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

[Dr Panthera]

(11-04-2015, 10:26 PM)Pckts Wrote: Technically the largest were 272kg(bottomed out scale) and others bottomed out at 227kg, so true sizes are more than listed. (excluding adjustments)
I don't believe the idea that these cats represent "3%" of the total species available data, unless of course you are including sub adults, females and cubs as well as different sub species.

Out of the males that were adults and measured, ones ranging over the 220kg mark are quite abundant. Much more than 3%, so if we were using the 220kg mark as a gauge for "Large" of course, just figured it seemed like a good number to consider large, since its over the average mark we have available. 
We can only use the sample size available, if you were to use semi reliable hunting records, these marks are actually fairly similar.
We can now add 4 more males to the sample size of 240kg+, 220kg, 185kg, 220kg if we want to.

In every scientific detailed study on the demographics of either tigers or lions the prime male were not more than 3% of the total population ...so yes that includes females that usually outnumber males two to one and at least subadults over two years of age ( some studies include Cubs,  others omit them due to high mortality)... My point is the largest tigers or lions or any animal are a small percentage and statistically irrelevant , I would love to see very large samples over one hundred each and calculate a range where 80% of the individuals of each the species/ subspecies and that would be reflective of the true picture.
So even fifty tigers out of five thousands is not what we want to focus on, all five thousands matter.
Mazak built an " illusion" that Amur Tigers were significantly larger than their Bengal brothers or lion cousins based on hunting records, captive animals, and small samples....and what do we have now ? Not a single Amur tiger measured by scientists was over 212 kg... A mark that easily exceeded by many Bengal tigers and some lions, does this suggest that Amur are smaller than lions or than Bengal tigers? Not really there are Sundarban males of less than 100 kg and the samples are small from all over the subcontinent to make a decisive.
The absolute fact remains that a 180-200 kg tiger or lion is a formidable animal, capable of holding a territory, fathering cubs, dominating other species and fighting off nomads for a while....if extra strength and size is there bonus, if more males are with him in a lion coalition even better. Reply