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

[Pckts]

@Master Chief 
"1. Show me your stud books that there is no pure Bengal tiger in this world beside in India zoo. I don't need to hear anything. Just show me the stud book saying that there is no pure breed Bengals with genetic analysis."

You show me the stud books of verified Bengal Tiger weights in captivity with their body measurements.

"2. How come their size is smaller just because it was mixed? Their size can't be decreased unless it was mixed with the Sumatran tiger and the Malayan tiger. Mixed breed of Great Dane and Mastiff dogs are smaller than their parents? Not even true. They are about the same size as other Great Dane and Mastiff dogs."

When did I say hybrids were smaller?
In fact, hybrids compare nicely to pure bred Amurs, showing that it doesn't matter if you mix either genes, both can  produce larger or smaller individuals.

Also, it completely depends on what you mix breed a Mastiff with, if it's mixed with a lab or Shepard, it certainly will be smaller, than if it's mixed with another larger breed.  But I'm not sure where you got this point, it was never brought up.


"4. You said prey availability doesn't matter? Have you studied biology in college? Food intake (prey availability) is absolutely does matter unless you are comparing completely different species like domestic cat vs big cats or songbirds vs eagles.

When did I say prey availability "doesn't matter?"

It's going around in circles with you, Post #327 already covered this.




"This is the same for tiger size. There is almost no food intake in Russian Far East, Northeast China, and Korea due to long development and war since late 1800. Put those Assam Bengal tiger cubs and mothers in low prey density area. Check every single Asam Bengal tiger cubs and their generations could grow huge size and weight after 20 years.. "

And there was a time when prey was abundant and their habitat was unmolested yet they showed no larger size than their bengal cousins. You can also say the exact same thing for bengals up until recently, they suffered from just as much genetic bottlenecking, prey depletion and deforestation.


"How come people were smaller and shorter back in 100 years ago. 6 ft was considered as a giant height pre-1940 for both American and European. Why? Because many people couldn't eat a lot. It's 100% different today. Many Europeans and White Americans are easily 5'10'' these days. 
My mom is Austrian. Average man height is 5'10'' to 5'11'' in Austria. 6 ft is common height when I was in Austria. But 6 ft is pretty tall height if you are comparing to old people (50 to 90 years old ). It was around 5'7'' to 5'8'' (men) in early 1900."

The tallest people in the world are Europeans (dutch are the tallest) and Africans, Asians are shorter but  have been making greater jumps as of late. But this has numerous factors involved, one of course is nutrition. We now have nutrient rich food at our fingertips (literally) we work less hard than ever and famine is less of a problem than it has ever been prior. Another factor is genetics, height is 80% hereditary, taller height is also an attractant to most people, so they tend to seek taller over shorter, which means selective breeding over the years have also contributed to taller people.
Nice read here http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily...dards.html

Back to Tigers:
Can we attribute the Amurs modern shrinkage to lack of prey base and habitat?

Of course we can, the weights they show now are seldom over 200kg compared to early 1900's where their averages were comparable with modern Bengals.
But their body dimensions overlaps perfectly with Bengals, their body mass, not so much. They put on fat easier than bengals (allegedly) and thus they may seem larger but muscle weighs more than fat, a bengal living in a warmer environment who has similar body dimensions should weigh more, they are more muscle packed with less fat. Reply