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

[GuateGojira]

(04-16-2014, 10:25 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Awesome work Gaute, now a couple of remarks and questions.

-Do you know Madla's body length and shoulder height?
-About body length, you used 13 individuals for the amur and 5 for the bengal. If you look at it, the minimum for the bengal is longer than that for the Amur, it is safe to assume that if the bengal had another 8 individuals it would most likely have one or more tigers that would tie for the maximum or even beat the Amur, IMO. So I think it is definitely not clear cut to say that the Amur is longer than the bengal.
-The reverse can be said about shoulder height and body weight, but still, if you look at the minimums for both, while there are many more bengals weighed or mesured, their minimums are still higher than the amurs same goes for chest girth. IMO, that is much more clear cut of the Bengals larger body size and taller shoulder height.
-Skull size is where I am most curious, I would love to know Madlas skull size, any of the kaziranga tiger skull size, or Waghdoh etc... I think they all would have larger measurements than the Amur and it is even more interesting about the tooth length of Madla, imagine if his are that long, what a kaziranga tiger who specifically hunts rhino and gaur, would have.
-Do you know what the weight of both skulls are?

Thanks for the hard work

 

1. No, I don’t have any data about Madla size. I asked Dr Chundawat about any detail, but I obtain no response.

2. I used only 5 Bengals in the scientific records because those where the only ones published in literature. I think, and is my personal though, that Bengal tigers do average the same than Amur tigers in body-length, but as there is no more specimens, I can’t state that without evidence. So, based in the few specimens available, it seems that Amur are longer, although the difference is slightly.

3. Your observation is accurate, the minimum values for Amur tigers are lower than those from Bengal, however it will be too risky to say that Amurs are indeed smaller than Bengals. Been conservative, my personal conclusion, based on the facts, is that bouth reach similar sizes and that the difference between them is to small (no more than 5 cm) in linear measurements. Interestingly, on the body mass, if we take all the Amur tiger records (old and new) and all the Bengal tiger records (old and new, including The Sundarbans), both tiger subspecies average over 200 kg! This will suggest that at population level, both have the same body mass, on average.

4. On the skulls issue, peter said that Bengal skulls are heavier and looks more massive, while those from the Amur ones had larger sagittal crest and wider muzzle, however these are captive specimens. From my personal observations, although in a much smaller sample, Amur tiger skulls look in fact, more massive and overall more powerful, with larger muzzle, a lot more larger sagittal crest and massive canines. However, in this last point, I think that the largest Bengal tigers compare or even slightly surpass the largest Amur specimens in the wild.

5. I think that no one kept the skull of Madla, (although in Nepal, the skull of Sauraha male is kept by the rangers) but judging by the video, its skulls was of no less than 15-16 inches (38-40 cm), which is the normal maximum size for the skulls of Bengal tigers. I am searching the email of Dr Charles McDougal, he probably knows the size of Sauraha tiger skull.

6. I don’t understand your last question. What skulls are you referring?
 
Greetings.
  Reply