|
Amur Tigers
|
Here is the knowhow to upload the image.
http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-post-about-questions-and-problems-in-this-thread?pid=27594#pid27594 BTW, the Korean tiger is by far the most exotic variety for the Amur subspecies. Not only they were extinct in the wild, we also rarely see this type of Amur tiger in the captivity. According to @peter, the Manchurian tiger also got darker coat.  (10-14-2016, 10:48 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: BTW, the Korean tiger is by far the most exotic variety for the Amur subspecies. Not only they were extinct in the wild, we also rarely see this type of Amur tiger in the captivity. To me, tiger is tiger. I can't really tell the difference haha Btw does any of your guys have an idea how come the Siberian tiger from Korea was a lot different compares to their families are in Northern habitats? The Amur leopard from Korea was a lot different from the Amur leopard from Russian Far East and southern Manchuria(Amur leopard didn't occurred in northern Manchuria)
Usually, there is diversification between a subspecies. However, prior to the human interference, all tiger populations used to share the genetic exchange with each other.
So sometimes it is also hard to define the boundary when different tiger populations lived next to each other. 
Hi Everyone,
I like to repost what I posted in Tiger videos only thread and also add some more points. When it comes to Bengals and amurs, the old hunting records and the modern scientific records all show that bengals were heavier animals than amurs. The silght difference in body length in favor of amurs may be due to different measuring procedures. IMHO the Northern bengals in the Terai belt along with Northeastern Bengals (Kaziranga, Orang, Manas etc excluding Sunderbans) should be the biggest and heaviest living cats. You have to remember that even Bengals had a very hard time in the past. They were decimated in hundreds by the Britishers and the Indian Maharajas after the introduction of rifles. Even amurs were not hunted in that scale. In Terai arc, Assam and Western ghats during hunting expeditions hundreds of Bengals were killed in weeks time. Regional extinctions started occuring and large genetic lineages were lost forever. If you want to talk about ancient bengals and amurs before iceage. I think @GrizzlyClaws is the man. According genetic studies, genetic bottlenecking occured in both the subspecies during the end of the iceage. Regarding Manchurian tigers there are no solid scientific evidence showing they are bigger than amurs from other parts, but the old hunters and natives say that. Since we are able to see variations in Southern, central, northwest, northeast and northern bengals, it is safe to assume that amurs also showed some degree of variations. For any large amur (size and weight) hunted in the wild (old or new doesnt matter) we have equally large and bigger bengals hunted in India, Nepal. The records shows this. For any enormous giant amur found in old hunting pictures we can match that easily with the giant bengals hunted in India, Nepal. Other than this we dont have much evidence to work with in regards to the size difference between amurs and bengals in the wild. Anything else is pure speculation and personal preference. When it comes to modern scientific records in the wild, its the bengals which were bigger. Now regarding genetic depression between amurs and bengals, I see you all compare it at a whole subspecies level. Well that doesnt work in Bengals that way, because there are several small genetically isolated populations in Bengals which were much more genetically inbred and descended from a much more smaller population. Example: The entire Northwest population of Bengals (Ranthambore, Sariska, Kuno, Sawaimadhpur etc) descended from not more than 5 to 10 tigers at the very best.The first tiger in Ranthambore was seen by forest officials after 3 years of it being announced as a tiger reserve. Bengals were hunted and decimated by the old British and Indian hunters, the hunting stopped because there were very very few to no tigers found in the forests. Several hunters and there men were unable to find Bengals even after sweeping the entire forests because there numbers dwindled so low. This is the case in westernghats, terai, central, northeast, northwest and every where in India. The tiger numbers given during the begining of project tiger were all false and wrong. Remember most of the tigers what they call amurs or bengals are not purbred animals at all. It was a trend in captivity to call big tigers to be amurs and smaller tigers to be bengals. That was the reason for all these confusion. Its just like calling bigmaned lions to be barbaries. Most of the freak specimens what you see all over the world are crossbred tigers. Indochinese tigers were also classified as Bengals until 1950s. There are very few pure Bengals in captivity outside India, Nepal and Bhutan (let alone northern and northeastern bengals). The Indian zoos are badly maintained (animals were not kept in ideal conditions). The best way to approach this is, look at the purebred and studbook amurs compare there size with wild bengals. Remember the captive amurs wont have the preybase problems and it will also have the luxury to carry more weight because its not necessary to be very fit to catch its prey. Meaning the captive amurs will definitely have an advantage of growing bigger due to better and easier nutritional availability than wild bengals. But for our surprise the results were not much different captive purebred amurs average around the same size as wild bengals. I guess it explains alot. This shows how special Northern and Northeastern bengals were when it comes to pure size. (10-14-2016, 12:42 PM)Apollo Wrote: Hi Everyone, Hi Apollo. But hmmmm Are you serious? Are you just making this up or you've actually got it from proper sources? I remember I've read about your speaking of northern Bengal tiger So 1) prove me that captive Bengal tigers and siberian tigers in conserving program zoos are not pure breed. 2) siberian: 30 populations with 15 different genetic variation from 1960s VS Bengal: 1000 populations of the Bengal tiger? Which subspecies would suffered by genetic bottleneck if you count the number? 3) "But for our surprise the results were not much different captive purebred amurs average around the same size as wild bengals. I guess it explains alot. This shows how special Northern and Northeastern bengals were when it comes to pure size." Are you really serious?? Have you really studied ecology, genomics, and how does environmental influence in phenotypic and size? Genetic and size determinations doesn't even work like your statement at all unless you're comparing obviously size difference tigers like Sundarbans vs northern populations or comparing different subspecies 3) The Leipzig zoo In Germany is dealing every captive siberian tiger family and few other tiger subspecies for conserving the tiger. "Remember most of the tigers what they call amurs or bengals are not purbred animals at all. It was a trend in captivity to call big tigers to be amurs and smaller tigers to be bengals. That was the reason for all these confusion." How did you made this idea? Or where did you hhear this thing?? Why would any proper zoos involving conserving the tigers would do things like what you just said 5) When I was working in zoo. Every zookeepers and researchers are discussing about conserving tiger genetic, searching mate by looking up the family trees and genetic variations. Private tiger owners certainly have a mix breed. Prove me where did you hear your idea of "Remember most of the tigers what they call amurs or bengals are not purbred animals at all." ???? 5) Every zoo who has a potential family tree of the siberian tiger is surpassing the size of the Bengal tiger 6) Is there any photos and reliable records of northern Bengal tiger was bigger than Sungari river tiger from the Manchuria? 7) old skeleton and museum collections clearly proves that the Manchurian tiger is larger than tigers lLiving in Russian far east. Where did you read your writing of "Regarding Manchurian tigers there are no solid scientific evidence showing they are bigger than amurs from other parts, but the old hunters and natives say that." ???? Please prove me these lists. Are you really doing any research of tiger, knows the tiger keepers in zoos involving program of conserving the tiger, and personally knows any tiger researchers? Or you are just tiger fan boy who's just reading anythings from the Internet? I've been studying Pantherinae for a long time and i know keeper, actual biologists/conservationists studying big cat. After I read your comment. I was wondered where did you get this informations or did you just made up your idea.   (10-14-2016, 03:38 PM)Sabre Wrote: Please prove me these lists. I don't see why the man should "prove" anything to you. There's always a better way to word your disagreeing or a question you might have. In any case, remember that's one of the mods you're talking to so, a bit of respect, please. And, even if he wasn't a mod, that's not the way to talk. It's not the way we do things here. 
SABRE
First of all welcome to the forum. Based on your pm's, I concluded you could develop into a good poster. I still think you can, but your first posts are not very encouraging. As I saw animosity already, I decided for this post. It has a bit of advice. 1 - The essence of WildFact WildFact is a forum about the natural world. Although it is about good information, interaction is as important, if not more so. The reason is WildFact is a forum. A forum is a place where people interact about something they're interested in. The condition for interaction is respect. Respect for good information, respect for members and, in particular, respect for moderators. What is respect on a forum? One is it isn't expressed in firm statements. The reason is we know next to nothing about the natural world. We want to, but reality is very complex. Two is it isn't expressed in taking a stand and defending your position in every possible way. You present arguments and others respond. If you don't like what you read, you can present new arguments or analyse the points made by others. They will then react. In the end, there will be a conclusion. At times, you agree with it, but more often you won't. This is how it works. It's clear you are informed, but it's also clear you're not the only one. Discussing with well-informed people isn't easy, as they in particular know about pride and everything connected to it. The reason is it took them a long time to learn a few things. Some well-informed posters are willing and able to interact in a respectful way and some are not. If you can't, don't join a forum. I've seen more than one poster I consider well-informed or better leave with a grudge. Some of them joined other forums, where they presented firm statements in a thread they started. Very often, they get compliments for every statement they do. The disadvantage is they are not opposed, meaning there won't be a debate, meaning nothing will be tested. After pages of statements and even more compliments, they realize something is wrong. What I'm saying is splendid isolation isn't productive. A good debate is. The condition to debate is rules. In your first posts, you sidelined and insulted posters I consider as very well-informed. Some of them, for this reason, are moderators. This way of interaction not only is disrespectful; it also is inproductive. Another disadvantage is you can get a public warning, followed by a ban. In our exchange, I wrote I was willing to buddy up. This doesn't mean you can use it to act in an inproper way. It also doesn't mean you can ignore forum rules. WildFact is a team, meaning I will back all moderators all the time. You dismissed moderators like Apollo and Grizzly as 'fanboys'. You also dismissed a very well-informed poster (Shardul). Me no like. The advice is to admit you made a mistake and clear the air. You can then try again. Ok? 2 - Debates on size Questions on size are difficult to answer. The reason is we just don't know why some predators developed into 'Monsters of God' and others did not. In general, one could say that most predators were larger and more robust a few thousands years ago. The reason was plenty of large herbivores. We know most of them disappeared, but we don't know why. Could have been climate and could have been something else. As to the size of Amur tigers. It's true there are many rumours about the large size in the recent past, but it's also true there are very few reliable records. Amur tigers ranged over different regions until quite recently. In some parts, they might have reached a great size, but in others they could have compared to an average Indochinese tiger. Rumous has it there was a very large reserve just south of Russia some centuries ago. As a result of the protection, animals grew to a large size. When the political situation changed and the system collapsed, tigers spread in all directions. Manchuria, to the north, might have been a safe place for a long time and this could be the reason it produced quite a few very large tigers. Maybe these manchurian tigers were different from tigers in Korea, Russia and northern China, but nobody knows. It's not likely we will ever know, because Manchurian tigers have disappeared. Some think they spread their genes before they did. There are many reports about very large captive Siberian tigers half a century ago. Although the Manchurian gene seems to be gone now, some captive Amur tigers still reach a great size. Wild Amur tigers seem to be a bit smaller than their captive relatives. A result of the situation in Russia today? I don't know. Manchuria and Russia most probably never were as productive as India or Indochina. Yet Amur tigers always had a big frame. Length is needed to keep warm, long legs are needed to deal with deep snow and impressive weapons are needed to overcome tough prey animals (wild boars) and large competitors (bears). Would a very robust tiger have an advantage over a less robust tiger in these conditions? I don't think so, because it would take a lot of energy to drag 500 plus pounds over all them hills all the time. Finding food isn't easy in a region with long winters, deep snow, few large prey animals and tough competitors. Bears, heavier than Amur tigers, are not capable to find enough food to feed themselves in winter. This is the reason they hibernate. Non-hibernating bears ('Schatuns') may, and sometimes do, rob and even kill Amur tigers, but only very few will survive the winter. Energy deficit is a big and very real problem in southeastern Russia. Tigers do not hibernate. One of the reasons is they are not as heavy as brown bears. This allows them to hunt in winter. It could be that a very large male has an advantage because of his size when he is faced with competition or severe cold, but it definitely is not an advantage during a hunt that can last for days. This could be the reason Amur tigers are not as heavy as wild Indian tigers. Tigers in northern India, as large or larger, also face hills (the Himalayas), but they can hunt large animals and don't need to walk in deep snow for many days to find them. This means they can invest their energy in other things, like building and defending a territory attractive for females. The problem is their neighbours reached a similar conclusion. In small reserves with plenty of large prey animals, a race for size can develop. Maybe this is the reason Indian tigers are a bit heavier than a century ago. 3 - Amur tigers compared to other big cats It's very likely that Amur tigers have always been large, but not as heavy as many think. Old photographs often show long, tall and athletic animals with big skulls, but animals of 250 kg. and over always have been quite rare. The Sungari River tiger shot in 1943 was exceptional, but we have to remember he had eaten a large bear when he was shot. Maybe wild male Amur tigers were about as heavy as captive Amur tigers in the recent past (about 440-460 pounds or a bit more) and meaby they lost a bit of size as a result of changing conditions and low numbers, but I doubt if they averaged over 460 pounds in the previous century. Amur tigers need to be able to overcome long periods dominated by shortages. A male has to keep hit fitness when he loses a lot of weight at the end of winter. In summer, that same male might average well over 450 pounds most of the time. In other words; Amur tigers, more than other big cats, need to be able to deal with extremes without losing ability. All big cats feast or starve, but Amur tigers most probably more so than others. It could be that an average of 500 pounds or more might be helpful, but if we add hills, deep snow and long marches to find and contact prey animals, chances are it could prove to be too much. Captive Amur tigers don't face long periods of starvation, challenging conditions and severe competition. This enables them to get to their potential more often. For this reason, most are a bit longer, taller and heavier than other big cats. When you take a closer look, however, you'll see a big animal, but not a tiger similar in robustness to, say, an average Kazirangha tiger. What you see is a tall, long and big-skulled predator with extra-long canines and big fore-arms. Compared to captive lions, they are not as chesty. One could say lions are a bit more robust for their length, whereas Amur tigers are more athletic. Captive Indian tigers are very close in size to captive Amur tigers, but they are not as well developed as their wild relatives. They seem to be closer to lions in that they are a bit more robust than Amur tigers. This is also seen in skulls: Amur tigers often have slightly longer, but less robust skulls. This is what I saw in skulls of captive animals and my take is it wouldn't be much different in wild tigers. 4 - When captive lions and tigers share a large enclosure (not a cage) Before WildFact was created, I used to visit a number of forums to read every now and then. One of them was Carnivora. In the thread about lions and tigers, I found a post written by someone who had seen a lot of videos about a park called Everland. As he was able to read Korean, he also had been able to understand comments from keepers. In Everland, lions and tigers shared a large enclosure. According to the poster mentioned, they competed for space. Although lions dominated most of the time, tigers were able to adapt to a degree. If I remember correctly, the situation wasn't determined by the brotherhood, but by encounters between the most dominant males of both species. When the male lion won, lions ruled. During lion rule, the situation was more or less stable. When the tiger won, the system collapsed. Tigers, no longer troubled by the brotherhood, used the situation to pick fights all the time. Lions, to a degree, accept leadership, but tigers do not. Not for a long time. When a male tiger picked and lost a fight, he often returned. And again. Not saying it was a war zone all the time, but tigers created unclear situations. Not good for breeding. The outcome of encounters often was unpredictable. At times, the lion won, only to lose a few weeks later. Or the other way round. The poster concluded lions and tigers more or less agreed to disagree. Keepers had to keep an eye on things, but extremes were few and far between. This situation in Everland might have been typical and it might not have been. Mixing both big cats in a large enclosure might work out, but keepers have to be on top of the situation all the time. One reason for concern in Everland was an exceptional young male Amur tiger who had to be separated when he started to realize he had a lot of potential. For the same token, it could have been an exceptional lion. At any rate. The post on Everland, although a long one, was interesting. I would recommend reading it.
@Sabre
I was being very polite and was trying to give an overall picture from all collective data, so that everyone can understand. But you are so disrespectful. If you want to learn more, there is so much info, pics and data on what Ive said all over this forum. You just have to search and read. Anymore disrespectful posts towards me or others in this forum and anymore fanboyish stuff, I will personally kick you out myself. You are being officialy warned, one more bad move you will be officially banned by me period.
Hi Everyone,
I like to post some info on Amurs and Bengals. Some of the data is borrowed from @GuateGojira , @Kingtheropod and @peter , so the credits for those info should goto them. Here are some remarks from some of the leading expert scientists in the field, 1. “Contrary to earlier perceptions, measurements obtained from tigers captured for radiotelemetry studies in the Indian subcontinent (Sunquist 1981; Karanth, unpubl. data) show that they are not smaller than tigers captured in the Russian Far East (Dale Miquelle and John Goodrich, unpubl. data).” K. Ullas Karanth, 2003. http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8073 2. “Surprisingly, while Siberian or Amur tigers have long been thought to be the largest of the subspecies, measurements of tigers from the Russian Far East show they are currently no larger than the Bengal tigers of the Indian subcontinent [2] (D. Miquelle and J. Goodrich, unpublished data).” Melvin Sunquist, 2010. http://books.google.com.gt/books?id=XFIbjBEQolMC&pg=PA21&dq=%22Surprisingly,+while+Siberian+or+Amur+tigers+have+long+been+thought+to+be+the+largest+%22&hl=es&sa=X&ei=aYMaT_2YIcW4tweR9P2-Cw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Surprisingly%2C%20while%20Siberian%20or%20Amur%20tigers%20have%20long%20been%20thought%20to%20be%20the%20largest%20%22&f=false 3. “Despite repeated claims in popular literature that members of the Amur population are the largest of all tigers, our measurements on more than fifty captured individuals suggest that their body size is similar to that of Bengal tigers”. Dale Miquelle, 2004. http://www.wcsrussia.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?EntryId=3190&PortalId=32&DownloadMethod=attachment 4. “Siberian tigers are often considered the largest of the tiger sub-species, although they are in fact about the same size as the Bengal tiger.” WCS-Russia, 2012. http://www.wcsrussia.org/Wildlife/AmurTigers/Ecology/tabid/1467/language/en-US/Default.aspx 5. “However, recent data on tigers captured for telemetry studies in Nagarahole (India), Chitwan (Nepal) and in Sikhote-Alin (Russia) show that tigers from these three sites are all about the same size.” K. Ullas Karanth, 2003. http://books.google.com.gt/books?id=c44rAQAAMAAJ&q=%22show+that+tigers+from+these+three+sites+are+all+about+the+same+size.%22&dq=%22show+that+tigers+from+these+three+sites+are+all+about+the+same+size.%22&hl=es&sa=X&ei=lhwMUZnUE4a89QSlsYGoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA The term Bengal tigers were initially given to the ones in the bengal area. Bengal is a geographical and ethno-linguistic region in South Asia. It lies in the eastern region of the Indian subcontinent, at the apex of the Bay of Bengal, and is dominated by the fertile Bengal delta. The region was politically divided in 1947 and today comprises the nation of Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. This is nothing but Sunderbans fertile plains and mangrove forests. Later this term Bengal was adapted and used for all tigers in India, Nepal, Bhutan and the Indochinese tigers. So there is a high possibility that some of the smaller bengal tigers taken to captivity could very well come from Sunderbans and Indochinese. The Indochinese tiger was not considered a separate subspecies UNTIL 1968, when Dr. Mazak spend several months studying a captive tiger from Vietnam and many skulls, then he conclude that there were enough differences for put it in a new subspecies, which had been proved right with the studies of Lou et al. The sources were the document of Mazak and the book "Riding the Tiger". This is exactly the Bengal region  *This image is copyright of its original author Regarding the 1000s of tigers accounted during begining of the project tiger in 1972-73 were total false and wrong. They used pugmark technique in most places for counting tigers which was a totally wrong method and it will give a very high escalated figures. In other places they just estimated tiger numbers without any reliable scientific method, when questioned they had no answer for how they arrived at that estimate. Example: In pugmark method you can show there are 100 tigers in a single reserve using the pugmarks of one or two tigers. The incident at Panna will be a living proof for this. But in reality the bengals were so heavily hunted, that only a fraction of those numbers really existed. In many reserves tigers were not seen for several years even after the reserves being established and protected. Even two or three decades ago we were able to see many resident males holding there territories for unusually long periods due to lack of competition. India with such a massive human population, tiger migrations were highly restricted. This resulted in several genetically isolated populations. Tigers from southern, central, northwest, northeast and northern are all genetically isolated from each other. Captive pure bengals outside India, Nepal and Bhutan are very few. Most of the private facilities, rescue centers, santuaries and even zoos can call there tigers bengals, but in reality they are nothing but crossbreds. Only reputable zoos and centers with species protection programs with full ancestry chart and studbook bengals can be considered reliable. Even these bengals may have low genetic diversity because India is not giving off tigers so easily for other countries to improve the gene pool. Now here are the records of wild amur tigers (modern and old)  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Now here are the records of wild bengal tigers (modern and old)  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Some captive Bengal weights  *This image is copyright of its original author Some captive amur weights  *This image is copyright of its original author I hope all this info is helpful Thanks 
I am curious about lineage of amurs in captivity. I would assume it's a mix from a few places depending on the country.
The Amur tigers from the Harbin breeding center were descended from the remaining Amur tigers in China back in the 1980s, so I guess they are mostly belonged to the Manchurian lineage.
Amur tigress with her cubs in winter
 *This image is copyright of its original author
Tiger captured in Vladivostok to undergo rehabilitation
The newest arrival at the Centre for the Rehabilitation of Tiger (PRNCO “Tiger Centre”) is a young tiger captured by workers from the Primorye Territory Hunting Supervision Department at Shamora Bay, within the Vladivostok city limits. The tiger was first spotted on 8 October, while he was crossing a road near the town of Artyom. He then spent several days roaming around Vladivostok. An initial veterinary inspection of the tiger found him to be a male of around 18 months to two years old, with a weight of 140 kilogrammes, normal for this age, and no signs of external illnesses. The centre’s specialists took samples for more detailed analyses and put the tiger in quarantine until the results come through. More information in the link: http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/25406
Another tiger caught in Primorye Territory suburbs
"Experts from the centre assessed the condition of the predator. They found him to be healthy and decided that he should be released into the wild as soon as possible. The tiger is a three-to-four-year-old male that weighs 170 kg". Link: http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/25409 This male can be included in my tables, for its age. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |