WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
 (02-28-2017, 01:25 PM)Rishi Wrote: "I heard that a reliable data of the largest skull was came from the Amur tiger." This statement is interesting. "Scientists in Russia report that no tigers immobilized by the Russian team have weighed as much as those in Chitwan. It probably is a function of habitat quality. Siberian tigers have the potential for being the largest, and captive ones are larger than captive Bengals. But in the wild the prey base in Russia is not abundant enough for those tigers to NATURALLY ACHIEVE their full potential. 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." The Amur tiger could have been(?) biggest and the most powerful cat. But Bengal tiger makes me more impressive me sometimes whenever I see photos of tiger is hunting rhino and crocodile. It was possible to see it in other part of Southeast Asia, but it's very difficult to search Indochinese tiger, Malayan tiger, and Sumatran tiger. 
Whether you are talking about recent amurs or amurs measured in past times, there has never been an amur that has outweighed a bengal at maximum weights.
Skull length may favor the amur but chest girth favors the bengal, hbl is similar with amurs slightly longer on average but bengals longer at maximums, shoulder height slightly favors the bengal. Weights pre 1970 favor the amur but with the specimen count only at 10 compared to 120 for bengals, that would most likely bring down the average since you'd have to include smaller specimens and younger with post 1970 favoring the bengal and larger than pre 1970 Amurs. Also take into account the new weights we have after 2015 Per @Kingtheropod Body Mass of Bengal tiger in Modern Records: Revised (2017) Hello everyone, after a wave of new tiger weights, I have decided to make a new revision of the body mass of Bengal tiger in modern records. This list included the weights of 27 male tigers, with a few others not included. The average body weight is 495 lbs (225 kg). Note: Sundarbans tigers not included. Chitwan NP, Nepal: Average 221 kg adjusted. n=7. Range 184-261 kg. Reference: Smith et al., 1983; Sunquist, 1981. These tigers originally averaged 235 kg but they consumed on average 14 kg of meat Chitwan NP, Nepal: 270+ kg. n=1. Reference: Dinerstein, E. (2003). This animal (M026) exceeded the scale of 270 kg along with Sauraha male (M105). This animals weight of 270 kg's is included. Nagarahole NP: Average 217 kg adjusted. n=3. Range 209-227 kg. Reference: Karanth, 1993. Panna TR Average 245 kg. n=2. Range 240-250 kg. Reference. Chundawat & Malik, 2010; Pers Comm. 2009. Note: Both these tigers exceeded a scale of 250 kg, but was estimated to weigh about these measurements, M-91's weight was adjusted down due to 10 kg of weighing equipment. The other tiger was Madla who's weight is given as 250 kg. Panna TR 240 kg. n=1. Reference: Noronha, 2015. Tiger known as "T-3", stated to be 10 years old. Tiger was reintroduced to Panna TR. This was a statement from former field director, Panna tiger reserve, R Sriniwas Murthy. Panna TR 211.5 kg. n=2. Range 205-218 kg. Reference: Roamin; Pers. Comm. 2016. Two tigers, one known as P212 weighed 190 kg at 4.5 years old, this same animal was stated to have weighed 205 kg's during the winter months. Another unknown male was stated to have weighed 218 kg. Sariska TR, India 220 kg. n=1. Reference: Sinha , 2008. This tiger was a young male, said to be three and a half years old. This tiger was also recaptured and estimated to weigh 250 kg when it was older Kanha NP, India 197 kg. n=1. Reference: 21st Century Tiger, 2014 Kanha NP, India 225+ kg. n=2. Reference: Sinha; Pers. Comm. 2016 & Minha Ha; Pers. Comm. 2016. Tigers named Banda and Konda both exceeded a scale of 225 kg. These tigers where weighed back in October and February of 2007. These animals weights that exceeded scale are included in the final average. Kanha NP, India 225 kg. n=1. Reference: Vats, 2016. This tiger is the sub adult male named Bheema. He weighed 225 kg at the age of 2.5 years old. He was later estimated to weigh greater then 280 kg's as an adult. This animal is not included in the final average. Ghunghuti forest range, India 280 kg. n=1. Reference: Indiatoday, 2016. A tiger which terrorised locals was caught and relocated to a enclosure in BTR. The statement came from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Jitendra Agrawal. Uttar Pradesh's South Kheri forest 235 kg. n=1. Reference: Singh, 2016. This is the Kheri man-eater transferred to Lucknow Zoo. Animal said to be 4 years old. Treated by Dr. Mayukh Chatterjee Dudhwa NP, India 210 kg. n=1. Reference: Ahsan; Pers. Comm. 2016. This was a 4 year old problematic male tiger that strayed out of Dudhwa NP. Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve 185 kg. n=1. Reference: Habib; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger named Gabbar, 8 year old male Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve 197 kg. n=1. Reference: Dhanwatey, 2015. This tiger was a 4 year old problem animal which attacked a farmer and his cattle. This animal had received injuries to its paws and nose, aswell as broken canines. This animal was featured in animal planet series 'Living with Maneaters'. Ranthambore NP, India 240 kg. n=1. Reference: Khandal; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger known as "T-24", This tiger was actually weighed in 2009. Umred Karhandla Wildlife Sanctuary in Nagpur, India 230 kg. n=1. Reference: Karoo; Pers. Comm. 2015. Tiger named Jai. This tiger was stated to weigh between 220 and 238 kg, the weighing scale used had a 18 kg margin of error. This same tiger was also stated to have been weighed a second time, one authority claiming 240 kg's and another stating 215 kg's. [b][u]Pench NP, India[/b][/u] 225 kg. n=1. Reference: Minha Ha; Pers. Comm. 2016. This tiger is the son of BMW of pench said to be 2.5 years old which died due to poisoning in January of 2016. This animal is not included. Pench NP, India 200+ kg. n=1. Reference: Majumder, 2012. This tiger exceeded a scale of 200 kg, weight was estimated to be upto 220 kg. Not included in final average. The average comes to 224.6 kg's (495 lb), n=27 Pre 2016  *This image is copyright of its original author In Captivity: I have read that amurs are the king in captivity, lots of sources have stated this. So I'm inclined to agree but that being said, we cannot really compare pure Bengals to Amurs as they really don't exist outside of india anymore. We can use White Tigers or N. American Tigers if we like since we know they have Bengal bloodline and those can compare with any Pure Amur's weight. But we don't know if they are true Bengals or Amurs or both or neither, so it's a moot point there. So in captivity I'd still give the advantage to Amurs but the skeptic in me would want to see pure Bengals living under healthy conditions to say for certain they are bigger or smaller. Maybe it is the shaggy fur and fat reserves Amur's attain that allow them to give the appearance of being larger or maybe they are just larger... And lastly, not all biologists say "amurs are larger" this is an old theory that many new biologist have began to distance themselves from  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
I am sorry, but I have more more doubt about what you wrote. This is what I am dubious about your statement.
If you and your friends are true. Then it have already been changed in animal journal like more than 20 years ago. When I found about the guy who made those chart and comparison data. He graduated from university of Guatemela with agricultural economics and agricultural plant science degrees. I don't even see any of his research papers done by himself. Bascially, he doesn't have any of real life experience of big cats. I guess definitely not the tiger since tiger is only living in Asia. After I read what you wrote, you don't look like you are actually studying or tracking real tiger in wild and zoo. You're definitely not a keeper in zoo. How do you even know about the pure Bengal or mixed Bengal in captive zoo around the world? I don't think you can prove like that by sending some emails to a few professor and reading some books and articles. I know these people aren't 100% perfect. But this sentences came from the big cat rescue people who's actually interacting with big cat. (From Rishi) "Scientists in Russia report that no tigers immobilized by the Russian team have weighed as much as those in Chitwan. It probably is a function of habitat quality. Siberian tigers have the potential for being the largest, and captive ones are larger than captive Bengals. But in the wild the prey base in Russia is not abundant enough for those tigers to realize their full potential. Prey is more scattered and the Russian tigers need huge territories to capture sufficient food, so much more energy is expended in the food que" This is from the Association of Zoos & Aquariums of the USA. "The Amur tiger is the largest big cat on earth. Though comparable in weight to Bengal tigers, with males averaging 176 kg (390 lbs) and females averaging 118 kg (260 lbs), Amur tigers’ bodies and fur tend to be longer." I can say that today's Amur tiger in wild is lighter than Bengal tiger. Nevertheless, prey is scarce in Russia. I don't believe that Bengal tiger would grow that huge size as you mentioned if prey density in India is the same in Russia. They are probably small and light just like current Amur tiger these days.  *This image is copyright of its original author Amur tiger have almost no food intake in their home unlike the Bengal tiger or African lion. We don't know size of the Amur tiger if they are living in high prey density environment. I remember I read one old paper in wildfact. It says that the majority huge records of the Bengal tigers were cattle killers. It was also said that the Bengal tiger average weight was lower than lion back in past. But they got heavier than Amur and African lion these days. Bengal tigers would never be the same size in India and Nepal if they are living in Russia with low prey biomass.
A couple of things..
The weights posted are from biologists, they are displayed in a "one stop shop" which allows you to view all of them in one image and compare. The references are also posted beneath it which you can easily confirm yourself. The quotes listed aren't from random people, Sunquist and Dinnerstein are a couple of the foremost experts in N. Indian Tigers and Chitwan particularly. @Master Chief "I remember I read one old paper in wildfact. It says that the majority huge records of the Bengal tigers were cattle killers. It was also said that the Bengal tiger average weight was lower than lion back in past. But they got heavier than Amur and African lion these days. " This isn't true, there are many non cattle lifters and many cattle lifters and many that do both. This is the same for lions and tigers, if cattle is available they will be lifted. Tigers in Kahna aren't lifting cattle nearly as often as tigers in Ranthambhore. Amur tigers used to eat dogs, deer caught in traps, raid fish lockers (read brobears post in the Amur Tigers Thread) as well, opportunistic hunters take whats available. If you are talking about "baiting" than yes, some were baited and others were not. A couple of the largest modern weights came from males with relatively little in their stomachs, that was just an excuse some would use to downgrade tiger size. All big cats have food in their stomach and have usually ate fairly recently, they are hyper carnivores, they must eat regularly to survive.  *This image is copyright of its original author ". How do you even know about the pure Bengal or mixed Bengal in captive zoo around the world? I don't think you can prove like that by sending some emails to a few professor and reading some books and articles." Because there isn't a single pure bred bengal in the US, try and find one if you like, but there are many pure bred Amurs and Sumatrans. The stud books are what you would use and like I said, there are still Mixed Bengals/N. American Tigers that match the size of Amurs, Take a look at the Captive Big Cat Weight thread. Last comment "Amur tiger have almost no food intake in their home unlike the Bengal tiger or African lion. We don't know size of the Amur tiger if they are living in high prey density environment. " This is probably true, but it doesn't change that their body measurements are similar with Bengals being the more robust animal throughout history, take away their prey and you probably have similar cats, but that's why most think Tigers should be broken down into 2 subspecies, Continental and Sunda, that's it. https://phys.org/news/2015-06-tiger-subspecies.html 
Here...Start watching from 1:20...
The guy says that these tigers are fed 6 kgs of meat in SUMMER & 8 kgs in WINTER. Male Bengal tigers in Indian zoos are fed 10 kgs of meat year round (& starving one day a week) & they're nowhere near this plump. These tigers' statures show how much more fat Siberian Tigers tend to hold & winter-weights might be 10-15% more than summer-weights. So technically, they need to be weighed twice a year to get accurate estimate of their true weights!!!
One example isn't a conclusion for either species, many parks have their own feeding regiments for each cat. Although I've read Amurs do put on fat easier than other tiger subspecies but I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this. But the colder the climate the more fat needed to maintain body heat. So it's most likely the case that an Amur living in warmer climates will have less fat than an Amur living in colder climates.
In regards to winter and summer weights, You can say the same for Bengals as they are heavier in the winter compared to the summer heat.  *This image is copyright of its original author This is a set of all the biggest tigers ever recorded, all in captivity & of Siberian lineage to certain degree... Most captive pure Bengals live in Indian zoos (Billy Arjan Singh, John Varty all had/has crossbreds, thus their availability must be low outside India) & we don't allow these kind of obnoxious experiments anymore... However the Amur-Bengal hybrids tend to top the list!!!  (03-01-2017, 02:46 AM)Master Chief Wrote: I am sorry, but I have more more doubt about what you wrote. This is what I am dubious about your statement. Just a few clarifications: 1. My country is Guatemala, and my university name is "Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala" (University of San Carlos of Guatemala, in English) and is the largest university in Central America, with more than 300 years of existence. 2. My Degree is in Business Administration, not "agricultural economics" or something like that. However, I DO have knowledge of that field too. I have not made any research paper in the last years, apart from my thesis that is published in the webpage of my University. I am fully dedicated to my job in these days, my field is not "research" but "making business". 3. I have studied tigers and other big cats for more than 10 years, and although I have not worked with big cats directly in the field (for the moment....), I have literally a dozen of books (physical and digital), hundreds of papers and several PERSONAL communications with scientist that have actually worked with big cats in the field. So, my conclusions and the tables that I have made are based in REAL information, corroborated by scientists that actually worked with this great cats. Finally, if you are trying to prove that the Amur tigers are (or were) the largest cats in the wild, you are going to be disappointment. The few (very few) reliable measurements and weights from Amur tigers in the past shows that they were of the same size than the old-modern Bengal tigers. This full topic shows the information, I advise you to read all the information again. However, if you don't believe me, here are the scientific conclusions about this "Amur vs Bengal" situation: 1. “Contrary to earlier perceptions, measurements obtained from tigers captured for radiotelemetry studies in the Indian subcontinent (Sunquist 1981; Karanth, unpubl. data) show that they are not smaller than tigers captured in the Russian Far East (Dale Miquelle and John Goodrich, unpubl. data).” K. Ullas Karanth, 2003. http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Sect...ENTID=8073 2. “Surprisingly, while Siberian or Amur tigers have long been thought to be the largest of the subspecies, measurements of tigers from the Russian Far East show they are currently no larger than the Bengal tigers of the Indian subcontinent [2] (D. Miquelle and J. Goodrich, unpublished data).” Melvin Sunquist, 2010. http://books.google.com.gt/books?id=XFIb...22&f=false 3. “Despite repeated claims in popular literature that members of the Amur population are the largest of all tigers, our measurements on more than fifty captured individuals suggest that their body size is similar to that of Bengal tigers”. Dale Miquelle, 2004. http://www.wcsrussia.org/DesktopModules/...attachment 4. “Siberian tigers are often considered the largest of the tiger sub-species, although they are in fact about the same size as the Bengal tiger.” WCS-Russia, 2012. http://www.wcsrussia.org/Wildlife/AmurTi...fault.aspx 5. “However, recent data on tigers captured for telemetry studies in Nagarahole (India), Chitwan (Nepal) and in Sikhote-Alin (Russia) show that tigers from these three sites are all about the same size.” K. Ullas Karanth, 2003. http://books.google.com.gt/books?id=c44r...CCsQ6AEwAA 6. Personal communication with Dr John Goodrich:  *This image is copyright of its original author *** Amur tigers been the largest cat is a "myth". Even "credible sources" hence this incorrect information. This scientist have ACTUALLY worked with tigers in the field and these are they conclusion. If you don't believe in me, believe in them.  (02-28-2017, 12:59 PM)Master Chief Wrote: When I asked to my zoology professor and PhD students about this (Bengal is the larger than Amur). Their reactions were all like "what are you talking about?" "I don't believe you. Amur tiger was bigger than Bengal in zoo" Yes, I agree that captive Amur tigers look larger, but in the wild Bengal tigers are heavier due to more abundant prey base. By genotype Siberian tiger is larger, by phenotype Bengal is larger. If you feed the two cats EQUALLY Siberian will get larger, the problem is that Siberian tigers in the northern forests never, not now and not in the past have had prey base even nearly equal to prey base of Indian tigers. In same time I am sure that if you introduce Amur tigers in Kaziranga or Kanha and they don't die of overheating.... they would get even more massive than Kaziranga tigers. 
An interesting take, no doubt. The " food intake " theory. Former members of AVA, will no doubt recall.
Not to be so easily dismissed. Much time and energy invested in this previously, mostly on the lions behalf.
Body dimensions will have nothing to do with prey availability, no doubt a cat that has more prey will be larger, why wouldn't they be, but body length and shoulder height are not dictated by prey availability, when both had/have abundant prey, their body dimensions still show significant overlap in the wild.
*This image is copyright of its original author So even if we were to throw out the body mass advantage for the bengal, the body dimensions show no advantage towards the Amur of being a bigger cat. So assuming they could put on more weight than a bengal with equal prey seems a bit of a stretch, since I don't know where exactly you could distribute the extra poundage.
Siberian tiger is not the bigger cat, Royal Bengal tiger is No 1 in the wild. Amur is only POTENTIALLY larger, because his GENES probably allow him to get larger and the prove of this is the fact that in the zoos Siberians are larger than Bengals. But in the nature is opposite. Food and pray conditions, real but not ideal environment create the phenotype, and by phenotype Bengal tiger is probably the bigger one.
Maybe but the lack of data on captive pure bred bengals leaves much to question still.
Just my two cents. Body dimensions will indeed be affected by energy availability, it is why many Pleistocene species shrunk in time and why insular dwarfism happens. Remember, body dimensions in the most literal, biochemical of terms are the result of the conversion of prey mass into predator mass. I make no conclusions regarding subspecies here, nonetheless.
Maybe so, are we able to determine which time frame the small number of Amur body dimensions are from?
If they are from the past then it really won't matter, if they're more recent then there is an argument I'm sure. But if we are looking at examples of human beings, there is no correlation between poor and wealthy countries and their heights, it's more to do with their genetics. With insular dwarfism, my understanding is that it's the small land mass that cause their rapid shrinkage in size where an Amur tiger has/had some of the largest available territories and thus they should be larger at least when their prey was more abundant. Also on islands, it's an advantage to be smaller since the food periodically declines and the smaller animals need less resources. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |