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
|
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
This record will be inmediatly added to my tables. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] What I will like to know is the size of "Professor", which was larger than Banzai, probably up to 200 cm in head-body. 
[img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Glad I could help I noticed your chart had his name and weight but not his length or height.
I'll let you know if i find anything else on siberian tigers and or bengals.
Here is another tiger, no measurements, 212kg named Luk
http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/24787 Unsure if he was on empty belly or if the stomach contents were adjusted.
TheLioness, did you see how important is your post, you have found a new record!!! [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Congratulations!!! [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img] 93% of the captured Amur tigers have empty stomach, so I guess this one is empty. Luk was captured some time ago, when he was 3 years and he weighed about 159 kg, as far I remember. Now he is a great male, of 212 kg!!! I need to make serios changes to my tables. I will love to know its size!!! [img]images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] 
Thor is another captive giant male Amur being alleged to weigh up to 900lbs, and i wonder if how fair compare him to Baikal?
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/rep...1xPtsJOXIU 
Huge Bengal canines:
 *This image is copyright of its original author Wagdoh male.  *This image is copyright of its original author T-28 Star male.  *This image is copyright of its original author The famous Charger.
Captive Amur Tiger
 *This image is copyright of its original author Captive Bengal Tiger  *This image is copyright of its original author
I just got done reading Alfred Courts book, "my life with big cats"
He speaks of 3 siberians and 4 bengals he got at the same time. (no mention of where or what type of bengals they were" but the siberians are much larger than the bengals and he makes mention to the fact that they had to be taught not to kill the smaller bengals. I will post of pic tomorrow of them together. The siberians are much larger, but that being said. Siberians are notoriously large in captivity while bengals are smaller as well as the possibility of them being a smaller subspecies of "bengal".
That will be interesting Pckts. However I need to mention a little fact. Until 1968, the tigers from Indochina and Malaysia were also classified as "Bengals". It is possible, if not completely certain, that many of the old "small" Bengals were in fact Indochinese or Malayan tigers. It is important to take this in count in old comparisons.
 (05-12-2014, 09:51 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: That will be interesting Pckts. However I need to mention a little fact. Until 1968, the tigers from Indochina and Malaysia were also classified as "Bengals". It is possible, if not completely certain, that many of the old "small" Bengals were in fact Indochinese or Malayan tigers. It is important to take this in count in old comparisons.That's interesting Guate, can I ask for the source? Thanks (05-12-2014, 10:03 AM)'Richardrli' Wrote:(05-12-2014, 09:51 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: That will be interesting Pckts. However I need to mention a little fact. Until 1968, the tigers from Indochina and Malaysia were also classified as "Bengals". It is possible, if not completely certain, that many of the old "small" Bengals were in fact Indochinese or Malayan tigers. It is important to take this in count in old comparisons.That's interesting Guate, can I ask for the source? Thanks Credits to Guate "The Indochinese tiger was not considered a separate subspecies UNTIL 1968, when Dr. Mazak spend several months studying a captive tiger from Vietnam and many skulls, then he conclude that there were enough differences for put it in a new subspecies, which had been proved right with the studies of Lou et al. My sources were the document of Mazak and the book "Riding the Tiger"." "* Kitchener said that are three subspecies: 1. Land tiger: From Amur to Indochina, taking India. 2. Island tiger: Sonda islands. 3. Caspian tiger. However the NEW GENETIC STUDIES maded by Lou et al. shows that there are enough genetic differences between the Bengal (tigris), Indochinese (corbetti), South china (amoyensis) and Amur tiger (altaica), and that the Sumatran tiger could be even a COMPLETE different species. By the way, the Javan and the Bali "tigers" could be a new species to, with the Javan tiger like "Panthera sondaica sondaica" and the Bali like "Panthera sondaica balica". Finally, the Caspian tiger was just the western population of the Amur tiger, so Kitchener was completely wrong, sorry for him. About the size, the Indochinese is smaller than the Bengal tiger, this is a fact know since Pocock (1939) and Mazak (1976)"
You're definitely right, and I think that is most likely the case. TFS Gaute. Im still home sick so I may have to wait till tomorrow to post the pic.
 (04-25-2014, 04:56 AM)'TheLioness' Wrote: http://www.tendua.org/2,002/reports,008/...r,087.htmlGreat post and find!!! Thanks a loooooooooooot[img]images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]. Any new information, if from the past or recent times are greatly appreciated. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |