There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
05-19-2016, 11:38 AM( This post was last modified: 05-19-2016, 09:45 PM by peter )
Skulls of captive Indian and Amur tigers are different in that those of Amur tigers usually are a bit longer, whereas skulls of Indian tigers are wider, more vaulted, more robust and (relatively) heavier. One could say Amur skulls are very functional (re-inforced in a few places), whereas skulls of Indian tigers are adapted to withstanding more force. This could be a result of the size of the animals they hunt. Skulls of Amur tigers seem to be designed to compete (with other tigers, wild boars and bears), whereas those of Indian tigers seem to be developed to withstand pressure exercised during prolonged struggles.
Robustness in both subspecies is expressed in different ways. Indian tigers have thicker necks, larger chests and more robust bodies, whereas Amurs have a (relatively) longer skull, a more developed upper body and bigger fore-arms. If one would add everything Indian tigers could be a bit heavier, but Amur tigers seem more robust because they are re-inforced in some places. The 'old' Amur tigers, largely wiped out before 1930, could have been as dense as many of todays Indian tigers.
Another difference is large Amur tigers nearly always have large skulls, which is not the case in Indian tigers. The Hasinger tiger, who was 10.7 in total length 'between pegs' and otherwise quite robust, had an average-sized skull (14 inches in greatest total length). A large Amur skull very often corresponds with a large animal. The owner of the skull below (16 inches in greatest total length) very likely was a very large animal:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I don't know how limb length was measured in Russia, because I only consider standing height. Guate, who has a very different view, has a lot of info on limb length.
Although I agree with you on the correlation between limb size and weight (not very strong), it could be a bit different in Amur tigers in that Amur limbs seem to be relatively heavier than in other tiger subspecies. In this respect, Amur tigers seem similar to some male polar bears. Limbs apparently also count in intra-specific competition. Indian tiger 'Raja' (also known as 'Prince'), average-sized in most respects, has long limbs and exceptional fore-arms and shoulders. In spite of his advanced age, he still is unbeaten.
I will get back to you on chests. It seems there is a strong correlation between chest girth and weight, but the correlation isn't as strong and straightforward as in bears. Lions have big chests and have large skulls, but seldom exceed 500 pounds. Indian tigers also have big chests, but they exceed 500 more often. Amur tigers seldom exceed 130 cm. in chest girth, but also reach that mark quite often (in captivity). Maybe total length is a better indicator for weight, at least in tigers. The reason isn't a long body, but age. Adult tigers keep on growing for quite a long time. They add a few inches, but the real reason they are heavier could be density. This is what I saw in skulls. The difference is quite significant.
I agree with the conclusion: your exploration definitely produced something of interest. I'll get back to you on chests
