|
Amur Tigers
|
I would tend to believe that under normal conditions, living under cold climates, the Amur tiger would be the biggest tiger.
 (08-21-2016, 05:08 AM)genao87 Wrote: I believe GuateGojira mentioned that the Amur was heavier but the Bengal somewhat longer. It's the opposite, the Amur is longer while the Bengal is heavier. But both of their body dimensions are close, the weight is the true oddity between the two sub species. 
It seems that captive amur tigers are the same size as wild bengals - around 210 kg. As far as I know captive tigers tend to be smaller than wild ones, so in good conditions amurs could be even heavier than bengals. Some captive amurs are real monsters - 250+ kg, perhaps decendants of lengendary manchurian tigers.
BTW I know the weights of these captive amur tigers:
Xeron - 205 kg, (13-14yo) Mauglis - 246 kg (13yo) Amur - 250 kg (5yo) Jupiter - 196 kg (less than 7yo) Bajkal -250 kg (12yo) Igor - 220 kg (4yo or less) Skip - 250+ kg (my estimate) Average: 231 kg. I have seen all these tigers with the exception of Mauglis and Amur. I have seen more amur tigers, but I dont know their weights...I would say they are usually in the 200-220 kg range. I also know about 190 kg Semjon, but he was very old when weighted. 
A new series on "NatGeoWild" ... "Forbidden River" ... episode: "Into the Shadowland" is all about the Amur River region and has some beautiful Amur tiger footage.
Amur tigers perhaps are the most beautiful tigers on appearance, particularly in winter with thick fur. Even in summer they appear good looking.
  *This image is copyright of its original author Tiger from Ussuri reserveTiger Boris  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
From National park "Land of the Leopard":
"Summer is over. It’s freezing here, and this Amur tiger is not happy about it. Photo by camera trap, “Land of the Leopard” National Park"  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (08-22-2016, 02:58 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: It seems that captive amur tigers are the same size as wild bengals - around 210 kg. As far as I know captive tigers tend to be smaller than wild ones, so in good conditions amurs could be even heavier than bengals. Some captive amurs are real monsters - 250+ kg, perhaps decendants of lengendary manchurian tigers. Sadly, it's impossible to tell the exact size of the Siberian tiger since they've been suffered from genetic bottleneck and low prey base. The Siberian tiger prey base in the Russian Far East these days are only 0.2-0.5 per 100 square km. This is even LOWER than prey base of the Meru Betiri national park of the Java island, which was the last remaining population of the Javan tiger during 1970 to early 1980s. The prey base of the Meru Betiri was 0.7~1 per 100 square km. Java was already overpopulated by human, Meru Betiri was only 580 square km, the only habitat for the last Javan tiger, and Java island was too overpopulated since 1900s. That's why Javan tiger became extinct. The Siberian tiger is still surviving since their habitat is low human populated area. However, I've seen the Korean documentary of the Siberian tiger cubs are killing weaker cubs while their mom is gone due to hunger. It's all due to low prey base by human is hunting their prey like deer. One large male Siberian tiger name Victior from 2011 was 305 cm long, but his weight was only 175 kg. Similar length of huge male bengal tiger, but his weight is just a littlie bit heavier than large female bengal tiger. I heard people are saying that bengal is the largest due to size of Kaziranga, Mannas, Chitwan, ...etc. Prey base of the bengal tiger in Chitwan national park is 3-3.7 per 100 square km. Extremely high base. Similar as majority tiger reserves of the India, Nepal, and Bhutan. But truth fact is that captive Siberian tiger is DEFINITELY surpassing size of captive bengal tiger and wild bengal tiger. Top largest captive tigers are Siberian, not bengal. If people study biology courses, then they should think what is the reasons of the Siberian tiger became smaller in wild. It's IGNORANT to conclude bengal is larger than siberian just because northern bengal sizes are heavier than siberian tigers these days. If wild bengal is bigger, then caprive Siberian tiger like Sabre, Baikal, Baja, Duke, Japiur, Romeo, and gigantic Siberian tigers are in Harbin... etc are DEFINITELY BIGGER AND HEAVIER than any of male bengal tigers are in Kaziranga, Taboda, Manas, ... etc. There are some records of the gigantic Siberian tiger records from the Russian hunters, but majority biologists/naturalists/conservationists view it as unreliable. But I think it's just silly to view it as unreliable just because it is hunting record. Maybe there was some records were exaggerated. But I don't believe everything was unreliable. One hunter name Barclay, he was a hunter from British empire 100 years ago. When he was in Korea 100 years ago. He even recorded it as "I believe that members of this race(Siberian) are deeper chested than other varieties, and would surely weight more, length for length." because people are believing common wrong belief of the bengal tiger is the largest and most violent subspecies. The largest male Siberian tigers are all from the Manchuria, especially the Herilongjiang and north part of Jilin. If I go back to 150 years ago, then I am sure the Siberian tigers from Manchuria are bigger than northern bengal tigers.
Remember @Sabre captive Bengal tiger weights are non existent more or less, every tiger you've seen is either a n. American tiger, Amur or Sumatran, the only place that has pure bred captive Indian bengals is India.
Amurs and bengals have been hunted for many years and still bengals top the list for weight, body length is close with a edge to amurs but very much overlapping. There's a thread here called "king of the tigers" feel free to contribute your info there. Welcome (10-13-2016, 04:01 PM)Pckts Wrote: Remember @Sabre captive Bengal tiger weights are non existent more or less, every tiger you've seen is either a n. American tiger, Amur or Sumatran, the only place that has pure bred captive Indian bengals is India. hmm I don't know about your statement is true. I used to work in zoo before, I mainly deal with birds like harpy eagle. Still, I knew a keepers who's working tiger. They are a pure breed tigers since it is official zoo who's involving tiger conservation program. The siberian tigers were in my zoo was bigger than bengal tigers were in my zoo and white bengal tiger from neighborhood city zoo. Even every tiger keepers agreed that the Siberian tiger is definitely bigger than bengal tiger. Plus, the hunting records of the Siberian tigers are less numerous records than bengal tiger records from the past. India was colonized by British empire, and Siberian tiger habitat like Korea, Northern eastern China, Russian far east was colonized by Japan. British people had a more biologists and naturalists. They recorded more sincerely about the bengal tiger data while japanese didn't even record anything after they massacre the Siberian tiger from Korea and Manchuria. Yea, I am a new here. I am trying to get familiar with this website. And other websites like carnivoraforum.
Which zoo did you work at?
I agree in captivity that the Amur is the largest but I have yet to see any individuals that are pure Indian Bengals from zoos. Definitely none in the US for sure. You can say white tigers but they are genetically muddy since they are severely inbred. I agree with most things you're saying but still the Bengal is just as long (or close), tall and weighs more. Maybe because an Amur has to hold more fat than a Bengal that they are different weights at similar sizes but who knows. From all that I've read and heard though, amurs are the most massive looking tigers.  (10-13-2016, 03:43 PM)Sabre Wrote:First of all, stop using caps. People can read here.(08-22-2016, 02:58 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: It seems that captive amur tigers are the same size as wild bengals - around 210 kg. As far as I know captive tigers tend to be smaller than wild ones, so in good conditions amurs could be even heavier than bengals. Some captive amurs are real monsters - 250+ kg, perhaps decendants of lengendary manchurian tigers. Second of all, please explain at what point in a population does a genetic bottleneck occur? The Bengal tiger population was 1800 at best, in 1972. That is more than 50 years ago. So genetic bottleneck didn't occur for bengals? Also, the Siberian tiger population is concentrated in one area, unlike the bengal which is subdivided into small isolated populations, which are actually more inbred than Siberian tigers. For example, Ranthambhore tigers are heavily inbred since there hasn't been any gene flow coming into the reserve since the last 3 decades, at the very least. But the big males there easily weigh 250 kilos. So using your logic, 150 years ago, bengals should have been weighing more than 300 kilos? 
I am just wondering is there any pure breeding Northern Bengal in the captivity?
Because there are plenty of Manchurian Amurs in the captivity for sure, instead of the smaller version from Russia. These two should be the representative titan for their respective subspecies. Unfortunately, one no longer exists in the wild, while the other one likely has no existence in the captivity. (10-13-2016, 07:20 PM)Shardul Wrote: For example, Ranthambhore tigers are heavily inbred since there hasn't been any gene flow coming into the reserve since the last 3 decades, at the very least. But the big males there easily weigh 250 kilos. So using your logic, 150 years ago, bengals should have been weighing more than 300 kilos? I think it has to do with the collapse of the ecosystems in the Amur domain. PS, the largest Amur population was already gone in the wild, while the largest Bengal population is still remaining with a much bigger prey base. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |