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.
A couple of things I found to be inconclusive about your post
"At about similar body length, Amur tigers are more athletic than Assam tigers. Male Assam tigers are built like tanks, but male Amur tigers seldom exceed 210 kg. Assuming male Amur tigers fight dangerous opponents more often than male Assam tigers (other male tigers as well as bears and wild pigs) and apparently have just about what it needed to survive, the conclusion is a fighter in the world of big cats isn't built like a tank."
I definitely do not agree with this, since there is absolutely no way to determine which is more athletic. I have seen a Assam Tigress leap out of 6ft high, dense grass, to the top of a full grown elephant just to attack a FG.
I have seen a massive male tiger chase down cattle through 2+ feet of water and grass like it was nothing while making sharp cuts.
So obviously the massive cats of Kaziranga (assam) are every bit as athletic as Amurs.
The next is this
"WATER
I read nice stories about swamps, big cats and immense muscles in order to move and hunt in a way enabling a decent income.
While it is true Okavango lions and Assam tigers seem extra large, Sunderban tigers are the smallest today. The Vietnamese swamp tigers in Cochin-China a century ago also were smaller than tigers in other parts of Indochina. Sumatra also has very swampy regions, but the tigers making a living over there were not as large as those in other parts of Sumatra.
The conclusion is water apparently isn't a drive for size in lions and tigers. Maybe swimmers are a bit more robust at times, but they are not larger. There are other factors and these seem more important."
You must remember, trying to compare Kaziranga to SUmatra or China is incorrect, since both live in the most densly human populated and deforested areas in the world. They have no true prey to hunt with any real mass and are having less and less room to raom. Especially in Sumatra since I don't know enough about Vietnamese swamp tigers, but I do know that in old hunting images, I saw some massive vietnamese tigers and heard a few stories about their massive size.
But sumatra has been completely destroyed, check out the "hands on thread" where I posted the people of green peace motorcycling all through Sumatra showing you just how bad it is.
So I do think Water is a huge factor, but so is lots of territory, prey densisty and unmolested forrests. But of course water is going to play a huge role, it is the bringer of life. All animals seek it out, and start famililes around it.
A couple of things I found to be inconclusive about your post
"At about similar body length, Amur tigers are more athletic than Assam tigers. Male Assam tigers are built like tanks, but male Amur tigers seldom exceed 210 kg. Assuming male Amur tigers fight dangerous opponents more often than male Assam tigers (other male tigers as well as bears and wild pigs) and apparently have just about what it needed to survive, the conclusion is a fighter in the world of big cats isn't built like a tank."
I definitely do not agree with this, since there is absolutely no way to determine which is more athletic. I have seen a Assam Tigress leap out of 6ft high, dense grass, to the top of a full grown elephant just to attack a FG.
I have seen a massive male tiger chase down cattle through 2+ feet of water and grass like it was nothing while making sharp cuts.
So obviously the massive cats of Kaziranga (assam) are every bit as athletic as Amurs.
The next is this
"WATER
I read nice stories about swamps, big cats and immense muscles in order to move and hunt in a way enabling a decent income.
While it is true Okavango lions and Assam tigers seem extra large, Sunderban tigers are the smallest today. The Vietnamese swamp tigers in Cochin-China a century ago also were smaller than tigers in other parts of Indochina. Sumatra also has very swampy regions, but the tigers making a living over there were not as large as those in other parts of Sumatra.
The conclusion is water apparently isn't a drive for size in lions and tigers. Maybe swimmers are a bit more robust at times, but they are not larger. There are other factors and these seem more important."
You must remember, trying to compare Kaziranga to SUmatra or China is incorrect, since both live in the most densly human populated and deforested areas in the world. They have no true prey to hunt with any real mass and are having less and less room to raom. Especially in Sumatra since I don't know enough about Vietnamese swamp tigers, but I do know that in old hunting images, I saw some massive vietnamese tigers and heard a few stories about their massive size.
But sumatra has been completely destroyed, check out the "hands on thread" where I posted the people of green peace motorcycling all through Sumatra showing you just how bad it is.
So I do think Water is a huge factor, but so is lots of territory, prey densisty and unmolested forrests. But of course water is going to play a huge role, it is the bringer of life. All animals seek it out, and start famililes around it.
WATER
You wrote comparing Kazirangha with Sumatra, the Sunderbans and Cochin-China (the old name for the southern part of Vietnam) isn't correct regarding tigers and size.
It is, however, a fact that Kazirangha has very large tigers living in swampy conditions, whereas tigers living in similar conditions in the Sunderbans, Sumatra and the southern part of Vietnam (a century ago), sizewise, are right at the bottom. This means water in itself has no effect on the size of tigers. You confirmed in that you introduced human disturbance, deforestation and prey size as factors that could have more impact. Meaning you acknowledged swampy conditions in itself are not. Which was my point to begin with.
After confirming my conclusion in the way described, you decided it was incorrect anyhow. Right.
ATHLETICISM
I said Amur tigers appear more athletic than Assam tigers. You introduced a tigress attacking a mahout and a male tiger running down a smallish cow in swampy conditions to conclude Assam tigers seem every bit as athletic.
My conclusions on athleticism are not only based on numerous accurate and lengthy descriptions of fights between tigers and bears and fights between tigers and wild boars. I also saw documentaries on Amur tigers in which they showed remarkable skills. Skills that underlined they, more so than other subspecies, combine strength with agility, endurance and coordination.
I saw a lot more and everything I saw was confirmed in the books I read. I also talked to trainers about the things I had observed. They acknowledged everything.
Apart from that, I saw four fights. A fight between two male Amur tigers, a fight between a male Amur tiger and a male Indian tiger, a fight between three male Sumatran tigers and a mock fight (there were bars between both animals) between a male Amur tiger and a male lion. What I saw, confirmed what I had concluded before I saw the fights.
The Amur males I saw were 440-460 pounds, maybe a bit more. They moved with great agility, speed, coordination and skill, anticipating movements of their opponent and adjusting with lightning speed. The outcome of fights, all other factors equal, usually is a result of mass, but athleticism and speed are very important in that they enable initiative and a good position. In similar-sized opponents, it is about creating opportunities and the way mass is used.
Would they, athleticwise, outperform larger males (different species included), I asked. Yes, the trainers said. Large animals do not have the ability of less robust, but muscular and fit animals. When a big cat is over 500 pounds empty, weight often (but not always) becomes an issue. That's why trainers prefer smaller animals over giants.
Than you introduced a tigress attacking a mahout and a male tiger running down a cripple in swampy conditions in order to conclude Assam tigers are every bit as athletic. Ok.
CONCLUSIONS
1 - Water. First you acknowledged water in itself has little or no effect on size in that you introduced factors that probably have more impact. After that, you conclude I was incorrect (...).
2 - Athleticism. My conclusions regarding Amur and Assam tigers are based on numerous reliable descriptions, documentaries, personal observations and interviews with trainers and keepers. You introduced an angry tigress and a male chasing a clumsy animal in order to conclude there´s no difference. I really don´t want to invest any time in an answer.
3 - Respect. This thread is about reliable observations and peer-reviewed documents on wild tigers. Information, that is. Not debates. We have a special department for debates. In spite of that, you used this thread to start a debate on collars, which, partly as a result of your attitude, resulted in insult, deletes and a mess. I invested time in a pm. It was on the purpose of debating and the disadvantages of fundamentalism. I also said I want this site to be a good one. You said ok.
You then discredited a peer-reviewed document on the activity pattern of a collared tigress in central India, again provoking a debate in a thread intended for information. After that, you dismissed a conclusion you had first acknowledged. Finally, in order to get the hang of it, you used two observations only to sideline a conclusion on athleticism between different subspecies based on a lot of reading, viewing and talking.
4 - Attitude. After everything discussed above, I get to talking before thinking, zero self reflection, posting against yourself, polluting a thread intended for information, provocative posts and consuming a lot of time. That is without double standards and inconsistency. Yes, I was referring to ridiculing an attempt to discuss unexplained phenomena because of a lack of peer-reviewed documents (scientific confirmation) on one hand and dismissing peer-reviewed documents in favour of opinions in a different thread on the other hand. That was when it suited you, of course. Like in collars and tigers.
This is the second time I'm investing time in a poster apparently not that interested in rules, a good climate, a good site and good advice. It´s also the last time. I hope you are willing to consider the arguments mentioned above and the advice offered this time.
CONTINUATION
This post will remain here, because it underlines this thread is about information, not debates. If you want to reply, ask Tigerluver, Apollo or Sanjay to move a copy of this post to the debate thread. Don´t expect me over there to reply. I made my point and will leave it at that. My goal is good information and a good site.
11-13-2014, 10:53 AM( This post was last modified: 11-13-2014, 10:58 AM by GuateGojira )
Just my "3 cents":
1. There is no study showing that there is a direct correlation between water and development of muscles in cats, just speculations. In fact, Peter made a correct argument on his comparison with Kaziranga and Sundarbans. The important thing here is the habitat variations and the prey in the area, and possible the genetic of the specimens. These two populations are very close, but still, they develop the largest and the smallest tiger populations in the entire world. Funny as it is, the largest tiger population and the smallest tiger populations are not the Amur and the Bali, both are the Bengal tiger. I think that it will be interesting a comparison between the two habitats, just for the sake of knowledge. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
2. From the records that I have saw, there is practically no difference in size (body length, shoulder height) between all the populations of Indian tigers (with available measurements), excepting Sundarbans and probably Hyderabad (but that sample is too small). Overall, the samples of Cooch Behar, Brander and Hewett presents limits of up to c.310 cm and averages of c.280 cm, between pegs. Those in Southern India have few samples, but still, they generate about the same figures. In this case, I think that the differences are in weight, but with only 7 males weighed in the entire Western Ghats in about 100 years, it is very difficult to reach a reliable conclusion.
3. Tigers overall are very athletic, however Amur tigers are known to kill the largest predator (bears) and the most dangerous prey (giant wild boar), in this case, sloth bears and Indian boars can't be comparable to the Russian foe. If we compare them (Amur vs Bengal), there is very few to choose, both have the largest canines among any land predator and they have incredible strong skulls, but Amur tigers have the largest sagital crest among any large cat and I hypothesized that probably they developed this because its principal prey was the wild boar. As far we know, Amur tigers seems to be the most cursorial of the tiger populations, which probably suggest a different morphological adaptations. I think that Peter suggestions most be analyzed deeply.
Just a "wild" thought, which prey is more dangerous, an Indian wild buffalo or a giant Russian wild boar? I discard gaur because although is very big, it is know to normally run away instead of fighting.
A couple of things I found to be inconclusive about your post
"At about similar body length, Amur tigers are more athletic than Assam tigers. Male Assam tigers are built like tanks, but male Amur tigers seldom exceed 210 kg. Assuming male Amur tigers fight dangerous opponents more often than male Assam tigers (other male tigers as well as bears and wild pigs) and apparently have just about what it needed to survive, the conclusion is a fighter in the world of big cats isn't built like a tank."
I definitely do not agree with this, since there is absolutely no way to determine which is more athletic. I have seen a Assam Tigress leap out of 6ft high, dense grass, to the top of a full grown elephant just to attack a FG.
I have seen a massive male tiger chase down cattle through 2+ feet of water and grass like it was nothing while making sharp cuts.
So obviously the massive cats of Kaziranga (assam) are every bit as athletic as Amurs.
The next is this
"WATER
I read nice stories about swamps, big cats and immense muscles in order to move and hunt in a way enabling a decent income.
While it is true Okavango lions and Assam tigers seem extra large, Sunderban tigers are the smallest today. The Vietnamese swamp tigers in Cochin-China a century ago also were smaller than tigers in other parts of Indochina. Sumatra also has very swampy regions, but the tigers making a living over there were not as large as those in other parts of Sumatra.
The conclusion is water apparently isn't a drive for size in lions and tigers. Maybe swimmers are a bit more robust at times, but they are not larger. There are other factors and these seem more important."
You must remember, trying to compare Kaziranga to SUmatra or China is incorrect, since both live in the most densly human populated and deforested areas in the world. They have no true prey to hunt with any real mass and are having less and less room to raom. Especially in Sumatra since I don't know enough about Vietnamese swamp tigers, but I do know that in old hunting images, I saw some massive vietnamese tigers and heard a few stories about their massive size.
But sumatra has been completely destroyed, check out the "hands on thread" where I posted the people of green peace motorcycling all through Sumatra showing you just how bad it is.
So I do think Water is a huge factor, but so is lots of territory, prey densisty and unmolested forrests. But of course water is going to play a huge role, it is the bringer of life. All animals seek it out, and start famililes around it.
WATER
You wrote comparing Kazirangha with Sumatra, the Sunderbans and Cochin-China (the old name for the southern part of Vietnam) isn't correct regarding tigers and size.
It is, however, a fact that Kazirangha has very large tigers living in swampy conditions, whereas tigers living in similar conditions in the Sunderbans, Sumatra and the southern part of Vietnam (a century ago), sizewise, are right at the bottom. This means water in itself has no effect on the size of tigers. You confirmed in that you introduced human disturbance, deforestation and prey size as factors that could have more impact. Meaning you acknowledged swampy conditions in itself are not. Which was my point to begin with.
After confirming my conclusion in the way described, you decided it was incorrect anyhow. Right.
ATHLETICISM
I said Amur tigers appear more athletic than Assam tigers. You introduced a tigress attacking a mahout and a male tiger running down a smallish cow in swampy conditions to conclude Assam tigers seem every bit as athletic.
My conclusions on athleticism are not only based on numerous accurate and lengthy descriptions of fights between tigers and bears and fights between tigers and wild boars. I also saw documentaries on Amur tigers in which they showed remarkable skills. Skills that underlined they, more so than other subspecies, combine strength with agility, endurance and coordination.
I saw a lot more and everything I saw was confirmed in the books I read. I also talked to trainers about the things I had observed. They acknowledged everything.
Apart from that, I saw four fights. A fight between two male Amur tigers, a fight between a male Amur tiger and a male Indian tiger, a fight between three male Sumatran tigers and a mock fight (there were bars between both animals) between a male Amur tiger and a male lion. What I saw, confirmed what I had concluded before I saw the fights.
The Amur males I saw were 440-460 pounds, maybe a bit more. They moved with great agility, speed, coordination and skill, anticipating movements of their opponent and adjusting with lightning speed. The outcome of fights, all other factors equal, usually is a result of mass, but athleticism and speed are very important in that they enable initiative and a good position. In similar-sized opponents, it is about creating opportunities and the way mass is used.
Would they, athleticwise, outperform larger males (different species included), I asked. Yes, the trainers said. Large animals do not have the ability of less robust, but muscular and fit animals. When a big cat is over 500 pounds empty, weight often (but not always) becomes an issue. That's why trainers prefer smaller animals over giants.
Than you introduced a tigress attacking a mahout and a male tiger running down a cripple in swampy conditions in order to conclude Assam tigers are every bit as athletic. Ok.
CONCLUSIONS
1 - Water. First you acknowledged water in itself has little or no effect on size in that you introduced factors that probably have more impact. After that, you conclude I was incorrect (...).
2 - Athleticism. My conclusions regarding Amur and Assam tigers are based on numerous reliable descriptions, documentaries, personal observations and interviews with trainers and keepers. You introduced an angry tigress and a male chasing a clumsy animal in order to conclude there´s no difference. I really don´t want to invest any time in an answer.
3 - Respect. This thread is about reliable observations and peer-reviewed documents on wild tigers. Information, that is. Not debates. We have a special department for debates. In spite of that, you used this thread to start a debate on collars, which, partly as a result of your attitude, resulted in insult, deletes and a mess. I invested time in a pm. It was on the purpose of debating and the disadvantages of fundamentalism. I also said I want this site to be a good one. You said ok.
You then discredited a peer-reviewed document on the activity pattern of a collared tigress in central India, again provoking a debate in a thread intended for information. After that, you dismissed a conclusion you had first acknowledged. Finally, in order to get the hang of it, you used two observations only to sideline a conclusion on athleticism between different subspecies based on a lot of reading, viewing and talking.
4 - Attitude. After everything discussed above, I get to talking before thinking, zero self reflection, posting against yourself, polluting a thread intended for information, provocative posts and consuming a lot of time. That is without double standards and inconsistency. Yes, I was referring to ridiculing an attempt to discuss unexplained phenomena because of a lack of peer-reviewed documents (scientific confirmation) on one hand and dismissing peer-reviewed documents in favour of opinions in a different thread on the other hand. That was when it suited you, of course. Like in collars and tigers.
This is the second time I'm investing time in a poster apparently not that interested in rules, a good climate, a good site and good advice. It´s also the last time. I hope you are willing to consider the arguments mentioned above and the advice offered this time.
CONTINUATION
This post will remain here, because it underlines this thread is about information, not debates. If you want to reply, ask Tigerluver, Apollo or Sanjay to move a copy of this post to the debate thread. Don´t expect me over there to reply. I made my point and will leave it at that. My goal is good information and a good site.
I'm sorry, but nothing in regards to a fight between two sub species displays athletisism. A larger cat will be victorious over a smaller cat, usually. If you would like to get technical, Chester and Rogue both displayed amazing athletism fighting off entire coalition's of male lions by themselves.
Jon Varty stating that a 3 meter fence can contain a lion but a tiger will leap over it.
The cat that escaped Proske I believe, was a bengal.
So there are as many accounts of bengals being every bit as athletic as a Amur.
In response to your claim about Amurs fighting the largest of predators, while impressive is not a conclusion. Indian tigers simply do not come across them, they defeat Sloth bears with ease. They also prey on Elephant, Rhino, Gaur, Water Buffalo, Wild Boar and other large beasts. All larger than any prey a amur tackles, outside of boar and Bear.
When trying to state one is more athletic than another, it would come down to morphology. Since both have similar morphological traits, there is no way to try and state one of being more or less athletic.
Now in regards to "polluting a thread" statement.
You were the one who stating the idea of one tiger being more athletic than another in a thread about extinction. I simply responded to that statement in a respectful manor. Honestly, I don't appreciate the idea that we are not allowed to respond and must blindly agree with something if we don't agree with it. I have made my points in a respectful manor in response to yours. I would expect the same respect I offer to you.
In regards to water,
I absolutely said that Prey, Habitat and Forrest protection all have a huge factor on tiger size, same with Water.
I simply stated that Kaziranga marshy terrain that contributes to the tigers size, along with the fact that its the only place that has Rhino, Elephant, Water Buffalo and Gaur (allegedly). All of which play a role in giving us the largest cats alive today.
The sunderbans on the other hand, is a isolated island area, completely molested of forrest and prey, its terrain doesn't suit a large predator, if it did, you would see them there. But you can't deny the fact that once all factors are prime, like in Kaziranga, you will have the largest cats. One is no more or less necessary than another. So I am not sure what you are trying to say there.
In regards to @Gautes statements about Gaur, I have heard of a few gaur who fought quite hard, the old male Odin is one that comes to mind. Where the tiger and Bull gaur fought all night.
The guar herd running off the male tiger by the well area.
I figure all bovine are the same, they will protect their own. Even domestic cattle kill more people than many other animals. Gaurs are no different I would think.
PS..
I'm not sure that any of this merits their own thread, but if the mods want to start new ones with the info posted, feel free.
I guess it would be a "Best elements necessary for a large cat"
Or a "most athletic big cat sub species"
But I don't really think either is necessary, but it was in response to a PM received by Peter, It's up to you guys.
11-14-2014, 10:05 AM( This post was last modified: 11-14-2014, 10:23 AM by GuateGojira )
I think is unfair to make a comparison between Kaziranga tigers and Amur tigers, we know everything about the last ones and we know nothing about the first ones.
Amur tigers has been studied extensible in the past and in the present, by hunters, zoologists and modern scientists, we know practically all of them, they behavior and size thanks to radiocollaring studies that are still presenting outstanding results in science and conservation (the new document of Miller et al. (2014) about the Amur tiger energetic needs is very interesting).
On Kaziranga, we only have several pictures from random people, opinions from amateur observers, a few videos and practically no hard scientific information, apart from the density levels gathered thanks to the camera traps, but nothing more, no ecological data, no biological and morphological data, nor even social data, we only have assumptions.
Results: both are of the same size, there is practically no differences and taking in count the old records (the reliable ones, of course) about the Amur tigers, we can conclude that BOTH of them represent the largest felids that have ever existed since the Holocene period. However, there is the point why the Amur tiger developed such a massive skull while the Bengal tigers lack the large sagital crest and the larger muzzle, although they have the same massive canines.
Modern Amur tigers have smaller chest girths compared to the old ones, but still they have the same body dimensions overall. Body mass has declined and this was caused by the hunt and the poaching of its prey which now live in low densities. However, we can observe a positive change since 2005, with almost all adult males captured weighing over 200 kg (Max. of 212 kg), probably caused by the protection and the slight rise in prey density.
(11-14-2014, 07:37 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: Let´s say that wild amurs are 190-200 kg, wild bengals are 210 kg.
Captive bengals are 185 kg, while captive amurs are around 220 kg....and some captive amurs reach extreme sizes...
wild bengals @ 210 kilos & captive bengals @ 185 kilos? woah! where did you get all these figures from? there is no relaibale data of any sort available today.
as of captive animals it is impossible to maintain pure genepool unless there's an inexhaustible supply of gene from the wild & AFAIK India doesn't part away with its tigers. I doubt if there's any pure Amur in captivity today.
I don't want to go deep in all, But I like the question of Amnon, Captive Amur tiger are big in size, and this can not be coincidence.
Interesting to know if someone has some kind of explanation apart from fanaticism and off topic inputs ?
11-15-2014, 08:29 PM( This post was last modified: 11-15-2014, 08:34 PM by GuateGojira )
This point has been discussed before en AVA, and at this point, Peter was the only giving a large explanation.
From my point of view, the explanation is very easy and has nothing to do with genetic or subspecies, but with feeding and care.
All captive Amur tigers live in "first world" countries, especially those on the Studbook. They had been kept in the best conditions since the beginning of they captivity and they form part of the first program to conserve tigers worldwide. At this moment, is the most safe population in captivity with an optimum number and great care.
On the other hand, Bengal tigers have a doubt origin, and except those from India, all, I mean ALL captive "Bengal" tigers in the Earth are not pure, but hybrids with other species. The thing is even worst, in the old days, Indochina tigers were also included in this subspecies, so the intermix of this groups was normal and frequent. At this day, only Bengal tigers from India are 100% pure and represent the only population available for conservation, however, the studbook is very recent (about 2010, as far I remember) and the conditions of the Indian zoos were deplorable in most of the cases.
Now, with this fact established, we can see that the Amur tiger live in a "paradise", compared with Bengal tigers, and like in humans, individuals living in better conditions develop much better than those in poor ones. The last document about captive specimens put an average figure of 183.3 kg (range 165 - 210 kg) for 16 captive male tigers and 134.6 kg (no range) for 5 female tigers, all in India (Sontakke et al., 2009; Slaght et al., 2005).
On the other hand, Slaght et al. (2005) present an average weight of 169 kg (n=39, no range) for male and 124 kg (n=53, no range) for female captive Amur tigers (248 kg the maximum figure), however he included young and several unhealthy males, like a c.12 years old male of 110 kg and a c.20 years old male of 120 kg. This figures should be excluded, as the produced range is unreliable.
I collected 24 male and 13 female captive Amur tigers from scientific documents and reliable sources and I get average figures of 212.5 +/- 36.28 kg (n=23. Range: 167 – 306.5 kg) for males and 127.3 +/- 14.02 kg (n=13. Range: 113.4 – 158.8 kg) for females. Tigerluver included other specimens to this list and gathered a higher average figure.
At the end, I think that the differences in captive specimens are not about genetic of subspecies, but about correct breeding, enough food and good facilities. In good conditions, captive Bengal tigers will also develop the great sizes than they wild counterparts. The last time, I remember an Indian tiger in captivity named Raja, that at his 12 years old weigh 280 kg.
In conclusion, a correct comparison between captive specimens will never been correct, unless than the conditions would be standardized between all of them.
A couple of things I found to be inconclusive about your post
"At about similar body length, Amur tigers are more athletic than Assam tigers. Male Assam tigers are built like tanks, but male Amur tigers seldom exceed 210 kg. Assuming male Amur tigers fight dangerous opponents more often than male Assam tigers (other male tigers as well as bears and wild pigs) and apparently have just about what it needed to survive, the conclusion is a fighter in the world of big cats isn't built like a tank."
I definitely do not agree with this, since there is absolutely no way to determine which is more athletic. I have seen a Assam Tigress leap out of 6ft high, dense grass, to the top of a full grown elephant just to attack a FG.
I have seen a massive male tiger chase down cattle through 2+ feet of water and grass like it was nothing while making sharp cuts.
So obviously the massive cats of Kaziranga (assam) are every bit as athletic as Amurs.
The next is this
"WATER
I read nice stories about swamps, big cats and immense muscles in order to move and hunt in a way enabling a decent income.
While it is true Okavango lions and Assam tigers seem extra large, Sunderban tigers are the smallest today. The Vietnamese swamp tigers in Cochin-China a century ago also were smaller than tigers in other parts of Indochina. Sumatra also has very swampy regions, but the tigers making a living over there were not as large as those in other parts of Sumatra.
The conclusion is water apparently isn't a drive for size in lions and tigers. Maybe swimmers are a bit more robust at times, but they are not larger. There are other factors and these seem more important."
You must remember, trying to compare Kaziranga to SUmatra or China is incorrect, since both live in the most densly human populated and deforested areas in the world. They have no true prey to hunt with any real mass and are having less and less room to raom. Especially in Sumatra since I don't know enough about Vietnamese swamp tigers, but I do know that in old hunting images, I saw some massive vietnamese tigers and heard a few stories about their massive size.
But sumatra has been completely destroyed, check out the "hands on thread" where I posted the people of green peace motorcycling all through Sumatra showing you just how bad it is.
So I do think Water is a huge factor, but so is lots of territory, prey densisty and unmolested forrests. But of course water is going to play a huge role, it is the bringer of life. All animals seek it out, and start famililes around it.
WATER
You wrote comparing Kazirangha with Sumatra, the Sunderbans and Cochin-China (the old name for the southern part of Vietnam) isn't correct regarding tigers and size.
It is, however, a fact that Kazirangha has very large tigers living in swampy conditions, whereas tigers living in similar conditions in the Sunderbans, Sumatra and the southern part of Vietnam (a century ago), sizewise, are right at the bottom. This means water in itself has no effect on the size of tigers. You confirmed in that you introduced human disturbance, deforestation and prey size as factors that could have more impact. Meaning you acknowledged swampy conditions in itself are not. Which was my point to begin with.
After confirming my conclusion in the way described, you decided it was incorrect anyhow. Right.
ATHLETICISM
I said Amur tigers appear more athletic than Assam tigers. You introduced a tigress attacking a mahout and a male tiger running down a smallish cow in swampy conditions to conclude Assam tigers seem every bit as athletic.
My conclusions on athleticism are not only based on numerous accurate and lengthy descriptions of fights between tigers and bears and fights between tigers and wild boars. I also saw documentaries on Amur tigers in which they showed remarkable skills. Skills that underlined they, more so than other subspecies, combine strength with agility, endurance and coordination.
I saw a lot more and everything I saw was confirmed in the books I read. I also talked to trainers about the things I had observed. They acknowledged everything.
Apart from that, I saw four fights. A fight between two male Amur tigers, a fight between a male Amur tiger and a male Indian tiger, a fight between three male Sumatran tigers and a mock fight (there were bars between both animals) between a male Amur tiger and a male lion. What I saw, confirmed what I had concluded before I saw the fights.
The Amur males I saw were 440-460 pounds, maybe a bit more. They moved with great agility, speed, coordination and skill, anticipating movements of their opponent and adjusting with lightning speed. The outcome of fights, all other factors equal, usually is a result of mass, but athleticism and speed are very important in that they enable initiative and a good position. In similar-sized opponents, it is about creating opportunities and the way mass is used.
Would they, athleticwise, outperform larger males (different species included), I asked. Yes, the trainers said. Large animals do not have the ability of less robust, but muscular and fit animals. When a big cat is over 500 pounds empty, weight often (but not always) becomes an issue. That's why trainers prefer smaller animals over giants.
Than you introduced a tigress attacking a mahout and a male tiger running down a cripple in swampy conditions in order to conclude Assam tigers are every bit as athletic. Ok.
CONCLUSIONS
1 - Water. First you acknowledged water in itself has little or no effect on size in that you introduced factors that probably have more impact. After that, you conclude I was incorrect (...).
2 - Athleticism. My conclusions regarding Amur and Assam tigers are based on numerous reliable descriptions, documentaries, personal observations and interviews with trainers and keepers. You introduced an angry tigress and a male chasing a clumsy animal in order to conclude there´s no difference. I really don´t want to invest any time in an answer.
3 - Respect. This thread is about reliable observations and peer-reviewed documents on wild tigers. Information, that is. Not debates. We have a special department for debates. In spite of that, you used this thread to start a debate on collars, which, partly as a result of your attitude, resulted in insult, deletes and a mess. I invested time in a pm. It was on the purpose of debating and the disadvantages of fundamentalism. I also said I want this site to be a good one. You said ok.
You then discredited a peer-reviewed document on the activity pattern of a collared tigress in central India, again provoking a debate in a thread intended for information. After that, you dismissed a conclusion you had first acknowledged. Finally, in order to get the hang of it, you used two observations only to sideline a conclusion on athleticism between different subspecies based on a lot of reading, viewing and talking.
4 - Attitude. After everything discussed above, I get to talking before thinking, zero self reflection, posting against yourself, polluting a thread intended for information, provocative posts and consuming a lot of time. That is without double standards and inconsistency. Yes, I was referring to ridiculing an attempt to discuss unexplained phenomena because of a lack of peer-reviewed documents (scientific confirmation) on one hand and dismissing peer-reviewed documents in favour of opinions in a different thread on the other hand. That was when it suited you, of course. Like in collars and tigers.
This is the second time I'm investing time in a poster apparently not that interested in rules, a good climate, a good site and good advice. It´s also the last time. I hope you are willing to consider the arguments mentioned above and the advice offered this time.
CONTINUATION
This post will remain here, because it underlines this thread is about information, not debates. If you want to reply, ask Tigerluver, Apollo or Sanjay to move a copy of this post to the debate thread. Don´t expect me over there to reply. I made my point and will leave it at that. My goal is good information and a good site.
~~Would they, athleticwise, outperform larger males (different species included), I asked. Yes, the trainers said. Large animals do not have the ability of less robust, but muscular and fit animals. When a big cat is over 500 pounds empty, weight often (but not always) becomes an issue. That's why trainers prefer smaller animals over giants.
I agee completely. There is an optimum size for big cats. The larger , bulkier monsters sacrifice athleticism and speed for size.
Simple concept, lean muscle trumps bulk.
(11-15-2014, 08:29 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: This point has been discussed before en AVA, and at this point, Peter was the only giving a large explanation.
From my point of view, the explanation is very easy and has nothing to do with genetic or subspecies, but with feeding and care.
All captive Amur tigers live in "first world" countries, especially those on the Studbook. They had been kept in the best conditions since the beginning of they captivity and they form part of the first program to conserve tigers worldwide. At this moment, is the most safe population in captivity with an optimum number and great care.
On the other hand, Bengal tigers have a doubt origin, and except those from India, all, I mean ALL captive "Bengal" tigers in the Earth are not pure, but hybrids with other species. The thing is even worst, in the old days, Indochina tigers were also included in this subspecies, so the intermix of this groups was normal and frequent. At this day, only Bengal tigers from India are 100% pure and represent the only population available for conservation, however, the studbook is very recent (about 2010, as far I remember) and the conditions of the Indian zoos were deplorable in most of the cases.
Now, with this fact established, we can see that the Amur tiger live in a "paradise", compared with Bengal tigers, and like in humans, individuals living in better conditions develop much better than those in poor ones. The last document about captive specimens put an average figure of 183.3 kg (range 165 - 210 kg) for 16 captive male tigers and 134.6 kg (no range) for 5 female tigers, all in India (Sontakke et al., 2009; Slaght et al., 2005).
On the other hand, Slaght et al. (2005) present an average weight of 169 kg (n=39, no range) for male and 124 kg (n=53, no range) for female captive Amur tigers (248 kg the maximum figure), however he included young and several unhealthy males, like a c.12 years old male of 110 kg and a c.20 years old male of 120 kg. This figures should be excluded, as the produced range is unreliable.
I collected 24 male and 13 female captive Amur tigers from scientific documents and reliable sources and I get average figures of 212.5 +/- 36.28 kg (n=23. Range: 167 – 306.5 kg) for males and 127.3 +/- 14.02 kg (n=13. Range: 113.4 – 158.8 kg) for females. Tigerluver included other specimens to this list and gathered a higher average figure.
At the end, I think that the differences in captive specimens are not about genetic of subspecies, but about correct breeding, enough food and good facilities. In good conditions, captive Bengal tigers will also develop the great sizes than they wild counterparts. The last time, I remember an Indian tiger in captivity named Raja, that at his 12 years old weigh 280 kg.
In conclusion, a correct comparison between captive specimens will never been correct, unless than the conditions would be standardized between all of them.
Still, the only modern cat in the captivity that is capable to reach the size of the largest fossil felids is the Amur tiger.
Which i still insist the multiple origins of the modern Amur tiger population. Just like the human species, the modern tiger population could also be likely the result of the hybridization of several ancient tiger populations.
So, Captive Amur tigers ( in good condition ) are larger than big wild Kaziranga tigers ?
Note:- I am asking about only dimension and size, I know wild counterparts are way ahead than captives.
Amur and Kaziranga Tigers - Habitat and Prey Analysis
