|
Amur Tigers
|
 (03-06-2015, 07:34 AM)'sanjay' Wrote:(03-06-2015, 03:29 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Is the male a bit closer to the camera, is he exceptionally big, or the female exceptionally small? I extropolated pixel ratios from that picture and compared to the female, his chest diameter is 30% greater and his body length 16% greater. That's a big difference, thus I ask whether the camera is playing tricks. He reminds me of T-16.  *This image is copyright of its original author
From any point of view, this is one of the most spectacular pictures of wild tigers that I have ever saw, specially by the fact that it came from a tiger population that have fame of truly loners.
This is another evidence that the behavior of the tiger can't be closed in a particular "cliche". Amur tigers seems less social because they have large territories, but this image show that even in the vast environment, some adult males still share time (and probably food) with they families. It will be interesting to see if this is a "particular" behavior of that male or if this is a common behavior, like in the male tigers of India and Nepal. 
This is spectacular and I can confirm that this is the first one for Amur Tigers in history, I've never seen any prior to this. Also, based on the pictures.. the huge male seems to have passed his genes. Those are no ordinary cubs for sure. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Some great image of Amur tigers
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Wow, fear redefined. Makes me think back to "The Tyger" by William Blake. 
Quite nice video of male amur tiger (2yo).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYzb1beo58 BTW this tiger has a new wife - the tigress is 1,5 yo and her weight is 115 kg...I´d say its quite impressive for a female of this age...  (03-20-2015, 11:39 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: Quite nice video of male amur tiger (2yo).Good lord! Listen to it with the volume all the way up. Couldn't imagine those claws and jaw clamping on to a frail human being. He is pulling so hard that his hind section raises up. On a side note, has anybody ever seen a Amur in person? @peter How dense is their coat compared to a lion or bengal? They look like bears with that long shaggy coat (03-21-2015, 12:38 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Good lord! One breeder from Zoo Prague told me that tigers are incredibly strong, he told me about some cases when amur tigers bent thick iron bars and zoo employees were shocked by that...they thought that something like that would be impossible. I have seen amur tigers, bengals (white), malayan and sumatran. I have touched amurs coat (I played with amur cub). Coat of amur is definitely different from those other tigers - longer and the hair is thicker. Coat of bengals and lions is short and fine in comparison to amurs. The difference is clearly obvious at first sight.
I definitely think its visably easy to see that Amurs have a much longer coat. Bengals get a nice thick winter coat and lions when in cold climate even have a thicker coat, but nothing compared to these Amurs. I also notice amurs tend to have a visably "blunt" looking muzzle. May be the thickness of the coat makes it seem like that, but they appear to be very powerful animals. I can see why many thought they were the largest of all tiger sub species, not sure that they are according to measurements, at least. But they definitely appear that way due to their bushy coat.
(03-23-2015, 12:10 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: I definitely think its visably easy to see that Amurs have a much longer coat. Bengals get a nice thick winter coat and lions when in cold climate even have a thicker coat, but nothing compared to these Amurs. I also notice amurs tend to have a visably "blunt" looking muzzle. May be the thickness of the coat makes it seem like that, but they appear to be very powerful animals. I can see why many thought they were the largest of all tiger sub species, not sure that they are according to measurements, at least. But they definitely appear that way due to their bushy coat. Amurs are tallest and longest - in this sense they are really the largest felids on earth. Bengals are more muscular and therefore heavier. I´d say that people have tendency to think that taller and longer felid is also heavier than shorter and more muscular (and in fact heavier) felid.
Tallest cat measured was a Bengal, correct?
On average they are pretty close, but I actually thought the bengal had the slight edge. I have not looked into length to compare both, but I will in the coming days to see if there is actually a difference between the largest specimens. :Strictly wild measurements: (03-23-2015, 01:11 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Tallest cat measured was a Bengal, correct? As far as I know amurs are on average tallest (even taller than lions) and longest felids. I think I red it somewhere in this forum and more than once.
I just go off those tables we use for weights and body measurements.
Google search and images on Mac books suck, so I will have to wait till tomorrow to compare sizes. But here is what Gaute said a while back "1. Shoulder height: Is commonly stated that the Amur tiger is 2 to 4 inches taller than the Bengal, however, the wild records shows that, in fact, both of them reached the 110 cm in straight line. In captivity, the Amur tiger is definitively taller, according with the figures of Mazák (1983). Overall, both of them average about a meter tall, just like is stated by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002). 2. Head-body length: Scientific records show that the longest of them is the Amur tiger (maximum of 208 cm against 204 cm in the largest Nagarahole male). However, Brander recorded animals of up to 221 cm in head-body length “between pegs”. If we take the Giant Amur from Jankovsky, with a total length of 330 cm “between pegs”, the head-body length will be c.220 cm (the tail is usually 1/3 of the total length of a tiger (Mazák, 1981)). So, the largest tigers, Amur and Bengal, in record reached about 220 cm in head-body length. On average, the difference is not too much, with 190 cm for Bengals (Brander and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar) and 195 cm for Amur (Kerley et al, 2005)." Since captivity is meaningless for bengals because there is literally nothing on body measurements and weight of pure bengal tigers, its hard to determine. As well as the extremely poor facilities they have been kept in for a long time.
The STP male Amurs average 193 cm in body length, while Sunquist and Sunquist has Chitwan published as 195 cm on average for males. It'd be a bit higher if we were to add the two other 270+ kg males I found about. The longest body length of modern record is of an Amur male at 208 cm (101 cm tail, 309 cm total, 179 kg mass) I believe. I think Dhasa of Nagarhole measured 311 cm total but his body length was 204 cm. So, overall I'd say they're equal in length with regard to statistical significance. Not sure about height, but I'd favor the modern Amur to be taller as they seem to be evolving for cursoriality at this point.
Edit: I see Pckts found the summary. Hunter vs. modern records makes some difference, but I think that's just due to sampling error.
Stp records shows Misha at 106cm at the shoulder and averages Amurs at 93cm.
Here is what Gaute said in regards to this "n literature, Pocock (1939) says that the average standing height for male Bengal tigers is of 91 cm, and seldom exceeds this, but these were captive specimens and he doesn’t give any range or sample number. Mazák (1983) give an average standing height of 93.3 cm (n=5), with a maximum of 99 cm and a minimum of 89 cm, again from captive specimens. Finally, Brander (1923) give an average figure of 99 cm (n=42) for males measured “between pegs”, and a maximum of 110 cm. The official figure for the male Amur tiger, in shoulder height, is of 95 cm, based in 11 specimens. I was able to found only 10 specimens with shoulder height, so that’s why I only calculate a figure of [i]93 cm[/i].  *This image is copyright of its original author " |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 39 Guest(s) |