WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
B2 and Other Great Tiger Pics from India
B2 and Other Great Tiger Pics from India
|
B2 and Other Great Tiger Pics from India
|
@Pantherinae, the Central Indians are the most representative Bengal tigers, even the Bengal tigers mentioned in the modern literatures were all Central Indians.
The Northeast Indians are huge, but they are not as ironic as their Central Indian brothers. @Pckts, which Bengal population is your favorite?  (11-10-2015, 04:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @Pantherinae, the Central Indians are the most representative Bengal tigers, even the Bengal tigers mentioned in the modern literatures were all Central Indians. Hitting me with the hard questions I see haha Like you stated, Central India is the most studied so in turn, its our most viewed. That being said, I love Kahna Tigers for Central India, northern India is harder for me.... Obviously I love Assam/Terai Arc Tigers but we get very little images or back stories of the cats there so its harder to keep track. I really like the look of Ranthambhore tigers as well, they are the most studied N. Indian Tigers that I know of, so that may be why I like them soo much. I guess if push came to shove, nothing beats a big male tiger from Kaziranga. There is something unchanged about them, they strike me as the most wild of Tigers, something ancient if you will. What about you?
I am not particularly biased toward a certain subspecies or population, I am just more interested about the measurement from those massive individuals.
The Northeast Indians are definitely the largest cat of today, but how big exactly? It will be more visualizing if the measurement and weight of these beasts are published. 
Very interesting Pckts! name your top 10 tigers from Central India and tell me who you think is the biggest of all.
@Roflcopters I can say my top 10 and try to guess who's the biggest.
1) Big Bam Bamera 2) Munna 3) Bokha 4) Madla 5) T-24 6) B2 (he was The one who started it all for me) 7) T-42 8) Shivaji 9) Pattewala 10) Wagdoh Sultan will probably be on that list some day. Konda, Mukki male, Red eye, Star male and Jai are also very close. Obviously Raja is southern, else why he would be on that list. Okey I'll try to say who's biggest (please no hate I don't wanna have a long unnessacery debate, but Wagdoh seems a little overrated size wise in my eyes) So I'll go with munna, he's long, muscular, tall and has a huge neck also. also if it's true that it's konda who's weighed at 240 kg, and people at Kanha says Munna is notably larger that weight could be pretty huge. 2nd: Madla 3rd: Bokha, Wagdoh or T-24  (11-10-2015, 04:46 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I am not particularly biased toward a certain subspecies or population, I am just more interested about the measurement from those massive individuals. I know that there is the popular notion that northern tigers are larger than central or southern tigers, but in fact, after saw several record of sizes and weights of many tiger populations in India, trough history, I can firmly say that there is no difference between the three populations. The tigers measured in Central India are about the same size than those measured in the northeast and the south of India, all between pegs. f we correct those measured "over curves" in northwest India, they are again of the same size. The longest tiger recorded by Hewett (318 cm over curves) would be of about 301-304 cm "between pegs", which is in the range than those recorded by Brander. All the populations had an average head-body of about 190 cm and a total length of about 280 cm +/- 5 cm in some cases. I saw similar chest girths in all these areas and in the weight issues, we most remember that the sample from Nepal include only adult males, while that of Hewett-Brander-Cooch Behar definitely included subadults of 3 years old or less, so this can also explain the abrupt difference between the average of 200-205 kg in the old days and that of 210-220 kg in the modern ones. Massive specimens exist in all the regions, I have saw huge tigers in Chitwan, Ranthambore, Kanha, Panna and Nagarahole. In all these regions, the record figures are between 240-260 kg, so I see no difference in weight or length. From what I have read, only the population of Sundarbans, and probably also those in the Naga Hills (in the old days) were significantly smaller. The few specimens known in the southeast of India are lighter but of the same length that tigers in other regions. The only population that can provide us with a surprise is that of Kaziranga, all the others seems to be of the same size.
The Assam tigers seem to have more elongated skull compared to other Bengals.
I am more intriguing about the regional variation within the subspecies.
Yes, in fact, there are differences in the skull form even between the animals of India.
@peter posted the next pages of the book of V. Mazák "Der Tiger".  *This image is copyright of its original author Left skull from Nepal, right skull from the Assam, not to scale. Check that the two skulls looks completely different, but belongs to the same "subspecies". There is the issue in classify a "subspecies" based in just a few specimens from one region, when in fact, there are intraspecific variations between groups that are just discrete biological adaptations, rater than a clear 75% different characteristic.
Interesting to see that some Bengal tigers like Wagdoh who is morphologically closer to an Amur tiger, but genetically he is still a Bengal tiger.
But overall I see that Bengal tigers have more intraspecific variation than the Amur tigers. From the cranial morphology per se, the Amur tigers overall show less diversification, but of course this could be the result of the genetic bottleneck after being nearly hunted into extinction.
Tigers anywhere north of India and anywhere in Nepal always seem more impressive than Central Indians and Southern Indians. that's for sure.
(11-10-2015, 10:31 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: Tigers anywhere north of India and anywhere in Nepal always seem more impressive than Central Indians and Southern Indians. that's for sure. I agree with Copters here. The number of studied N. Indian Tigers are relatively low, correct? But we still got Madla and some large boys from Assam (not sure where) But I think if we got more Tiger numbers from the North, we would probably see larger Madla type tigers. I can only go off of Kanwaar since he's the only person I have spoken with in regards to variations between areas. He has said very enthusiastically that the largest tigers he has ever seen is Corbett and Kaziranga and the Kaziranga tiger he filmed was the largest tiger big cat that he has ever seen in his life. But that of course isn't an end all statement, just one that I go off of. I look at Kaziranga and I don't think that they are any taller or longer than other tigers but I certainly believe they are heavier when lb for lb. But this is just an observation only. In regards to Copters Request Here are my top 10 Central (Not according to size, just my favorites) 10. Namdev (Saturn) 9. Jai 8. Bheema (bandhavrgh) 7. Bamera 6. Bhima (kahna) 5. Red Eye 4. Shivaji 3. Kingfisher 2. Waghdoh 1. Munna Now for the tough one, who do I think is the largest............... As of now, I think Bhima (from kahna) is the largest tiger in central india, but I could say Waghdoh was, Bheema (bandhvargh). Kingfisher or even Jai all APPEAR to rival in size. If Jai was actually weighed than he isn't in the talk of largest, but like you, I have many doubts of the claim that he was actually weighed as of right now so I will include him in the talks of "Largest" just because he's such big guy any way. What about yours Copters? @Pantherinae Great video of Munna, btw. He is a monster tiger, thats for sure. I think anywhere with large quantities of males will have larger tigers IMO, more competition breeds larger competitors. Thats probably why I think Kahna has the largest of C. India atm. 
The contour of the Assam skull is more similar to the Ngandong tiger's, that must explain their heavy built... Just playing.
Really interesting observation on the skull variation between populations that likely cross every so often, at least a few centuries back. It really does make subspeciation a bit of a futile addition to taxonomy. (11-11-2015, 07:46 AM)tigerluver Wrote: The contour of the Assam skull is more similar to the Ngandong tiger's, that must explain their heavy built... Just playing. That's a great example of the convergent evolution. Maybe the Assam tigers are evolved to become more adapted to routinely predate on larger preys such as the buffalo and rhino.
@GrizzlyClaws, that is actually an excellent point. Such prey is not only larger, but they also seem proportionately very robust. Perhaps the tigers of this area coevolved to wrestle down such behemoths. Suddenly the Ngandong tiger's built seems much more pragmatic to me.
I wonder why they couldn't manage to measure/weigh one of these guys?
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 7 Guest(s) |