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

[peter]

Good info, Guate and Pckts. Much appreciated and not much to add. A few remarks to wind it up.

1 - LENGTH 

Reliable measurements taken 'between pegs' (straight line) suggest wild male Amur tigers are a bit longer in head and body than wild male Indian tigers and wild male Kruger lions. The difference between Kruger lions and Indian tigers is limited. Kruger lions, at about 9 feet or thereabout in total length (head, body and tail), seem to be a bit longer than lions in other regions.

The only remark to add is we have to remember the Amur sample is smallish. It also, in contrast to Kruger lions and Indian tigers, has no exceptional animals. Krechmar, an authority on Amur tigers (as well as brown bears and interactions between both), said he has seen very large male Amur tigers today. One of the tigers captured in an Aldrich-snare (T-16) wasn't measured and weighed, because he attacked a researcher (I thought it was Goodrich) and escaped. It could be that large male tigers have to be captured in another way.

I once, based on a few assumptions regarding skull length and total length, concluded the average for wild male Amur tigers had to be close to 9.9 in a straight line. It was just under 9.8 a decade ago. Maybe wild Amur tigers don't have a lot of variation, but captive Amur tigers have. For now, I'd say the sample was a bit too small.

Amur tigers, compared to Indian tigers, are definitely longer (both sexes, but females in particular), but the difference is limited to 4-6 inches. Nepal tigers, however, seem to be very close. My guess is males average about 2-3 inches less than Amur tigers.


2 - WEIGHT

When I combined the information I had (total length, weight, body dimensions and skulls) some years ago to get to some conclusions (see above), one result was Indian tigers (adult wild males, all regions) had about 4-6 inches and 40-50 pounds or thereabout on wild African male lions (all regions). 

What to say on African lions and Indian tigers today? Zimbabwe lions seem to be the heaviest (426 pounds for adult males). I don't know if they were adjusted, but I'm inclined to say yes as they alo had larger chests than Kruger lions. If my conclusions on lions and tigers would hold (see above), we would expect the largest (heaviest) Indian tigers to be about 50 pounds heavier than the Zimbabwians. Let's say somewhere between 460-470 pounds in Central or North-India. 

The averages of a century ago showed tigers in 4 regions averaged between 402 pounds in the Deccan and 460 pounds (not adjusted) in Cooch Behar and Assam. Today's tigers seem to be a bit heavier. If they are, chances are males in some parts of India would average between 460 (a century ago) and 483 (plus 5%) pounds today. My guess is we could be very close in some regions. Nepal male tigers, at 488 pounds (adjusted), have just over 60 pounds on Zimbabwe lions and tigers in north-east India seem to be as large.

Todays wild male Amur tigers, at 430 pounds (Miquelle), average about 10 pounds more than in central-India a century ago (Dunbar Brander). Most of us agree the relatively low average probably is a result of food, meaning we think there is a relation between food and weight in the long run. If we do, why was Bold's idea regarding the difference in average weight regarding lions and tigers dismissed? There are only two good reason to reject his idea. One is to prove wild male lions do not get the opportunity to eat as much as their solitary striped relative. Another is to prove there are structural anatomical differences between both big cats, with one consistently larger in every way. Or did I miss something?

Anyhow. Amur tigers could have been heavier in the past. Most males, according to Baikov, ranged between 160-200 kg. about a century ago. The difference between then and now is in exceptions and these usually are related to numbers. More tigers is more variation is more exceptions.

This tiger shot, measured and weighed (560 pounds) by Baikov, is the heaviest accepted by researchers:

*This image is copyright of its original author

If true, the tiger below, as Mazak (1983) stated, had to be at least 650 pounds:

*This image is copyright of its original author

If Krechmar thinks there are very large wild male Amur tigers today, I take his word for it. I, however, don't think tigers the size of the Sungari River tiger are still around in Russia or China. Tigers of that size need room and large prey animals. They also don't want to face animals with tusks or similar weapons all the time. The Sungari River tiger did (the Jankowski's wrote he had killed and eaten a large male brown bear), but this way of life has a downside.


3 - SKULLS

I never saw a skull of a wild male Amur tiger and only a handful of wild Indian tigers, meaning I have nothing to add on wild skulls. I did measure skulls of captive Amur and Indian tigers and these showed Amur tigers have longer skulls, longer canines and a wider muzzle, whereas Indian skulls are generally more massive and heavier.

I've been collecting reliable data on both and didn't quite finish yet. I can say the averages for Indian tigers in the tables I saw seem a bit below par. As my sample of Indian skulls is over 100, I'm inclined to say my average should be more reliable.

In general, one could say wild skulls are a bit longer than captive skulls and not as wide. They also are heavier, probably because of a more dense bone structure and much more smooth.   

Lion skulls are longer than Indian and Amur tiger skulls, although the difference is more limited than many think. The average for wild male Kruger lions (381 mm. for greatest total length according to Yamaguchi), probably tops every list, but the average for wild male Indian tiger skulls I found is not that far away. Wild Amur skulls are a bit of an enigma, but I think they are a trifle longer than wild Indian skulls.

Tiger skulls have, relatively and absolutely, larger canines, but lions skulls have more elevated snouts according to Christiansen. I can confirm everything he found and will add lions have a wider os frontalis (the bone on top just before the sagittal crest). No difference in sagittal crests, I think. In absolutes, there's not much difference in weight between large skulls (both species). As Indian tiger skulls are shorter and about as heavy, one could state they are relatively heavier and be right. 

The most beautiful skulls I saw were Java tiger skulls. Very arched at the top, the most concave mandibulas I saw and very large upper canines. The most impressive skulls were large lion skulls (over 380 mm. in greatest total length), but I did't see a tiger skull of that length yet. They are there, but most of them probably are in private collections. 

  Reply