
Reply




Messages In This Thread
RE: Why captive Bengals are smaller than Wild Bengals? - peter - 11-18-2019, 11:23 AM



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB