There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

Poll: Who is the largest tiger?
Amur tiger
Bengal tiger
They are equal
[Show Results]
 
 
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

Spain JUJOMORE Offline
New Member
*

More about Hassinger's tiger.
 
Normally the size of a large tiger skull corresponds to a large body size, although it is true that there is no exact correlation in such a way that the largest skull will not always belong to the largest tiger, although it can give us at least an approximation .

We have the measurements of the skull of Hassinger's tiger, 14 inches long by 9 inches wide, 23 inches totall (35.56 cm x 22.86 cm, 58.42 cm total) and we can compare them with the skulls recorded both in Rowland Ward, XXVII edition as well as in the SCI XII edition. Bearing in mind that not all the hunted tigers are recorded, we found no fewer than 34 bigger skulls at Rowland Ward, the largest of which was 16 ½ inches long, 11 ¼ wide, total 27 ¾ (41.91 cm x 28,575, total 70,485 cm) and another 7 more in the SCI. Apparently the skull that we have seems relatively small to belong to the largest measured tiger.
 
We can look for another reference, Bengt Berg, in his book "El tigre y el hombre", tells that the largest tiger he hunted, in Bengal, weighed 565 English pounds (256.5 Kg) and when freshly dead it measured "between pegs" nine feet and seven English inches (2,922 m). The same tiger, measured the next morning, with muscles already stiff, measured just nine feet four inches (2,845 m). This is probably the tiger that appears in Rowland Ward, hunted by this author in 1933, in the 14th position of the classification with a measurement of 14 11/16 x 10 7/16, total 25 ⅛ inches (37.3 cm x 26.51, total 63.5 cm) and so, we would also have one of the best records of skull size, length and weight of a specific tiger.
 
The same author says that the size of the hunted tigers not only influenced the prestige of the hunter, but also that of the host and sometimes that of the State, so when it came to princely hunts, a tape measure was sometimes used with Swedish inches (2.474 cm) shorter than English inches (2.54 cm) to get a few extra inches.

Rowland Ward, XXVII edition



*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
2 users Like JUJOMORE's post
Reply




Messages In This Thread
RE: Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur - JUJOMORE - 08-24-2022, 02:26 PM



Users browsing this thread:
11 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB