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

[Dragoon]

Hello @GuateGojira

I hope you are doing well!
I'm new to the forums so forgive me if I make any mistakes. 

I was wondering If the weight average for the tiger is calculated with stomach content? 

I was also wondering if we could create a distribution between Amur and Bengle tigers? I think it would be interesting to see the standard deviation between the two. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(06-10-2022, 12:16 AM)Dragoon Wrote: Hello @GuateGojira

I hope you are doing well!
I'm new to the forums so forgive me if I make any mistakes. 

I was wondering If the weight average for the tiger is calculated with stomach content? 

I was also wondering if we could create a distribution between Amur and Bengle tigers? I think it would be interesting to see the standard deviation between the two.

Hi, nice to meet you.

Sure, we can create that distribution. Tell me what do you need and I will provide it to you.

About the stomach content, with lions and tigers, is partially included, but let me explain. All the studies and hunting records of great cats ignore the point of the stomach content, they just recorded the figures and leave it like that. Only three authors (Smuts (with South Africa lions only), Bertram and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar) adjusted some of they weights for stomach content. After that, none do that with lions and tigers. Now, as we know the single specimens from Nepal, I adjuted them using the figures of Sunquist (1981), but that is all. Once I consulted Dr Sunquist about this issue and he told that if I am going to adjust all the records of the tigers, I should adjust all the records of all the other cats to make a fair comparison, a work that will be titanic and at the end, impossible. So, in conclution, some of the records of the tigers are adjusted for stomach content, and all of the figures that clearly mentioned any stomach content (like "gorged" or "full of beef") were remouved from the sample. The remaning figures were left like they are assuming that the inevitable inclusion of young or ill specimens in the old hunting records will level any stomach content that could be included by error in the sample, and the same process was done with lions, jaguars and leopards. Reply

[Dragoon]

(06-10-2022, 06:02 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(06-10-2022, 12:16 AM)Dragoon Wrote: Hello @GuateGojira

I hope you are doing well!
I'm new to the forums so forgive me if I make any mistakes. 

I was wondering If the weight average for the tiger is calculated with stomach content? 

I was also wondering if we could create a distribution between Amur and Bengle tigers? I think it would be interesting to see the standard deviation between the two.

Hi, nice to meet you.

Sure, we can create that distribution. Tell me what do you need and I will provide it to you.

About the stomach content, with lions and tigers, is partially included, but let me explain. All the studies and hunting records of great cats ignore the point of the stomach content, they just recorded the figures and leave it like that. Only three authors (Smuts (with South Africa lions only), Bertram and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar) adjusted some of they weights for stomach content. After that, none do that with lions and tigers. Now, as we know the single specimens from Nepal, I adjuted them using the figures of Sunquist (1981), but that is all. Once I consulted Dr Sunquist about this issue and he told that if I am going to adjust all the records of the tigers, I should adjust all the records of all the other cats to make a fair comparison, a work that will be titanic and at the end, impossible. So, in conclution, some of the records of the tigers are adjusted for stomach content, and all of the figures that clearly mentioned any stomach content (like "gorged" or "full of beef") were remouved from the sample. The remaning figures were left like they are assuming that the inevitable inclusion of young or ill specimens in the old hunting records will level any stomach content that could be included by error in the sample, and the same process was done with lions, jaguars and leopards.

Great! 
Do you have the weight data of the adjusted wild bengal and amur tigers? I have a program that can help me create a normal distribution and I'd like to compare and contrast. I'd also like to include wild lion weights. How large is your sample size for each species? 
Thank you! 
Best regards. Reply

[LonePredator]

(06-10-2022, 06:02 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(06-10-2022, 12:16 AM)Dragoon Wrote: Hello @GuateGojira

I hope you are doing well!
I'm new to the forums so forgive me if I make any mistakes. 

I was wondering If the weight average for the tiger is calculated with stomach content? 

I was also wondering if we could create a distribution between Amur and Bengle tigers? I think it would be interesting to see the standard deviation between the two.

Hi, nice to meet you.

Sure, we can create that distribution. Tell me what do you need and I will provide it to you.

About the stomach content, with lions and tigers, is partially included, but let me explain. All the studies and hunting records of great cats ignore the point of the stomach content, they just recorded the figures and leave it like that. Only three authors (Smuts (with South Africa lions only), Bertram and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar) adjusted some of they weights for stomach content. After that, none do that with lions and tigers. Now, as we know the single specimens from Nepal, I adjuted them using the figures of Sunquist (1981), but that is all. Once I consulted Dr Sunquist about this issue and he told that if I am going to adjust all the records of the tigers, I should adjust all the records of all the other cats to make a fair comparison, a work that will be titanic and at the end, impossible. So, in conclution, some of the records of the tigers are adjusted for stomach content, and all of the figures that clearly mentioned any stomach content (like "gorged" or "full of beef") were remouved from the sample. The remaning figures were left like they are assuming that the inevitable inclusion of young or ill specimens in the old hunting records will level any stomach content that could be included by error in the sample, and the same process was done with lions, jaguars and leopards.

Yes, it will be nice if we can have a table with weights and measurements of every individual Bengal or Amur Tiger specimen. As far as I remember, you have already made such a table for Amurs but not yet for Bengals.

This may be useful as we can create our own regression equations using the data and then make good estimates for both Amurs and Bengals (I have already made the equations for Amurs using your Amur table)

We can also make comparisons between Amur and Bengal as to how their weight fluctuates with different measurements (though this may only work best with equal sample sizes and we can’t do this with length as Amurs are taken ‘over curves’)

But overall, we could do a lot with a table with the weight and measurement record of every Bengal and Amur specimen. Reply

[juhu2010]

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[juhu2010]

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[juhu2010]

*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

Reply

[juhu2010]

I think the two subspecies should be equal, and the Amur tiger is different now. The environment has improved, and they have become very thick

*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

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[LonePredator]

(07-31-2022, 10:51 AM)远东北亚巨虎 Wrote: I think the two subspecies should be equal, and the Amur tiger is different now. The environment has improved, and they have become very thick

*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

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Who is the second tiger from the bottom? Was he weighed during the Siberian Tiger Project? Reply

[juhu2010]

(07-31-2022, 02:43 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(07-31-2022, 10:51 AM)远东北亚巨虎 Wrote: I think the two subspecies should be equal, and the Amur tiger is different now. The environment has improved, and they have become very thick

*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

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Who is the second tiger from the bottom? Was he weighed during the Siberian Tiger Project?

Sorry, I don't know Reply

[JUJOMORE]

(11-26-2021, 10:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(11-20-2021, 01:22 PM)LonePredator Wrote: However, I have a question regarding the 389kg Royal Bengal Tiger specimen.

Don’t you think that estimating it’s weight at 322kg could be an underestimation since it’s very unlikely for a tiger to have 67kg of stomach content especially when he was said to have eaten about 7 hours prior to the time he was hunted??

Talking about the Smithsonian tiger is like a rabbit hole, too many things to take un count. I tried to make a good post about this specimens but I never got the time.

I can tell you that a big male tiger can eat up to 35 kg in 24 hours, confirmed, but regularly is between 14 - 19 kg, including big males. The Smithsonian tiger certainly could not eat over 45 kg, that is an exageration, but based on the facts that I have, it seems that the weight itself is also exagerated or taken with an innacurate scale 

I will provide more details on this case.

 
This is my first post in this forum, I hope I could contribute  with something new.

In this case it is a comment on Hassinger's famous tiger that is exhibited in the Smithsonian Musesum in Washington. I know that it has been extensively discussed but perhaps some complementary data will come in handy.

First of all, there is no doubt that Hassinger's tiger is the one on display. The comparison of the photo of the dead animal with the photos taken demonstrates this and also the file of the Museum itself in which the details of the specimen are detailed. However, it must be taken into account that the Smithsonian received only the skin and skull of the dead tiger, so it could not verify the data provided by the donor.

The attached photos are from 1997, the date on which the animal was exposed at ground level, so it could be observed in detail and with absolute tranquility. My impression when I see it was that it was a large tiger, but it did not seem exceptional to me either in size or volume. Assuming that the naturalized animal respects the proportions that the animal had in life, it is highly doubtful that it weighed much more than 250 kg or perhaps 275 kg at best. Obviously a visual assessment is not a scientific measurement, but anyone with minimal experience can appreciate that this tiger could never weigh 389 kg, although it is supposed to have been weighed on a scale in a sugar mill. I have seen captive tigers at the same distance with a reference weight of about 200/220 Kg and by comparison, it would be impossible for the Smithsonian tiger to weigh almost twice as much.
 
 It should also be discarded that the dead tiger was gorged,  the belly does not appear swollen in the original photo

Photo from Smithsonian

*This image is copyright of its original author

File from Smithsonian

*This image is copyright of its original author

Hassinger's photo

*This image is copyright of its original author

Photos from 1997

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[johnny rex]

(07-31-2022, 10:44 AM)远东北亚巨虎 Wrote:

*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

Even at similar shoulder height, the Amur tiger skull literally dwarfed the skull of Bengal tiger. Reply

[Pckts]

(08-21-2022, 10:12 PM)johnny rex Wrote:

(07-31-2022, 10:44 AM)远东北亚巨虎 Wrote:

*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

Even at similar shoulder height, the Amur tiger skull literally dwarfed the skull of Bengal tiger.

You can almost guarantee Raja is the larger of the two. Trying to adjust random images to match is pointless. Distance from camera and angle will all change the perspective. The end of the day, skulls between the two are the same but Bengals are the more heavily built. Reply

[acutidens150]

@GuateGojira 
The length for the Siberian tiger is listed as 195 cm but is along the curves, right? So what would be a good length estimate for in a straight line? Is there a method?
Also the height of 95 cm I heard, is not the full height to the end of the paw from shoulder tip. So what would be a good full height? Reply

[Pckts]

(08-23-2022, 10:56 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: @GuateGojira 
The length for the Siberian tiger is listed as 195 cm but is along the curves, right? So what would be a good length estimate for in a straight line? Is there a method?
Also the height of 95 cm I heard, is not the full height to the end of the paw from shoulder tip. So what would be a good full height?

Generally subtract 2-4'' from the curves to get a straight line estimate. 
Shoulders should be measured to the heel pad, measuring to the bottom of the paw will exaggerate the actual height. Also over the curves will give a larger height than actual as well. Reply