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.
(04-24-2014, 09:38 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Strange that Siberians have larger canines in captivity but the 3 largest measaurement we have all belong to Bengals.
I would have to assume when measurements of claws are given, they probably measure the duclaw. Isn't the duclaw the largest and most leathal claw on a big cat?
Well, there is one 90mm record for the captive Amur, but two 75mm records for the wild Bengal, Madla was from Central India, maybe the other one as well.
Do you think that they haven't got the largest canine record for Bengal?
04-24-2014, 10:36 PM( This post was last modified: 04-24-2014, 10:37 PM by GrizzlyClaws )
(04-24-2014, 10:31 PM)'TheLioness' Wrote: Yeah the dewclaw is the longest of the claws on big cats. Its the one that is mainly used for anchoring, the thumb so to say.
I would have to agree that claw data is going to be harder to come by, especually wild specimens.
Nice to see you again lioness, just feel free to post your opinion on this new forum. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
(04-16-2014, 10:25 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Awesome work Gaute, now a couple of remarks and questions.
-Do you know Madla's body length and shoulder height?
-About body length, you used 13 individuals for the amur and 5 for the bengal. If you look at it, the minimum for the bengal is longer than that for the Amur, it is safe to assume that if the bengal had another 8 individuals it would most likely have one or more tigers that would tie for the maximum or even beat the Amur, IMO. So I think it is definitely not clear cut to say that the Amur is longer than the bengal.
-The reverse can be said about shoulder height and body weight, but still, if you look at the minimums for both, while there are many more bengals weighed or mesured, their minimums are still higher than the amurs same goes for chest girth. IMO, that is much more clear cut of the Bengals larger body size and taller shoulder height.
-Skull size is where I am most curious, I would love to know Madlas skull size, any of the kaziranga tiger skull size, or Waghdoh etc... I think they all would have larger measurements than the Amur and it is even more interesting about the tooth length of Madla, imagine if his are that long, what a kaziranga tiger who specifically hunts rhino and gaur, would have.
-Do you know what the weight of both skulls are?
Thanks for the hard work
1. No, I don’t have any data about Madla size. I asked Dr Chundawat about any detail, but I obtain no response.
2. I used only 5 Bengals in the scientific records because those where the only ones published in literature. I think, and is my personal though, that Bengal tigers do average the same than Amur tigers in body-length, but as there is no more specimens, I can’t state that without evidence. So, based in the few specimens available, it seems that Amur are longer, although the difference is slightly.
3. Your observation is accurate, the minimum values for Amur tigers are lower than those from Bengal, however it will be too risky to say that Amurs are indeed smaller than Bengals. Been conservative, my personal conclusion, based on the facts, is that bouth reach similar sizes and that the difference between them is to small (no more than 5 cm) in linear measurements. Interestingly, on the body mass, if we take all the Amur tiger records (old and new) and all the Bengal tiger records (old and new, including The Sundarbans), both tiger subspecies average over 200 kg! This will suggest that at population level, both have the same body mass, on average.
4. On the skulls issue, peter said that Bengal skulls are heavier and looks more massive, while those from the Amur ones had larger sagittal crest and wider muzzle, however these are captive specimens. From my personal observations, although in a much smaller sample, Amur tiger skulls look in fact, more massive and overall more powerful, with larger muzzle, a lot more larger sagittal crest and massive canines. However, in this last point, I think that the largest Bengal tigers compare or even slightly surpass the largest Amur specimens in the wild.
5. I think that no one kept the skull of Madla, (although in Nepal, the skull of Sauraha male is kept by the rangers) but judging by the video, its skulls was of no less than 15-16 inches (38-40 cm), which is the normal maximum size for the skulls of Bengal tigers. I am searching the email of Dr Charles McDougal, he probably knows the size of Sauraha tiger skull.
6. I don’t understand your last question. What skulls are you referring?
Greetings.
(04-24-2014, 10:35 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(04-24-2014, 09:38 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Strange that Siberians have larger canines in captivity but the 3 largest measaurement we have all belong to Bengals.
I would have to assume when measurements of claws are given, they probably measure the duclaw. Isn't the duclaw the largest and most leathal claw on a big cat?
Well, there is one 90mm record for the captive Amur, but two 75mm records for the wild Bengal, Madla was from Central India, maybe the other one as well.
Do you think that they haven't got the largest canine record for Bengal?
I meant wild canine measurements. The bengal seems to have slightly larger canines at maximum.
(04-24-2014, 09:38 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Strange that Siberians have larger canines in captivity but the 3 largest measaurement we have all belong to Bengals.
I would have to assume when measurements of claws are given, they probably measure the duclaw. Isn't the duclaw the largest and most leathal claw on a big cat?
(04-24-2014, 10:36 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(04-24-2014, 10:31 PM)'TheLioness' Wrote: Yeah the dewclaw is the longest of the claws on big cats. Its the one that is mainly used for anchoring, the thumb so to say.
I would have to agree that claw data is going to be harder to come by, especually wild specimens.
Nice to see you again lioness, just feel free to post your opinion on this new forum. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Nice to see you to Grizzlyclaws, glad you guys made this site, less drama more facts!
The king of tigers from what I've seen from recent data would be Bengal, now in the past I am unsure, I enjoy Siberians and wish there where more info on them and a bigger population. It is hard to choose who has title king, they are both magnificent animals.
(04-16-2014, 10:25 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Awesome work Gaute, now a couple of remarks and questions.
-Do you know Madla's body length and shoulder height?
-About body length, you used 13 individuals for the amur and 5 for the bengal. If you look at it, the minimum for the bengal is longer than that for the Amur, it is safe to assume that if the bengal had another 8 individuals it would most likely have one or more tigers that would tie for the maximum or even beat the Amur, IMO. So I think it is definitely not clear cut to say that the Amur is longer than the bengal.
-The reverse can be said about shoulder height and body weight, but still, if you look at the minimums for both, while there are many more bengals weighed or mesured, their minimums are still higher than the amurs same goes for chest girth. IMO, that is much more clear cut of the Bengals larger body size and taller shoulder height.
-Skull size is where I am most curious, I would love to know Madlas skull size, any of the kaziranga tiger skull size, or Waghdoh etc... I think they all would have larger measurements than the Amur and it is even more interesting about the tooth length of Madla, imagine if his are that long, what a kaziranga tiger who specifically hunts rhino and gaur, would have.
-Do you know what the weight of both skulls are?
Thanks for the hard work
1. No, I don’t have any data about Madla size. I asked Dr Chundawat about any detail, but I obtain no response.
2. I used only 5 Bengals in the scientific records because those where the only ones published in literature. I think, and is my personal though, that Bengal tigers do average the same than Amur tigers in body-length, but as there is no more specimens, I can’t state that without evidence. So, based in the few specimens available, it seems that Amur are longer, although the difference is slightly.
3. Your observation is accurate, the minimum values for Amur tigers are lower than those from Bengal, however it will be too risky to say that Amurs are indeed smaller than Bengals. Been conservative, my personal conclusion, based on the facts, is that bouth reach similar sizes and that the difference between them is to small (no more than 5 cm) in linear measurements. Interestingly, on the body mass, if we take all the Amur tiger records (old and new) and all the Bengal tiger records (old and new, including The Sundarbans), both tiger subspecies average over 200 kg! This will suggest that at population level, both have the same body mass, on average.
4. On the skulls issue, peter said that Bengal skulls are heavier and looks more massive, while those from the Amur ones had larger sagittal crest and wider muzzle, however these are captive specimens. From my personal observations, although in a much smaller sample, Amur tiger skulls look in fact, more massive and overall more powerful, with larger muzzle, a lot more larger sagittal crest and massive canines. However, in this last point, I think that the largest Bengal tigers compare or even slightly surpass the largest Amur specimens in the wild.
5. I think that no one kept the skull of Madla, (although in Nepal, the skull of Sauraha male is kept by the rangers) but judging by the video, its skulls was of no less than 15-16 inches (38-40 cm), which is the normal maximum size for the skulls of Bengal tigers. I am searching the email of Dr Charles McDougal, he probably knows the size of Sauraha tiger skull.
6. I don’t understand your last question. What skulls are you referring?
Greetings.
(04-24-2014, 10:35 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(04-24-2014, 09:38 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Strange that Siberians have larger canines in captivity but the 3 largest measaurement we have all belong to Bengals.
I would have to assume when measurements of claws are given, they probably measure the duclaw. Isn't the duclaw the largest and most leathal claw on a big cat?
Well, there is one 90mm record for the captive Amur, but two 75mm records for the wild Bengal, Madla was from Central India, maybe the other one as well.
Do you think that they haven't got the largest canine record for Bengal?
I meant wild canine measurements. The bengal seems to have slightly larger canines at maximum.
I just wonder if the Bengal canine could get bigger than than the 75mm record, they are already two specimens achieved this, they are more usual than we thought before.
(04-24-2014, 09:38 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Strange that Siberians have larger canines in captivity but the 3 largest measaurement we have all belong to Bengals.
I would have to assume when measurements of claws are given, they probably measure the duclaw. Isn't the duclaw the largest and most leathal claw on a big cat?
(04-24-2014, 10:36 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(04-24-2014, 10:31 PM)'TheLioness' Wrote: Yeah the dewclaw is the longest of the claws on big cats. Its the one that is mainly used for anchoring, the thumb so to say.
I would have to agree that claw data is going to be harder to come by, especually wild specimens.
Nice to see you again lioness, just feel free to post your opinion on this new forum. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Nice to see you to Grizzlyclaws, glad you guys made this site, less drama more facts!
The king of tigers from what I've seen from recent data would be Bengal, now in the past I am unsure, I enjoy Siberians and wish there where more info on them and a bigger population. It is hard to choose who has title king, they are both magnificent animals.
Indeed, as long as it is backed by the fact and reasonable analysis, both pro-lion or pro-tiger argument should be accepted.
04-25-2014, 12:43 AM( This post was last modified: 04-25-2014, 12:44 AM by GuateGojira )
Reflection:
In fact, the point here is to avoid as much as possible the "lion vs tiger" theme. It is too problematic and people like BoldChamp, Asad and other "trolls" will return with they endless idiotic arguments and lies.
Did you like and animal? Good, put good data about them, but no "Vs" thing please. There is no need to put two magnificent animals in a fight to learn about them. Check how many data I have posted at this day without a single "Vs" mention. The only post that more or less approach to this is the topic of Jinenfordragon, but check that also in that topic, the theme is now about the ecology and origin of Asian lion, no "vs" will be mentioned, I hope.
So, please, no "Vs" themes, just animal data and feats from them. Let's love the animals by what they are what they can do, no need to create another Roman circus here.
Amur tigers in captivity are true giants. Mazák (1983) reported a maximum standing height of 110 cm for the Duisburg male, while the tallest Bengal tiger that I have found was of 101 cm (report of trainer Kid Bauer, interview with peter).
The tallest Amur and Bengal tigers measured by Mazák were of c.106 cm and c.99 cm respectively.
Correct, in the wild, Bengal tigers have been measured up to 114 cm between pegs. Besides, there is the problem of the "purity" of the Bengals in captivity. We don't know if those tigers measured by Mazák and Bauer were 100% pure Bengals, although none of the shoulder heights were small.
The tallest male Bengal tiger reported by Shankala was a white male of 100 cm at New Delhi Zoo. However, those captive tigers in India are allways smaller than they wild counterparts.
(04-25-2014, 03:31 AM)'TheLioness' Wrote: Banzai siberian tiger had a shoulder height of 104cm. he was 207 kg. Are there any shoulder height records from bengal tigers in chitwan?
Wow.. Wow.. Wow!!! Where do you get the shoulder height of Banzai? I will LOVE to see your source!!! I have not found any body measurement from tigers captured by the Amur Tiger Programme (the Russian team).
About the shoulder height in Nepal, no, I have not found any shoulder height for those tigers, but judging by the picture of Sauraha, it seems that he measured about 1 m to the shoulders.
~~, Sergey and Sasha started to work in silence:
length of hind foot: 39 cm,
tail length: 103 cm,
body length (without the tail): 183 cm
shoulder height: 104 cm,
ear length (from trough to peak): 10.5 cm
canine tooth length: 5.6 cm
width of the front leg: 11.5 cm
Each testicle was also measured... a measure of fertility.
I'm not sure of his age though, I'd say atleast 3 years > but not an old adult judging by the wear on the teeth.
I just wish there was more data on every captured radio collared big cat, there is probably more data but not yet posted online?
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
