Amur Tigers

[Sabre]

(10-13-2016, 09:44 PM)Sabre Wrote:

(10-13-2016, 07:20 PM)Shardul Wrote:

(10-13-2016, 03:43 PM)Sabre Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 02:58 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: It seems that captive amur tigers are the same size as wild bengals - around 210 kg. As far as I know captive tigers tend to be smaller than wild ones, so in good conditions amurs could be even heavier than bengals. Some captive amurs are real monsters - 250+ kg, perhaps decendants of lengendary manchurian tigers.

Sadly, it's impossible to tell the exact size of the Siberian tiger since they've been suffered from genetic bottleneck and low prey base.
The Siberian tiger prey base in the Russian Far East these days are only 0.2-0.5 per 100 square km. This is even LOWER than prey base of the Meru Betiri national park of the Java island, which was the last remaining population of the Javan tiger during 1970 to early 1980s. The prey base of the Meru Betiri was 0.7~1 per 100 square km.
Java was already overpopulated by human,  Meru Betiri was only 580 square km, the only habitat for the last Javan tiger, and Java island was too overpopulated since 1900s. That's why Javan tiger became extinct. The Siberian tiger is still surviving since their habitat is low human populated area.
However, I've seen the Korean documentary of the Siberian tiger cubs are killing weaker cubs while their mom is gone due to hunger. It's all due to low prey base by human is hunting their prey like deer. One large male Siberian tiger name Victior from 2011 was 305 cm long, but his weight was only 175 kg. Similar length of huge male bengal tiger, but his weight is just a littlie bit heavier than large female bengal tiger.

I heard people are saying that bengal is the largest due to size of Kaziranga, Mannas, Chitwan, ...etc.
Prey base of the bengal tiger in Chitwan national park is 3-3.7 per 100 square km. Extremely high base. Similar as majority tiger reserves of the India, Nepal, and Bhutan.

But truth fact is that captive Siberian tiger is DEFINITELY surpassing size of captive bengal tiger and wild bengal tiger. Top largest captive tigers are Siberian, not bengal.

If people study biology courses, then they should think what is the reasons of the Siberian tiger became smaller in wild. It's IGNORANT to conclude bengal is larger than siberian just because northern bengal sizes are heavier than siberian tigers these days. If wild bengal is bigger, then caprive Siberian tiger like Sabre, Baikal, Baja, Duke, Japiur, Romeo, and gigantic Siberian tigers are in Harbin... etc are DEFINITELY BIGGER AND HEAVIER than any of male bengal tigers are in Kaziranga, Taboda, Manas, ... etc.
There are some records of the gigantic Siberian tiger records from the Russian hunters, but majority biologists/naturalists/conservationists view it as unreliable. But I think it's just silly to view it as unreliable just because it is hunting record. Maybe there was some records were exaggerated. But I don't believe everything was unreliable. One hunter name Barclay, he was a hunter from British empire 100 years ago. When he was in Korea 100 years ago. He even recorded it as "I believe that members of this race(Siberian) are deeper chested than other varieties, and would surely weight more, length for length." because people are  believing common wrong belief of the bengal tiger is the largest and most violent subspecies. 

The largest male Siberian tigers are all from the Manchuria, especially the Herilongjiang and north part of Jilin. If I go back to 150 years ago, then I am sure the Siberian tigers from Manchuria are bigger than northern bengal tigers.

First of all, stop using caps. People can read here.

Second of all, please explain at what point in a population does a genetic bottleneck occur?

The Bengal tiger population was 1800 at best, in 1972. That is more than 50 years ago. So genetic bottleneck didn't occur for bengals? Also, the Siberian tiger population is concentrated in one area, unlike the bengal which is subdivided into small isolated populations, which are actually more inbred than Siberian tigers.

For example, Ranthambhore tigers are heavily inbred since there hasn't been any gene flow coming into the reserve since the last 3 decades, at the very least. But the big males there easily weigh 250 kilos. So using your logic, 150 years ago, bengals should have been weighing more than 300 kilos?

First of all, I hope you didn't tackling or attacking. I feel like you're Insulting about my post .

The siberian tiger population was only like 30-40s back in 1950-1960s. Their population is something like 400s. But their genetic variations only like 15 unlike the Bengal tiger. The entire wild siberian tiger populations are came from like 30-40 populations which has only 15 different genetic variations. Trust me, I am Korean and I know biologists or naturalists studying the wild Siberian tiger of Russia and biologists/naturalists of Korea who's studying the siberian tiger from the past and their DNA and genome mapping of the siberian tiger.
The largest Siberian tigers were mainly from the Manchuria. Unfortuantely, the Siberian tigers from Manchuria were wiped out. The huge gene linkage is disappeared in wild these days (just like case of some of the saltwater crocodile size hypothesis these days). I've studied genomics. It takes a long time to recover the genetic variation since ggenetic variations by mutation occurs extremely slow. If you've never studied genetics and genomics as university level. Then I don't know what to tell you that you want to do your career of big cat or any of biology.

Did you even read carefully about my post? If you did read my post, siberian tiger prey base of Russian far east are extremely low compares to bengal tiger habitats. It's similar as European and American height. 100 years ago, the average heights of the European and American men was only like 170 cm tall. But their average height increased to 180 cm due to nutrition and better life style. It made them bigger and taller.. majority older asian men are like 160-170cm. But younger asian are a lot taller. My dad is 169cm, but i am like 182-186 cm. I lived in better lifestyle, obtained better nutrition, and never been in hunger by poverty and famine. It's the same case as the tiger. Bengal tiger habitats prey base are extremely higher than the siberian tiger habitat. Siberian tiger has a huge territory due to extremely low prey base in their habitat. Bengal tiger can easily surpass their weight. Victor is similar size and length as the Sauraha tiger, but he is almost 100 kg lighter Sauraha. He is just a little bit heavier than huge bengal tigress

So in your logic, explain to me that how come the largest captive tigers are not bengal tiger.. Both siberian and bengal are living in the same conditions and factors in captivity. But size of the siberian tiger is surpassing the bengal. The siberian tiger is larger than bengal toger majority zoos in Asia, North America, Europe. So in your logic, bengal is larger in captivity too? But that's not even reality in captivity.

Reply