Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[GuateGojira]

Yes, genetically speaking, modern Amur tigers are in relative bad conditions, but thank God, they are still able to sustain a viable population. The captive population of Amur tigers, which is about the same that the wild one, have more genetic variety and could be used, in the long therm, to re-introduce new genes to the population. However, the new tigers that are now living in the southern reserves of Russia and China, seems to be "larger" than those of the Sikhote Alin region. Check that the largest male in that region was 205 kg, while the Russian scientists that capture tigers in the Ussuri and the China frontier have found three males that have surpassed that weight in less than 4 years. These new generation of tigers seems something new, I hope.

The genetic depression probably affected them more on healthy issues (like resistance to canine distemper or other sickness, I think...) than in morphological issues. There are very large tigers captured by the Siberian Tiger Project and The Amur Tiger Programme that could have skulls of 370-380 cm, the problem is the robusticity and the weight, in that part they are very slender, compared with Bengal tigers.

Other thing is prey numbers, remember that the tiger in Sikhote Alin are normally described as "smaller" than those of the Manchuria region where prey is more abundant. Probably, with better prey base and with no need of new genes, the modern Amur tigers will rise again to they former glory. I hope that, from the bottom of my heart. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
  Reply

[Amnon242]

(05-03-2015, 03:35 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: The genetic depression probably affected them more on healthy issues (like resistance to canine distemper or other sickness, I think...) than in morphological issues. There are very large tigers captured by the Siberian Tiger Project and The Amur Tiger Programme that could have skulls of 370-380 cm, the problem is the robusticity and the weight, in that part they are very slender, compared with Bengal tigers.

Other thing is prey numbers, remember that the tiger in Sikhote Alin are normally described as "smaller" than those of the Manchuria region where prey is more abundant. Probably, with better prey base and with no need of new genes, the modern Amur tigers will rise again to they former glory. I hope that, from the bottom of my heart. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
 

 

I agree. There are captive amur tigers who are very robust (non-obese) and look like bears. So amur tigers dont have to be lean (from genetic reasons). On the other hand there are amur tigers who are lean even in captivity.  


BTW this man is 180 cm tall  Reply

[Amnon242]

Same tiger....unfortunately I dont have bigger picture Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

I think this is also the robust type of the Amur tiger.

Unfortunately, these guys only exist in the captivity nowadays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sryimu_S8jQ Reply

[Pckts]

(05-03-2015, 10:10 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: I think this is also the robust type of the Amur tiger.

Unfortunately, these guys only exist in the captivity nowadays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sryimu_S8jQ

 

I don't think that is true, in these images and videos you have something to scale them against, looking at a camera trap image you hardly get the picture of mass. 

While there are large captive siberians, I don't necessarily buy into the idea that siberians get larger there than in the wild. When you dig deeper into actually captive weights, they seem to be nearly the same as wild weights when discussing amurs, even body measurements.

The "300kg" siberians always seem to be obese or at least overweight, wild animals simply can't be built like that, their nothing but muscle when compared to their captive counterpart. 

  Reply

[Amnon242]

(05-03-2015, 11:07 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I don't think that is true, in these images and videos you have something to scale them against, looking at a camera trap image you hardly get the picture of mass. 

While there are large captive siberians, I don't necessarily buy into the idea that siberians get larger there than in the wild. When you dig deeper into actually captive weights, they seem to be nearly the same as wild weights when discussing amurs, even body measurements.

The "300kg" siberians always seem to be obese or at least overweight, wild animals simply can't be built like that, their nothing but muscle when compared to their captive counterpart. 


 

Amur from Duisburg was in 300 kg range and he was not obese. The same goes for Baikal, who was almost 400 kg. Also some tigers from Tiger Oasis are in 300 kg range and they dont seem to be obese.

 
I have also seen amur who was 220 kg in the age of 2 (definitely not obese). This tiger has also the potential to hit 300 kg in his prime.
  Reply

[Pckts]

(05-03-2015, 11:13 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(05-03-2015, 11:07 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I don't think that is true, in these images and videos you have something to scale them against, looking at a camera trap image you hardly get the picture of mass. 

While there are large captive siberians, I don't necessarily buy into the idea that siberians get larger there than in the wild. When you dig deeper into actually captive weights, they seem to be nearly the same as wild weights when discussing amurs, even body measurements.

The "300kg" siberians always seem to be obese or at least overweight, wild animals simply can't be built like that, their nothing but muscle when compared to their captive counterpart. 



 

Amur from Duisburg was 300 kg range and he was not obese. The same goes for Baikal, who was almost 400 kg. Also some tigers from Tiger Oasis are in 300 kg range and they dont seem to be obese.

 
I have also seen amur who was 220 kg in the age of 2 (definitely not obese). This tiger has also the potential to hit 300 kg in his prime.
 

 

I wouldn't say they are obese, but I would definitely say they are over weight compared to wild counterparts.
Baikal is still a mystery to me since we don't have any of his body measurements to compare him to. But whenever we compare the body measurements of verified captive specimens to wild ones they don't really differentiate.
The world record for wild amurs is 385kg or so, basically the same as baikal, pretty much. The difference is you can weigh any cative species at any time, its no problem. Very few wild specimens are weighed let a lone weighed numerous times through out the years.
We look at tons of captive amur weights and most are the average of 210kg or so, Baikal or specimens like him are the freaks, but these freaks also exist in the wild. Obviously the more tigers that are alive the more oppurtinities for the "freaks"
So it should be no surprise that as tiger #'s grow so will the "freak" specimens just like before we started hunting them to near extinction.

Edit:
In response to the image
Nice looking boy, but whats his weight and body measurements?
I'm not saying all are obese, just saying most I see that are 300kgs+ seem to be overweight but the boy you posted certainly isn't.
I'd like to know who he is and if weight is verified with measurements so we can compare him to wild caught 300kg+ tigers from the past.

  Reply

[Amnon242]

this is the same tiger (tiger oasis)...i think..

300 kg? Could be... Obese? I dont think so

BTW they have at least one another male of this size Reply

[Amnon242]

(05-03-2015, 11:26 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I wouldn't say they are obese, but I would definitely say they are over weight compared to wild counterparts.
Baikal is still a mystery to me since we don't have any of his body measurements to compare him to. But whenever we compare the body measurements of verified captive specimens to wild ones they don't really differentiate.
The world record for wild amurs is 385kg or so, basically the same as baikal, pretty much. The difference is you can weigh any cative species at any time, its no problem. Very few wild specimens are weighed let a lone weighed numerous times through out the years.
We look at tons of captive amur weights and most are the average of 210kg or so, Baikal or specimens like him are the freaks, but these freaks also exist in the wild. Obviously the more tigers that are alive the more oppurtinities for the "freaks"
So it should be no surprise that as tiger #'s grow so will the "freak" specimens just like before we started hunting them to near extinction.
 

 

Ok, so no obese, but overweight. Why do you think that these tigers are overweight?

BTW please show us the "tons of captive amur weights" Reply

[Amnon242]

(05-03-2015, 11:26 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Edit:
In response to the image
Nice looking boy, but whats his weight and body measurements?
I'm not saying all are obese, just saying most I see that are 300kgs+ seem to be overweight but the boy you posted certainly isn't.
I'd like to know who he is and if weight is verified with measurements so we can compare him to wild caught 300kg+ tigers from the past.






 

Ok, first you wrote "The "300kg" siberians always seem to be obese or at least overweight" :)

I doubt that this tiger has been measured. But you can make an estimate when you see him standing in that photo. Once I found info on some discussion about tiger oasis, that one of their tigers is 420 kg. But the credibility of the source is different point. Yes, ofc 420 kg seems to be too much.

What about Duisburg tiger? Was he obese? You have certainly seen the photo.
 

btw all creatures in these photos are FEMALES (!) Reply

[Amnon242]

2 females, 1 male Reply

[Pckts]

Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific. 
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.

In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species. 

You also asked why I think they are overweight, 
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition. 

Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy. Reply

[Amnon242]

(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific. 
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.

In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species. 

You also asked why I think they are overweight, 
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition. 

Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.

 

But those photos can give you at least some idea about the size of these animals. Or are those photos completely useless? :)

I know some tables made by Guate and Kingt. Current wild amurs: 190 kg. Older wild amurs: 216 kg. Captive amurs: 220-225 kg (if I remember). Yes, you are right. Captive specimen are basically the same size as older amurs :)

Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases.
 
Lion: this lion has belly flap because its asiatic. I bet you wont be able to recognize the difference between wild and captive lion by photo (and even in persona). Reply

[Pckts]

(05-04-2015, 12:36 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific. 
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.

In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species. 

You also asked why I think they are overweight, 
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition. Lets also not forget that there is like 1 or 2 pictures of him only, no videos or multiple images to get a real idea. One image is not nearly enough to determine a cats true dimensions.

Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.


 

But those photos can give you at least some idea about the size of these animals. Or are those photos completely useless? :)

I know some tables made by Guate and Kingt. Current wild amurs: 190 kg. Older wild amurs: 216 kg. Captive amurs: 220-225 kg (if I remember). Yes, you are right. Captive specimen are basically the same size as older amurs :)

Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases.
 
Lion: this lion has belly flap because its asiatic. I bet you wont be able to recognize the difference between wild and captive lion by photo (and even in persona).

 

"Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases"
I never stated anyting about specific tigers just captive tigers in general.
But Baikal looks to be overweight, not obese but he diffenitly doesn't have the definition and has a bit of a large stomach. He's a massive tiger no matter how you slice it, i'm not taking that away from him but his sized is matched by a wild specimen.

I guarantee I can tell the difference between wild and captive lions, I have seen 100s of images and videos of both, they are usually very easy to distinguish. (most of the time, there are a few captive specimens that are in fine health) But very few, the closest "captive lions" to look like wild are Kevin Richardsons and only because his actually live in the "wild" they are just fenced in.

Your claim of the Lion with the belly flap being asiatic is also unfounded, unless you see the stud book you have no idea and most captive lions and tigers are far from pure bred. Especially ones in a place like that where they let different species of cat live together. I:E Lions and tigers...
If a cat is pure bred they are used to breed with other pure bred cats to in a sanctuary type setting. 
Even Asiatic lions have belly flaps, yes, but nothing close to that droopy and same with tigers. 

If you took historic accounts of Siberians as well, their average weight would jump and be higher than that in captivity as well, but obviously its highly debatable when using older hunting records.

  Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(05-04-2015, 01:29 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(05-04-2015, 12:36 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific. 
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.

In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species. 

You also asked why I think they are overweight, 
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition. Lets also not forget that there is like 1 or 2 pictures of him only, no videos or multiple images to get a real idea. One image is not nearly enough to determine a cats true dimensions.

Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.



 

But those photos can give you at least some idea about the size of these animals. Or are those photos completely useless? :)

I know some tables made by Guate and Kingt. Current wild amurs: 190 kg. Older wild amurs: 216 kg. Captive amurs: 220-225 kg (if I remember). Yes, you are right. Captive specimen are basically the same size as older amurs :)

Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases.
 
Lion: this lion has belly flap because its asiatic. I bet you wont be able to recognize the difference between wild and captive lion by photo (and even in persona).


 

"Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases"
I never stated anyting about specific tigers just captive tigers in general.
But Baikal looks to be overweight, not obese but he diffenitly doesn't have the definition and has a bit of a large stomach. He's a massive tiger no matter how you slice it, i'm not taking that away from him but his sized is matched by a wild specimen.

I guarantee I can tell the difference between wild and captive lions, I have seen 100s of images and videos of both, they are usually very easy to distinguish. (most of the time, there are a few captive specimens that are in fine health) But very few, the closest "captive lions" to look like wild are Kevin Richardsons and only because his actually live in the "wild" they are just fenced in.

Your claim of the Lion with the belly flap being asiatic is also unfounded, unless you see the stud book you have no idea and most captive lions and tigers are far from pure bred. Especially ones in a place like that where they let different species of cat live together. I:E Lions and tigers...
If a cat is pure bred they are used to breed with other pure bred cats to in a sanctuary type setting. 
Even Asiatic lions have belly flaps, yes, but nothing close to that droopy and same with tigers. 

If you took historic accounts of Siberians as well, their average weight would jump and be higher than that in captivity as well, but obviously its highly debatable when using older hunting records.

 

 

Baikal is not overweighed, he only lacks the muscular appearance of the wild tiger because he is a captive tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply