|
Amur Tigers
|
Modern Amurs stem from a population of 20-30 far eastern individuals. I don't think any other tiger subspecies can compare to the genetic depressions Amurs have faced. Whether that affected size, we have too little data to say with absolute certainty. Could the big Amurs hunting records be false? Sure, but judging the reliability of records is horribly subjective.
 (10-13-2016, 07:20 PM)Shardul Wrote:(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. First of all, I hope you didn't tackling or attacking. I feel like you're Insulting about my post . The siberian tiger population was only like 30-40s back in 1950-1960s. Their population is something like 400s. But their genetic variations only like 15 unlike the Bengal tiger. The entire wild siberian tiger populations are came from like 30-40 populations which has only 15 different genetic variations. Trust me, I am Korean and I know biologists or naturalists studying the wild Siberian tiger of Russia and biologists/naturalists of Korea who's studying the siberian tiger from the past and their DNA and genome mapping of the siberian tiger. The largest Siberian tigers were mainly from the Manchuria. Unfortuantely, the Siberian tigers from Manchuria were wiped out. The huge gene linkage is disappeared in wild these days (just like case of some of the saltwater crocodile size hypothesis these days). I've studied genomics. It takes a long time to recover the genetic variation since ggenetic variations by mutation occurs extremely slow. If you've never studied genetics and genomics as university level. Then I don't know what to tell you that you want to do your career of big cat or any of biology. Did you even read carefully about my post? If you did read my post, siberian tiger prey base of Russian far east are extremely low compares to bengal tiger habitats. It's similar as European and American height. 100 years ago, the average heights of the European and American men was only like 170 cm tall. But their average height increased to 180 cm due to nutrition and better life style. It made them bigger and taller.. majority older asian men are like 160-170cm. But younger asian are a lot taller. My dad is 169cm, but i am like 182-186 cm. I lived in better lifestyle, obtained better nutrition, and never been in hunger by poverty and famine. It's the same case as the tiger. Bengal tiger habitats prey base are extremely higher than the siberian tiger habitat. Siberian tiger has a huge territory due to extremely low prey base in their habitat. Bengal tiger can easily surpass their weight. Victor is similar size and length as the Sauraha tiger, but he is almost 100 kg lighter Sauraha. He is just a little bit heavier than huge bengal tigress So in your logic, explain to me that how come the largest captive tigers are not bengal tiger.. Both siberian and bengal are living in the same conditions and factors in captivity. But size of the siberian tiger is surpassing the bengal. The siberian tiger is larger than majority zoos in Asia, North America, Europe. So in your logic, bengal is larger in captivity too? But that's not even reality in captivity. 
10-13-2016, 10:08 PM
( This post was last modified: 10-13-2016, 10:23 PM by sanjay
Edit Reason: corrected the format
)
(10-13-2016, 09:44 PM)Sabre Wrote:(10-13-2016, 07:20 PM)Shardul Wrote:(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. 
@Sabre what zoo did you work for?
Also, were you able to find anything on captive Indian bengals to compare to Amurs with stud books provided? And lastly, if we are saying the Manchuria Gene or lets call it the "giant amur gene" is gone and only used in captivity which does allegedly produce the largest Captive Cats than we must only compare the N. Indian Tiger gene as well. And I know for fact that you will not find a known representative of this gene (stud books provided) anywhere other than India. So you would never be able to compare apples to apples in that case. Lets look at the wild Amurs body size compared to wild bengals and the "sauraha male" in particular  *This image is copyright of its original author Longest HBL 208cm and 104cm Shoulder height Compared to M105 Sauraha Male  *This image is copyright of its original author HBL 197cm which is shorter than Maurice but with a 140cm Chest girth. So obviously we know where the size difference is, lets for the sake of argument say they were measured in different ways, yada yada and they are equal HBL, we still see that the sauraha male is obviously a much more robust animal, which is the argument we are presenting. When comparing them side by side, not just specific individuals we see a different picture  *This image is copyright of its original author But the sample size of the amur is only 10% of the Bengals, so obviously if we upped the sample size we'd have more exceptional individuals for the amurs. But I think most of us agree on this, The Amur is the largest cat in frame, meaning height and length but not in weight. Option 1: Since Amurs carry extra fat for insulation maybe that takes up some of the space for muscle and we know muscle weighs more than fat. Option 2: Amurs have been decimated, the largest species are gone, their genetic bottle necking is most extreme and their habitat is gone and everything with in it. Thus any chance of obtaining their previous max weights are gone. At the end of the day my feeling is this, A tiger is a tiger: Meaning, there is only so much space for mass, if we look at their muscle distribution I would assume that its very similar in all tiger sub species at parity. I may be wrong with that assumption but I'd assume the differences would be statistically minimal. With in 5% or so would be my guess. So if an amur has more "sq. footage" to fill with mass, than he most likely as the capabilities of doing so. But its purely speculative and no matter how far we go back, Wild Amur weights have never been larger than Wild Bengals, hunting or scientific. But to be fair, data on Amurs hunted in the past is extremely minimal.
In my humble opinion, the Manchurian is most likely larger than the Central Indian, but compared to the North Indian, I am not sure.
There are plenty of huge Manchurians in the captivity. However, we are not sure those captive Bengals were North Indians or Central Indians or South Indians. In the wild, the Manchurians were already completely gone, so no doubt even the Central Indians are larger than the current genetically degenerated population in Russia, then let alone the even more superior North Indians. 
GrizzlyClaw. Pckts. How do you know we have a captive Siberian tiger from the Manchuria? So far I know is that majority captive Siberian tigers are from the Russian Far East from past. If there is captive Siberian tiger from the Manchuira, then I am definitely sure we do have a captive bengal tiger from northern indai, nepal, bhutan. Plus, the manchurian tiger is already wiped out like 50~60 years ago unlike northern bengal tiger. Siberian tiger from Russian Far east still can be huge size long as they feed sufficiently.
Sorry for you, but I am not telling my location xD I had a stalker back in 2012. I am not telling my location and placed where I worked. Plus, I mainly dealt with smaller tropical birds and bird of prey. But I knew keepers dealing with tiger. My zoo don't have the siberian and bengal tiger anymore. We are mainly breeding endangered sumatran tiger and malayan tiger. I've been in zoos in Korea and worked in zoo in America before(I quit because I hated it). The description page of the Siberian tiger is always mentioning that Siberian is the largest subspecies of the tiger(American, European, and Asian zoos). And Siberian tiger looks bigger than bengal in general. I don't know how to post photos in here though. Siberian tigers are in Korea are definitely heavier and bigger than bengal tigers are in Korea(which they are from all part of India like north and south). About here, "And lastly, if we are saying the Manchuria Gene or lets call it the "giant amur gene" is gone and only used in captivity which does allegedly produce the largest Captive Cats than we must only compare the N. Indian Tiger gene as well." If you study genetic and genomics. Size and gene doesn't work like that at all. If southern bengal tiger have higher prey base, better nutrition, and feed sufficiently. Then they can grow bigger than northern bengal tiger who didn't feed well and low prey base. I've seen one hunted 11ft southern bengal tiger photo from 100 years ago. I have a friend over 2m tall, but his sister is only like 150cm. But her mom is 180cm and her dad is like 178cm tall. My other friend is 193cm tall, his dad is like 191cm, his mom is 160cm, and his 2 sisters are like 160cm and 175cm. Same as for the tiger, northern and southern mix breed bengal tiger still can grow big as northern bengal tiger or small as sundarbans tiger. As stated in bergmann rule, animals are living in colder environment is generally larger than warmer environemnt for mammals and birds. About body fat, I read article 10 years ago that Siberian tiger only has 5 cm body fats under their belly due to colder climates they are living in. Their overall body fats are similar as other tiger subspecies(beside belly). Plus, they have a long fur to prevent from coldness along with body fat. Main sad fact is that the Siberian tiger habitat prey base is extremely low since end of 1990s. The prey base in Russia is not abundant enough for those tigers to realize their full potential(weight and robust). Prey is more scattered and the Russian tigers need huge territories to capture sufficient food, so much more energy is expended in the food quest. (10-13-2016, 09:34 PM)tigerluver Wrote: Modern Amurs stem from a population of 20-30 far eastern individuals. I don't think any other tiger subspecies can compare to the genetic depressions Amurs have faced. Whether that affected size, we have too little data to say with absolute certainty. Could the big Amurs hunting records be false? Sure, but judging the reliability of records is horribly subjective. Your forgot the South china tiger my friend. The south china tiger probably suffered the most genetic depressions. (10-14-2016, 06:15 AM)Sabre Wrote: As stated in bergmann rule, animals are living in colder environment is generally larger than warmer environemnt for mammals and birds. About body fat, I read article 10 years ago that Siberian tiger only has 5 cm body fats under their belly due to colder climates they are living in. Their overall body fats are similar as other tiger subspecies(beside belly). Plus, they have a long fur to prevent from coldness along with body fat. The Bergmann rule only applies when both subspecies have the similar prey base, then the one that lives in the colder climate tends to be larger. BTW, the Northern Bengal is the most exotic variety, and I am not sure if the captivity does show their presence. They are the largest variety among the Bengal subspecies, just like the Manchurian for the Amur subspecies. Regardless about the prey base, from the genetic perspective, I think it is legit to say, Amur: Manchurian > Russian > Korean, Bengal: North Indian > Central Indian > South Indian. (10-14-2016, 06:31 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The Bergmann rule only applies when both subspecies have the similar prey base, then the one that lives in the colder climate tends to be larger. I honestly not sure. The siberian tiger once inhabited southernmost part of Korea to 80 km northernmost of Ust'Maya of the Sibera which is very close to the North Pole. Temperature goes below -50 degrees there. Less human interference and probably similar prey base back in early 1900s. Siberian tiger once found in westernmost record as the lake Baikal. I know it's areas occasionally used by tigers. But Siberian tiger population was stable in the Russian states like Khabarovsk, Amur, Zabaylkalsk, and Buryatia. Only the Primorsky siberian tiger from Russia is smaller than Manchurian siberian tiger I believe the Siberian tiger in those area could surpass the size of the Manchurian Siberian tiger. Unfortunately, it's impossible to know since those records are 1800s to 1905 and there is no description about the size. The siberian tiger in those areas are in Russia/Siberia are 100% mystery. Also, what about the Siberian tiger size from the Liaodong peninsula?? I don't know anything about past Siberian tiger sizes are in there. Probably smaller than Manchurian tiger. So far I know is there is no captive Siberian tiger from Manchuria before 1950s. This is what Peter agrees too. "The Bergmann rule only applies when both subspecies have the similar prey base, then the one that lives in the colder climate tends to be larger." Then how come bald eagles in Florida and Arizona are smaller than bald eagles living in northern part of North America regardless of prey base?
Well, Heilongjiang was the hub for the Amur tiger population for over 10,000 years. This place had rich prey base prior to the human influence. There were even bovid lived there until 2000 BC.
Follow to the analogy, Heilongjiang did produce the largest Amur population, then followed by the Russian Far East. The smallest Amur population should belong to those from the Korean peninsula. The scientific study and subfossil evidence also support the hypothesis that the largest Amur tigers were from Heilongjiang. "Then how come bald eagles in Florida and Arizona are smaller than bald eagles living in northern part of North America regardless of prey base?" As we said before, the Manchurian tigers were gone, and there are only the starving Russian tigers remaining there. They might be close to the Bengal tigers in the shoulder height/body length departments, they just weigh less due having less nutrition. (10-14-2016, 08:54 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Well, Heilongjiang was the hub for the Amur tiger population for over 10,000 years. This place had rich prey base prior to the human influence. There were even bovid lived there until 2000 BC. Yea, but how does it proves that where in the world has the captivity Siberian tiger from the Manchuria?? Another reason could be probably geological environmental conditions of the Russian Far East. Korean peninsula and Russian Far East like Primorsky State and Ussuri Krai are steep mountains. While majority places are in Manchuria are flat woodland. Animals grow larger in flat area in general. But I think we don't really know anything of the Siberian tiger lived in Khabarovsk, Amur, Zabaylkalsk, and Buryatia from 100 years ago. Those places environment is a lot different than Primorsky/Ussuri. More similar to the Manchuria habitat and probably colder. Majority records of the past Siberian tigers are usually Primorsky and Ussuri Krai if we are referring the Russian Siberian tiger. Unfortunately, the Siberian tiger from Ussuri are smaller than past 1970s. I read something like gene is evolving decreasing size to the siberian. I highly doubt about this hypothesis. But still the captivity siberian tiger is larger than captivity northern bengal tiger, central bengal tiger, lion, and any other Felidae.
The Amur tigers didn't use to live too far north in Siberia, since the prey base there wasn't sustainable.
All those large subfossils of the Amur tigers I've seen belong to Manchuria, not Russia Far East/Siberia. (10-14-2016, 09:37 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The Amur tigers didn't use to live too far north in Siberia, since the prey base there wasn't sustainable. How do I upload the photo??? What interested about the Siberian tiger lived in Korea was their physical. Old hunters and naturalists recorded it as the Siberian tiger from Korea were smaller, different pattern, different color, and morphologically a lot different from the Siberian tiger from the Manchuria and Russian Far East. They recorded it as the Korean tiger was a lot more beautiful Here is a quote from the book "The Manchurian Tiger" written by Baikov. "Figures on the fur of the Korean tiger present a very beautiful contrast of colors: on a light rusty-yellow background there are clear dark stripes mottling the fur. As with all cats, color of the fur on the back is darker than on each side of the body. On the belly, on the internal flanks of the legs, under the tail, on the lips, on the bottom of the cheeks, on the ears, between the fingers and above the eyes, and also on the bottom of the tail the fur is white. The Ussurian tigers differ from the Korean ones, all over the body their fur is more fluffy and long, forming a kind of mane on each side of the neck. Besides, the coloration of their fur is much lighter; dark stripes are a little narrower and not so sharp, their black color sometimes changes into brown." Majority hunters prefer the Siberian tiger lived in Korea due to their appearance. Since they are smaller since 70% habitat was liiving in steep mountains environment habitats, and it was a lot like quicker and faster. It was more difficult to hunt it, which made attractiveness to the hunters. I tried to add photo, but I don't know how to add it. But if it shows it. This male tiger was caught in 1896. The only thing known about this photo is it is large male near 3m long even though it is living in Korea. Don't know the location and man in the photo. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |