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
|
AHHHH It wont let me post the image of the siberians and bengals together.
You guys can't see the one I posted yesterday? I can see it on my end. *This image is copyright of its original author
@Pckts , You are using your google gmail account to show images. It's making problem.
You need to upload that images on wildfact or you can upload it to some image hosting website and can then link it. Or use the imgur image uploader form the text editor to upload image on imgur. *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
Whelp, Imgur kept giving me a error display when I tried it there, anyway, here all the pages should be visible between the last two pages of the thread. Only page missing is page 36 from what I can see.
Can you guys see all the pages that are visible?   *This image is copyright of its original author Small image, but Ceasar is on the left, Camboge (largest siberian 2nd to right and Bengali is the furthest right) The bengal to the right of caesar is a female and the rest in the middle are bengal males.
This is only a bit of the chapter, more is said. But this is the jist of it.
It is sad that no images can be seen. However, in the small picks that you post, it is possible to see the great difference between the Siberian tigers and the "Bengal" ones. However, I guess that those "Bengal" specimens are not entire "pure", probably a mix of Bengal with any other "subspecies" or just Indochinese tigers.
*This image is copyright of its original author I dont think the middle 3 tigers are male bengals, they look to be some smaller subspecies. I also dont think they are fully grown males, because they look the same size as the female
The only female is the one on the far left next to Caesar and she is the same family as the other 3 males, they where his first tigers and bought at the same time. The bengals may or may not be full grown, but the siberians are younger than they are. I believe the siberians are age of 3 or so when first introduced to the bengals.
The 3rd tiger from the left is Prince and the 2nd tiger from the right is Cambodge (largest siberian) and also the tiger that attempted to attack prince for many days until finally taught not to.
Also one note, he says that the bengals where brought from "Bengal"
So he doesn't know what type of sub species they are, obviously. This could also be the reason that the popular beliefe that the Siberian is the largest cat, because most of these circus trainers probably never had a Pure wild bengal from somewhere like Assam or Panna etc.... As well as siberians being able to put fat on easier than bengals and their massive furry coats all lead to the old popular idea that siberians are larger than bengals, which after lots of research seems to be the opposite.  (05-14-2014, 09:42 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Also one note, he says that the bengals where brought from "Bengal"But on the flip side it's also true that Amurs are not smaller than Bengals, expecially in captive environments as we all know by now. So your last sentence isn't exactly accurate. A tiger from Tamil Nadu is just as "Bengal" as a tiger from Assam, so why the emphasis on the latter?
I think is fair to say that there is more intraespecific variation between the Bengal population than between the Amur population.
The smallest Amur specimens (Korea?) that I know are no smaller than the Indochinese tigers, while the smallest Bengal specimens (The Sundarbans) are of the same size than the small Balinese tigers. In captivity, it seems that Amur tigers are in fact the largest cats overall in all the senses, but in the wild, Bengal reach the same sizes (length and height) and now even a much higher body mass. (05-14-2014, 09:38 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: The only female is the one on the far left next to Caesar and she is the same family as the other 3 males, they where his first tigers and bought at the same time. The bengals may or may not be full grown, but the siberians are younger than they are. I believe the siberians are age of 3 or so when first introduced to the bengals. If the amurs are 3 years old and the Bengals are older than that (so the 4 bengal tigers should be adults or closer to adulthood), then there should be a greater sexual dimorphism in size between the 3 male and 1 female bengal tigers. But it is not the case when you see the picture. Since those 4 tigers are adults and the 3 males and 1 female are closer in size to each other. I think its highly possible that these tigers are either smaller subspecies or the unique sunderbans tigers (smaller tigers show lesser sexual dimorphism in size)  *This image is copyright of its original author (05-14-2014, 09:42 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Also one note, he says that the bengals where brought from "Bengal" Since he says "BENGAL" Bengal is a geographical and ethno-linguistic region in South Asia. It lies in the eastern region of the Indian subcontinent, at the apex of the Bay of Bengal, and is dominated by the fertile Bengal delta. The region was politically divided in 1947 and today comprises the nation of Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. This is exactly the Bengal region  *This image is copyright of its original author This is nothing but Sunderbans fertile plains and mangrove forests. So these 4 Bengals could be sunderbans tigers (bengal tigers from sunderbans). This could explain the size difference between those bengals and amurs. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |