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
|
 (05-05-2015, 01:47 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: @Amnon242 OK, read your posts once again - your contradictory statements and ridiculous demagogy. Im tired to react to all that nonsense from you. Id say that you are the Bold of this forum, but I dont want to be so rude. But you have to realize one thing: you are involved almost everytime there is some kind of "flame war" in this forum - what does it say to you?  (05-05-2015, 01:48 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote:(05-05-2015, 01:47 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: @Amnon242 First off, there has been no "flame war" here, Grizzly and I have been nothing but civil. So if you're going to make these absurd statements " your contradictory statements and ridiculous demagogy" Why don't you have a little proof or an example of me being "contradictory". I am not stating anyhthing that is untrue, Gautes table is posted, measurements where posted and proof and evidence was given. I have made no unfounded statements like yourself, I suggest you look in the mirror before you point a finger. Just look at what you are doing to this thread and the notch thread, stop being a hypocrite. If you disagree with something and have evidence to back your claim, post it. Try being civil for a change, no body is attacking any one here other than you. 
Guys, just calm down a little bit.
Even if we cannot agree with each other, then we can still keep our opinion for ourselves, no need to go rough. 
Comparison image:
This is it, here is my final statement about this topic: the comparison of size. Check my new image:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here I made a comparison between the Amur and the Bengal tiger, using modern and historic measurements. The explanation is this: 1. Amur tiger: The body measurements in the image are only those of Kerley et al. (2005). Why I did not post those of the historic specimens? Well, because although they are reliable in they description, many of them don't came from first hand sources, so I decided to use only those from scientific references. Besides, apart from the giant male of 330 cm from Mazák, all the other specimens are of the same size than modern animals, except in the chest department. On the side of the weights, the source is my new document of 2015, already posted here. 2. Bengal tiger: On the department of body size, I choose to use Brander and the Maharaha of Cooch Behar, as they measured between pegs and are the most reliable with the largest samples. I also used those from Dr Sunquist (1981), although all the specimens fit in the ranges of the two previous sources, except for female T-107, which is the longest female recorded in Nepal-India (282 cm). On the weight side, I used my new document for Bengal tigers, also from 2015, which summarize most of the reliable weights, including Hewett, for example. I will post the images latter. The change here is that I separated the "old" weights from the "new" scientific weights, in order to see the differences in time. On the body size department, both historic and new measurements are the same, so there is no problem in using both, although we most take in count that the smaller figures in the old records probably came from young specimens, that in modern records simply don't exist. At the end, like I said before, we can see in the images that although there are differences in the "paper" of barely 5 to 10 cm, when we see the two animals (of average size) together, they are practically of the same size, although the Bengal one is more robust in comparison. I expect to be criticized by the Amur-tiger-fans, but they most accept the fact that the measurements and weights presented, support the fact that Bengal are the heaviest cats on Earth right now and that they are of the same body size, both historically and modern, and between the two subspecies. Greetings to all. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Body size of the Bengal tiger - version 2015:
Here is my last document about the weight of the Bengal tiger in they entire range. Check the images, the first is a summary of most of the reliable records and the second one is the summary of all the scientific records available at this moment.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Finally, here is the image with the data of the Sauraha male, with some new adds, like the references:  *This image is copyright of its original author The document is available here and in Scribd (attached file). Like I always say, erase the old tables and copy the new ones. Greetings to all. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Well done Guate.
Your Amur/Bengal Comparision is great. Your hard work is appreciated. 
Amazing work guate could have that size comparison as a poster on my wall at home! Would love to see more of those :-)
Thanks Pckts, Pantherinae and ALL the other posters! [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
I am going to make new comparisons in the future, of tiger subspecies and lions subspecies too, also other animals like bovines and deer species, always with they size references and the proper scale. That is why I use a square background. Greetings to all. (05-18-2015, 07:03 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Thanks Pckts, Pantherinae and ALL the other posters! [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I really think if we had more than 13 specimens to go off of for Amurs these tigers would be pretty much identical in all departments outside of weight but that is probably dictated by the fact that amurs have been decimated by prey depleation and habitat loss. But the maximums of Bengals are higher than Amurs as well as the minimums which is probably safe to assume if we had higher #'s for amurs it would probably be even closer. Its amazing to see how identical they are any way.
tried to make a little poster with 7 male tigers from some of the most iconic reserves in India
 *This image is copyright of its original author from top left: Munna from Kanha: Wagdoh from Tadoba: a Nice looking male from Kabini: Raja from Bandipur: KZT023 from Kaziranga: Ustad aka T24 from Ranthambore: Bamera from Bandhavgarh
So what causes the size switch from Amur and Bengals? Population, resulting in a smaller breeding pool?
(05-20-2015, 06:23 AM)'stoja9' Wrote: So what causes the size switch from Amur and Bengals? Population, resulting in a smaller breeding pool?What do you mean "size switch?" Maybe you're speaking of the smaller size more recently compared to older Specimens I assume in amur? My guess is the obvious Idea of prey availability and habitat loss. Bengals are pretty much identical, but the minimum # of tigers captured recently compared to older ones captured, I would think the opportunity to have larger specimens in Bengals would definitely exist since there was only 13 individuals measured compared to 120 individuals from the past.  (05-20-2015, 06:23 AM)stoja9 Wrote: So what causes the size switch from Amur and Bengals? Population, resulting in a smaller breeding pool? In my opinion, the Amur was most likely drastically affected by the population bottleneck that occurred due to their attempted extermination. It is said that 20-30 individuals are ancestors of today's population. Therefore, the gene pool likely has much less variety due to the small starting population (which would also result in worsening conditions due to inbreeding). Prey is also like another problem. Global warming also seems to be shrinking cold climate species such as the polar bear, thus the Amur tiger may be facing the same fate. Finally, the big tiger records are often rejected as unreliable today, and has also caused the confusion on the Amur's status as the largest of the tigers. The hunting record that is accepted has an average of 215 kg, I believe, essentially the same size as the Bengal tiger. On Bengals, I did a statistical test (posted somewhere in the forums, likely the "edge" thread), and the resuts showed that there is a difference between the size of the Bengal tiger of today and yesterday. At the same time, the math was close, and adding a few more tigers or changing a few factors might indicate that the size difference is only due to random chance. It's possible that Bengals that were hunted were often not fully grown due to the high rate of hunting, also deflating the apparent average compared to today (I believe Guate also pointed this out). Finally, the modern database might be skewed toward logging only dominant males, which would artifically inflate the average size of the Bengal tiger.
Hey every tiger fanatics and experts I was having a discussion with another bigcat entusiast today and we where discussing who's the biggest know atleast male tiger in the past 10-15 years. Except kaziranga tigers
I was thinking to Ask you guy's? Who do you think is the 10 biggest male and can you try to estimate their weights? (I know it's pointless to estimate, but would still be interesting to hear you're thought's (05-21-2015, 12:35 AM)'Pantherinae' Wrote: Hey every tiger fanatics and experts I was having a discussion with another bigcat entusiast today and we where discussing who's the biggest know atleast male tiger in the past 10-15 years. Except kaziranga tigers As you stated, its absolutely impossible to tell for sure. I wont even try to guess, I think if we exclude Kaziranga, Terrai Arc, Corbett, Dudwa etc. I'm saying that Jai is the largest tiger I have seen but its impossible to know for sure. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |