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
|
  (09-08-2017, 01:53 PM)paul cooper Wrote:(09-08-2017, 10:41 AM)sanjay Wrote: Yes that may be the reason. But according to current study they are equal to Bengal tiger http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-t...the-tigers http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-bengal-t...n-theories This is most of the info available on the subject. Let us know what you think after you're done reading through everything. Good luck  (11-06-2015, 08:24 PM)genao87 Wrote: Very interesting Guate on the Bengal and Amur figures. As time passed, the Bengal Tiger it seems got larger while the Siberian/Amur Tiger got smaller...despite both being hunted to almost extinction. The bengal tiger did not get larger.  (04-27-2017, 08:53 PM)epaiva Wrote:(05-04-2015, 09:41 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: I will post this old table again: Are you sure the greatest skull length and head length are correlated, @GuateGojira ? If I'm not mistaken, there is only little difference between head length and greatest total skull length. But the head length of these two tigers is almost two inches larger than their greatest total skull length. Weird. 
I agree with GuateGojira's conclusion that Amur & Bengal are same in Size. When we talk about Amur tigers, we have to take Amur tiger's Captive gene pool into account. Even though current wild amur population is 500+, their effective population is more like 6-12 tigers. They were reduced to very low numbers in 1950s. The genetic diversity is very low. Their maximum body size is very limited. The current wild amur tiger population is similar to Gir Lions, Ranthambore/Sariska tiger population. They lack genetic diversity. That's why It is important for reintroduction of captive amur gene pool into wild to improve gene diversity and to ensure their long term survival and healthy offspring. I would like to see these amur gene pool released into wild.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa45...697918.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdYpbnFz3tU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOy2v3lJbGk  (11-15-2018, 12:51 PM)johnny rex Wrote: Are you sure the greatest skull length and head length are correlated, @GuateGojira ? If I'm not mistaken, there is only little difference between head length and greatest total skull length. But the head length of these two tigers is almost two inches larger than their greatest total skull length. Weird. I don't remember that I ever found a relation between head length and skull length. I thing that there is no direct correlation, because there are tigers with more skin and flesh in the head than others, just like you can see in the table. @peter once said that there are diferent morphotypes of captive Amur tigers, some with small heads and long bodies and other with smaller bodies and larger heads, some are lower to the shourder and fat while others are very tall and lanky. In the table that I made it seems that the observation of @peter is correct. (11-17-2018, 01:37 AM)GreenForest Wrote: I agree with GuateGojira's conclusion that Amur & Bengal are same in Size. When we talk about Amur tigers, we have to take Amur tiger's Captive gene pool into account. Even though current wild amur population is 500+, their effective population is more like 6-12 tigers. They were reduced to very low numbers in 1950s. The genetic diversity is very low. Their maximum body size is very limited. The current wild amur tiger population is similar to Gir Lions, Ranthambore/Sariska tiger population. They lack genetic diversity. That's why It is important for reintroduction of captive amur gene pool into wild to improve gene diversity and to ensure their long term survival and healthy offspring. I would like to see these amur gene pool released into wild. You have a good point, it is interesting that the old records of body measurements of the Amur tigers are of the same size than the modern specimens, if we asume that were measured in the same way (along the curves with the tape loose in the back). However the few chest girths that I found in the old reliable litterature are larger than any modern specimen in the wild and of the same girth than those of the large Bengal tigers in records. The same happen with the weights, the old Amur tigers weighed the same than the Bengal tigers, while the modern Amur ones weight about the same than the Indochinese tigers. Regarding the captive Amur tigers, it is interesting to remember that all the pure specimens are decendants from specimens captured before the great holocaust of tiger in the Russian far east, in the time when the genetic variability was high and I dare to say that probably some of those Amur tigers, specially the largest ones, have the "Manchurian genes", which now are sertainly extinct in the wild. So like you said, it will be interesting to see what will happen if those "giant" genes will be inserted in the wild again, but we must remember that also the prey base is important to develop a large size and right now the Amur region had a low prey base.  (11-19-2018, 07:42 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(11-15-2018, 12:51 PM)johnny rex Wrote: Are you sure the greatest skull length and head length are correlated, @GuateGojira ? If I'm not mistaken, there is only little difference between head length and greatest total skull length. But the head length of these two tigers is almost two inches larger than their greatest total skull length. Weird. When going over your quite famous Amur tiger table once more I noticed a typo, my friend: the head length of male tiger 'Amur' from the Prague zoo wasn't 41 cm., but 45 cm. ('Der Tiger', V. Mazak, 3th edition, 1983, pp. 186-187). The head length of his son 'Benjamin', who died at age 7 in the same zoo, was 42 cm. Here's a bit more about both tigers ('Der Tiger', 1983, pp. 185, 193). From left to right head and body length ('between pegs') - total length ('between pegs') - head length - greatest total skull length - condylobasal length - zygomatic width - rostrum width: 1 - 220 cm. - 319 cm. - 450 cm. - 371 mm. - 322,5 mm. - 261 mm. - 111 mm. ('Amur', 11 years of age, wild caught) 2 - 201 cm. - 298 cm. - 420 cm. - 377 mm. - 331,2 mm. - 242 mm. - 108 mm. ('Benjamin', 7 years of age, captive born) Although his father 'Amur' had a longer head (450 vs. 420 cm.), 'Benjamin' had a longer skull.
Well @peter, I think that we need to update that table too.
 Also I need to add the weight of one of your tigers, I think is 211 kg (correct me if I am wrong) but I don't remember who is the specimen (Amur or Igor?).
Guate, I agree Food supply is one of the factor in tiger's body mass. But, if no tiger bigger than near 200kg found in last 3 decades, then that tells different story. Big gene tigers will usually have access to larger territory, good food supply. Do you have any record of any bigger tiger captured in RFE after 1950 till today ? If not, then it is pretty much safe to assume, maximum body mass of modern wild amur tiger is near 200kg, that is their maximum genetic capacity. But, bigger amur tiger gene pool is maintained in captivity. That has to be taken into account when we talk about amur tiger as species until captive gene pool is introduced into wild and old pre-1950 genetic diversity is brought back.
It is very hard fact, humans have done massive damage to wildlife. Amur tigers, Gir lions, ranthambore, sariska, panna and so many tiger reserves in India poachers destroyed the gene pool. Once gene pool which was evolved over many thousand years is lost, it will never come back. At-least Amur tigers have good representation of gene pool in captivity. Bengal tigers have nothing of that sort, they rely on wild. (11-24-2018, 02:29 AM)GreenForest Wrote: Guate, I agree Food supply is one of the factor in tiger's body mass. But, if no tiger bigger than near 200kg found in last 3 decades, then that tells different story. Big gene tigers will usually have access to larger territory, good food supply. Do you have any record of any bigger tiger captured in RFE after 1950 till today ? If not, then it is pretty much safe to assume, maximum body mass of modern wild amur tiger is near 200kg, that is their maximum genetic capacity. But, bigger amur tiger gene pool is maintained in captivity. That has to be taken into account when we talk about amur tiger as species until captive gene pool is introduced into wild and old pre-1950 genetic diversity is brought back. I remember some comments from old litterature that said that Korean tigers were smaller than those from Manchuria and it seams that this is the population that survived in the Amur region. However I am not agree with that as the biggest tiger reliable recorded in this area, was a Korean tiger of 254 kg hunted by Baikov. Also Kaplanov reported a male of 240 kg in the Sikhote Alin region, so tigers of this area did reached large weights in the past. Regarding the weights, until 2004, the heaviest male tiger recorded by scientists was teh tiger "Dale" with 205 kg. There is a report from a male of 225 kg reported by Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) but it was not corroborated by anyone from the Siberian Tiger Project for unknown reasons. Now with the Amur Tiger Programme, most of the male tigers recorded weighs of 200 kg or more, and the heaviest was a male called "Luke" recorded in 2011 with a mass of 212 kg; this is at the moment the heaviest Amur tiger recorded by scientists, but there is a clear tendency for higher weights in the last years, so probably scientists are going to found a male about 220 kg soon. The average weight for the male Amur tigers from modern records is about 190 kg at this moment, that of the Bengal tigers is over 200 kg (depending if we include Sundarbans or not) and those of the Indochinese tigers is of 182 kg with a maximum of 209 kg. Quote:peter That's strange @peter . I thought there was like only several millimeters difference between the greatest total skull length and head length. How did Mazak measured tiger skulls? Is it like the first picture below or the second picture?
HOW TO MEASURE THE GREATEST TOTAL LENGTH OF A TIGER SKULL
The greatest total length of a tiger skull is measured from the tip of the premaxillary bone (just in front of the incisors) to the posterior tip of the occiput. You have to measure the distance between both tips in a straight line. In order to exclude angles, the mandible has to be removed when you measure the greatest total length of the upper skull. If you don't, the distance will increase. THE SKULL OF THE TIGER SHOT BY SIR JOHN HEWETT'S DAUGHTER IN JANUARY 1927 Lorna, the daughter of Sir John Hewett, shot a large tiger close to Morgati in January 1927. Measured the next day, he was 10 feet 2 'over curves'. The measurements of the skull " ... as given by Messrs. Spicer & Co., of Leamington, who set up the skin, are in their words 'over the bone' as follows: Length - 16,25 inches. Breadth - 9 7/8 inches acrfoss the zygomatic arches. Weight cleaned - 4 lb. 14 oz... " ('Jungle Trails in Northern India', John Hewett, first published in 1938 - I have the 2008 reprint, pp. 180). It is about the addition 'over the bone'. My guess is the distance from tip to tip was measured following the curves of the skull. This method will increase the measurement quite a bit. This is borne out by the measurement of the zygomatic width and the weight of the skull. Based on my experience and reliable information of others, it's highly unlikely that a skull with a greatest total length of 16,25 inches of a large male tiger taping 10.2 in total length measured 'over curves' is less than 10 inches in zygomatic width. A skull of that size of a wild tiger also is heavier than 4 lb. 14 oz. For this reason, the skull in Hewett's book is out regarding greatest total length. HEAD LENGTH AND SKULL LENGTH The difference between head length and greatest total skull length in tigers shows a lot of individual variation. The 11-year old Prague zoo tiger 'Amur' measured by V. Mazak had a head and body length of 220 cm. in a straight line and a head length of 450 mm., whereas the greatest total length of the skull was 371 mm. The difference between head and skull length, therefore, was 79 mm. Another, younger, tiger, also measured by V. Mazak, had a head and body length of 201 cm. in a straight line and a head length of 420 mm. The greatest total skull length, however, was 377 mm. The difference between head and skull length was 43 mm. only ('Der Tiger', V. Mazak, 1983, pp. 185 and 193). The very large Duisburg zoo tiger, estimated at 280-300 kg. in his prime, was 210 cm. in head and body length in a straight line. This tiger had a head length of 50 cm. His skull, as far as I know, wasn't measured. The skull of the Sungari river tiger, also estimated at 300 kg. or more, could have been as long or longer. V. Jankowski wrote his skull was large. As far as I know, it was never measured. Based on the photographs published in the article discussed in this thread some time ago, the skull of tiger 'Altai' shot in the Koln zoo after he had killed his keeper could have been over 420 mm. in greatest total length. That tiger, with a head and body length of 240 cm. and a tail of 96 cm., was just about 4 years of age. A young adult, that is. Most photographs of 'Altai' on the internet were taken when he had just arrived in Koln. They suggest he was about average in size when he was less than 3 years old. In the year that followed, he could have added a lot of inches and pounds. At the level of species, lions have absolutely and relatively longer skulls than tigers. The longest skulls can exceed 400 mm. in greatest total length. Amur tigers also have long skulls. In relative terms, they seem to compare to lions in this respect. As some captive Amur tigers well exceed 600 pounds, chances are some skulls also exceed 400 mm. in greatest total length. Most skulls of captive adult male Amur tigers, however, range between 345-380 mm. in greatest total length. (12-26-2018, 01:00 AM)peter Wrote: HOW TO MEASURE THE GREATEST TOTAL LENGTH OF A TIGER SKULL 1. Okay so the first picture is the reliable way to measure a tiger skull, isn't it? By the way, many people measured big cat skulls by placing it on a table so the skull position look the same like the second picture. If we measure a skull by measuring it using this method by placing the skull on a table and then measure it over a straight line, the result is the measurement will be greater than how the skull is positioned like the first picture. 2. Yeah the 413 mm Bengal tiger skull is not reliable as it is measured over curve not over a straight line, not to mention the width of the skull is too low for a truly 16-inch skull. So, the length of the skull is actually lower than 16 inches. 3. So the skull length of Prague zoo's Amur is almost 8 cm less than its head length. If we follow this skull and head length difference, Duisburg's Amur skull will be 420 mm which is equal to 16.5 inches. But if we follow the skull and head length difference of the younger tiger which is 4 cm difference, the skull of the Duisburg's Amur is 46.6 cm which is equal to 18+ inches. Yes, most of the available pictures and videos of Altai I've found so far are not from 2012. Most of them are old, from 2011. (12-26-2018, 11:33 AM)johnny rex Wrote:(12-26-2018, 01:00 AM)peter Wrote: HOW TO MEASURE THE GREATEST TOTAL LENGTH OF A TIGER SKULL Ad 1 - I recently posted this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309320542_Carnivores_Skulls_-_Identification_and_Measurement_-_for_Ecologists. Go to the page with measurements. The next page has an instruction. Ad 2 - Yes. The length wasn't measured in a straight line, but over curves. Regarding greatest total length, the skull is out. Ad 3 - Yes. It depends. Ad 4 - I don't know in what way tiger 'Altai' was measured. The German biologists and zoologists I know measure big cats in a straight line ('between pegs'). For this reason, I assume he was measured in that way. Most field biologists, however, now measure big cats 'over curves'. It can't be excluded that 'Altai' was measured 'over curves' as well. Anyhow. If 'Altai' (336 cm. in total length) was measured 'over curves', he roughly compared to the Prague zoo tiger measured by V. Mazak. That tiger was 319 cm. 'between pegs' and 337 cm. 'over curves'. If Altai was measured in a straight line ('between pegs'), he's the longest I know of. Based on the photographs I have, I'd say 'Altai' had a larger skull than 'Amur'. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |