Monday, May 12, 2008

Bengal Tiger

Bengal TigerBengal Tiger is the most numerous subspecies of tigers today. Second only to the Siberian Tiger in size, the Bengal Tiger, Panthera Tigris Tigris is a close second when it comes to the largest wild cat in existence. In fact many northern Bengal Tigers, in particular the Nepalese Tigers are thought to rival the Amur Tiger in size, with males weighing around five hundred and females three hundred pounds on average. Larger individuals have been witnessed though and the heaviest Bengal Tiger on record weighed around eight hundred and fifty pounds. Females of around four hundred pounds have been recorded as well. Average body length for males and females is ten and nine feet respectively though the famous Bachelor of Powalgarh was said to be 3.23 metres long over pegs. Shoulder height is usually in the range of three to three and a half feet.

Renowned worldwide for its stunning beauty and grace, the Bengal Tiger’s coat is a perfect camouflage tool as much as it is an object of splendor. Orange fur is marked by black stripes that disperse the tiger’s outline as it moves across the jungle. The pattern of individual stripes is as unique as fingerprints and aids in identification of individual tigers. Skull is large, particularly in the case of some adult males where the skull comes close to that of a lion. Ears are dark on the rear aspect and as in so many cats have a central white spot, thought variously to warn off intruders or guide the cubs with their early imperfect eyesight to follow the mother around.

Solitary cats, Bengal Tigers are territorial animals. They hunt at dusk and dawn and regularly mark their territory by scent to keep out other tigers from their hunting and breeding grounds. In some national parks where they are protected, tigers have been recorded to be active in daytime as well. Generally tigers prefer to stay in shade during daylight hours, particularly in the scorching summers of South Asia. Territories are smaller than those of Siberian Tigers owing to shrinking habitat of the tigers in India. Males roam over an area of twenty square miles and females hunt in a slightly smaller range of seventeen square miles. Often the territory of a single male overlaps those of several females, with whom he frequently mates. Tigers usually have more than one den in their range for them to choose as their haunt for a particular period of time.

Bengal Tigers are at the top of their ecosystem and play an active role in maintaining the delicate balance of India’s threatened natural fauna and flora. They prey upon a variety of animals including wild boar, sambar, barasingha, nilgai, gaur and water buffalo though the spotted dear, also known as chital, forms the bulk of their diet. At times smaller animals including hares, peacocks, langurs and monkeys are also consumed. Tigers are not above scavenging and often eat putrefied carcasses. Extremely strong, Bengal Tigers are known to attack and kill the largest prey animals in India including the Asiatic Elephant and Rhinoceros. They are estimated to have the strength of twelve adult men and can carry a fully grown cow over a ten foot fence. Aggressive animals, these great cats often kill adult crocodiles over conflict. In reality, nothing is safe from a wild tiger in the jungles of India if it makes up its mind to hunt it.

Bengal Tiger distribution

The most untamed of India’s tigers reside in the largest natural delta on earth – the Sunderban forest of Bengal where the sacred river Ganges opens into the Bay of Bengal. An estimated near three hundred and five hundred tigers reside on India and Bangladesh’s side of this vast mangrove wetland. Landlocked through ever-changing tides from the hunting maharajahs and colonial British of the past centuries, these wild tigers have never learned to respect man. These tigers are expert swimmers and amongst the most notorious big cats when it comes to man-eating. Their victims are ever so often the honey collectors and fishermen of Sunderban (literally meaning beautiful forest). Even though Core Areas and Buffer Zones have been designated to separate the predator from man, the extremely poor villagers go deep into tiger territory to search for honey and fish. The result is a number of deaths yearly that the locals have learnt to live with as the continual cycle of life and death in that part of the world. Still the conflict fares badly for the tiger which runs the risk of being poisoned and killed as in many other parts of the subcontinent where it is being victimized, by villagers for revenge, and poachers for profit. Despite its fearsome reputation the tiger is believed to be a large hearted gentleman that generally avoids human by most experts including the famed hunter turned conservationist Jim Corbett who understood more about the big cat more than half a century ago than most do today. Most human kills by tigers according to him were the result of surprise, provocation, old age, injury, loss of prey or coincidence. Once tigers learn that humans are relatively easy and defenseless prey, some take to man-eating.

Recorded in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal and parts of Tibet, the Bengal Tiger is essentially the pride of India and Bangladesh where it is given the status of national animal. Highest numbers are known to exist in scattered reserves in India where its numbers have shrunk from tens of thousands nearly a century ago to less than fifteen hundred today. Tigers survive in a variety of tropical habitats including marshlands, brush and grasslands.

Mating season for Bengal Tigers is between winter and spring. Females are receptive for three days to a week. Pregnancy lasts for around three months after which three cubs are born on average. The young are particularly vulnerable to adult male tigers in the vicinity who will frequently kill the cubs they haven’t fathered to bring the female into estrus and establish the perpetuity of their own genetic line. At eleven months of age, the cubs are able to hunt for themselves. They stay with their mother for up to two to three years of age after which they move off to fend for themselves and take up a range of their own. Lifespan in the wild is fifteen years, and in captivity seventeen years on average.

Bengal TigerThrough decades of hunting, poaching and neglect, India’s tigers were brought to the brink of extinction in the early 1970’s. At that time, the then Premier, Indira Gandhi, inaugurated Project Tiger to protect the few remaining Bengal Tigers. For some years, the project was a glowing success and numbers in the wild appeared to stabilize and even improve. However, these recording were made from unscientific methods and forest officials typically inflated the reported numbers to cover up their neglect and perhaps even wrongdoings with regards to saving the tigers. In the following years, emphasis shifted from the tiger to the ever expanding population and economy of India. Dams were constructed and agricultural land expanded, in turn diminishing the area of forests and the habitat of the big cat. Finally a truly scientific survey was launched some years ago and the recent results have shocked even the most pessimistic conservationists. Today India is reported to house as few as fourteen hundred tigers in its jungles. This has led to widespread international calls for protection of the Bengal Tiger but even now there seems to be a lacking of political will according to some observers to conserve this magnificent creature that was recently voted as the most favorite animal in the world. One of the leading international wildlife experts George Schaller went as far as to imply that India has yet to decide if the Royal Bengal Tiger is an asset to treasure. At the current rate, many experts fear that this beautiful cat will be extinct in the wild in the coming decade. The last lord of the jungle is currently classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN.


カービー・ムンク said...

It worries considerably about the cat family.

Raul said...

This is a very good article about the Bengal tiger. I like it very much. It just need some little corrections:
1. the heaviest Bengal tiger captured by scientist at this time has a male of 270 kg (595 lb), tagged in Nepal in 1984.[1]
2. The heaviest tiger recorded in the Guinness Book of Records has a male of 322 cm. long "between pegs" (in strait line) and 857 lb. in weight.
3. The skull of the average male is shorter but wider than that of the average lion. The largest skull measured by Mazak (1981) was of 37.8 cm., Sterndale (1884) measured one of 38 cm. and Rowlad Ward (1907) reported one of 40 cm.

[1]Dinerstein, E. 2003. Return of the Unicorns. Columbia University Press. 384 pp.

Ailurophile said...

@ Raul

Hi there. Thanks for dropping by and the added info. Cheers :)

Anonymous said...

what is the maximum speed of a bengal tiger

snowforest said...

During a charge they can reach speeds of between fifty to sixty kilometers per hour.

Anonymous said...

Does any animal in the world prey on the adult bengal tiger?

Anonymous said...

The Bengal is NOT larger than an African lion. Actually, they're a bit smaller or even the same size. The only tiger larger is of course the Siberian(Amur) tiger. Just thought I'd clear that up. =P

Anonymous said...

That's soooo cool. they are very interesting!!


Dustin Munro said...

Copy Of information I found about the "857lb Indian Tiger:

Which was the heaviest Bengal tiger on record?
In: Endangered Species, Tigers [Edit categories]

TigerDirect Canada
Serving the PC Enthusiast for Over 20 Years. Shop Now & Save!

According with the Guinness Book of Records, the heaviest Bengal tiger on record was a male cattle-eater, hunted by David Hasinger in Fatehpur Shooting Block, near Kaladhong in the forest of Kumaon, Uttar Pradesh, India, in November 30, 1967.
This giant had a total length of 323 cm measured between pegs (338 cm over curves) and weighed 388.7 kg (857 lb).

There is a controversy about the weight of this animal because it was to heavy and was baited, however, if a tiger can consume about one fifth of its own weight (according with Dr. Schaller) the real weight of this giant could be about 311 kg (685.6 lb). Even in this way, it rank among the largest tigers ever.

Siberian Tigers were probably heavier before their prey was reduced by poaching.One way to get what would be a "maximum wild size and weight" of siberian tigers is to reintroduce them to areas like Kamchatka with the rich salmon runs along with the world's largest bears.Like bears,tigers are very fond of fish and may also like bears,become much larger in coastal areas than those inland populations.Similar reintroductions should aslo be done with the Amur Leopard which also suffers from prey shortages too and would also benefit from the salmon runs.A large herbivore the Canadian wood bison should also be reintroduced to Kamchatka too as part of a rewilding project and may like the moose which the largest are in Alaska and kamchatka also become the largest of its kind too.

Anonymous said...

These cats are beautiful animals and should be treated with the utmost care. Bengal Tigers are diminishing by the minute and I hope that whatever we can possibly do for this animal, could change the entire population of its kind. We could save a population of cats from extinction if everybody pitches in. If everybody in the country donated a penny, we could rescue them from extinction!

Raul said...

Anonymous said...
"The Bengal is NOT larger than an African lion. Actually, they're a bit smaller or even the same size. The only tiger larger is of course the Siberian(Amur) tiger. Just thought I'd clear that up. =P"

This is false; the Bengal tigers are MUCH larger than ANY African lion. As matter of fact, according with Dr Bruce Patterson, the male African lion seldom exceed the 9 ft (274 cm) in total length, when the Bengal tiger normally reach the 290-300 cm. The longest lion, measured between pegs was a male of 300 cm hunted by James Stevenson-Hamilton. The famous lion of 333 cm came from “Rowland Wards Records of Big Game”, and it is not stated if the animal was measured over or between the curves, so is unreliable. In the other hand, there are at least three cases of Bengal tiger of more than 320 cm measured between pegs, no less.

The heaviest male tigers in scientific records are two males that bottomed a scale of 600 lb, reported by Dr. Erick Dinerstein in his book “The Last of the One Horned Rhino”, followed by a male of 257 kg captured by Dr Karanth in Nagarahole; on the other hand the heaviest lion in scientific record has a male of 260 kg that had at least 20 kg of meat in the stomach, according with a personal communication of Dr. Hu Berry. The next one is a male of 230 kg hunted in Kenya by Richard Meinertzhagen and at the end the male of 225 kg (empty belly) from South Africa captured by Smuts. The lion of 272 kg from Kenya was a hunting record, and R. Kock, in a personal communication, doesn’t remember if the weight was completely accurate. On the other hand, there are several CONFIRMED Bengal males of 272 kg or more in the hunting records, like a male of 600 lb hunted in Gwalior and reported Colonel Kesri Singh, an actual witness of the hunting.

As you can see, the Bengal tigers is larger (longest and heavier) than the African lion. By the way, the large size of the Barbary lion is a myth, and the cape lion records were from skins. Look the image:
This is from the book “Simba, the life of the lion” of Guggisberg (1963) no less.

Sorry Anonymous (lion fan), but the lion is no match for the mighty Bengal tiger.

Dustin Munro said...

The information about the "record size Indian Tiger"was the only part I copied.I added my comments about the Siberian Tiger and other animals(Amur Leopard,and the large herbivores-moose and Canadian wood bison which is being reintroduced and successfully breeding in Siberia).
Here are 2 examples other animals(living species) that have "questionable record sizes and/or weights".Does anybody have the largest scientifically measured and weighed records of these animals?
1.Gaur(Indian Bison)-only wild cattle species considered larger than wood bison.Wood Bison-up to 3000lbs-what is the record size?Gaur said to average 1 ton to 3300lbs.Record said to be 3700lbs and claims of 2.1tons-4300lbs.Was the extinct Auroch related to the Gaur and/or the same size?
To my understanding-the extinct Giant Bison was the largest cattle species ever to exist weighing up to 2.5 tons-5500lbs.
2.Largest leopard-said to be the Persian Leopard commonly weighing over 200lbs and the Sri Lankan leopard also sometimes exceedinf 200lbs.A claim of a 280lb leopard.
3.Any other animals with questionable record sizes.

Raul said...

Hi Dustin Munro, here are your answers:

1) The heaviest wood bison weighed by scientist was a male of 910 kg (Feldhamer et al., 2003), but Harry V. Radford reported a male of 1089.3 kg, hunted by him in 1910. There are records of plain bisons of 998 kg (Soper, 1964), 1350 kg (Walker et al., 1975), 945 kg (Wolf, 1998) and 1090 kg (Pattie and Fisher, 1999), but this figures are obscure as only rages were presented, and the heaviest male weighed by scientist was of 769 kg (Feldhamer et al., 2003).

About the gaur, the heaviest male gaur ACTUALLY weighed, from a reliable source, was a male of 939 kg (Schaller, 1967). Owen-Smith (1992) clearly state that any weight over 1000 kg in the bovid family is clearly exceptional but not impossible, and that the male gaurs, in the wild, weigh up to 940 kg. Finally, there is a record of a huge male with a weight of 1225 kg and a height of 2.2 m to the shoulders (UNESCO, 2009). All those reports on the internet of bovids over 1500 kg are exaggerations and web-myths. The auroch was, in fact, no larger than the modern gaur and about the same size than the largest American bison.

2) The heaviest leopard in Africa, from reliable sources, were 2 males captured in South Africa by T. N. Bailey that weighed 70 kg and a male captured in Zimbabwe that weighed 71.3 kg (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). The heaviest leopards in Asia are a male of 70 kg captured in Thailand (Nowell & Jackson, 1996); an Indian male of 70 kg captured in central India (Nowell & Jackson, 1996) and a large male of 77.2 kg hunted in Sri Lanka (body length 142 cm, tail length 96.5 cm) in 1935 (Pocock, 1941; Heptner & Sludiskii, 1989). According with Sunquist & Sunquist (2002), “there are records of African male leopards weighing it at over 90 kilograms, but most of these animals had full stomach, witch can add some 20 percent to the cat’s normal body weight”. Finally there are records of some male leopards in Iran that reached 90 kg (Nowell & Jackson, 1996), but there are not real confirmations of the figure.

3) Could you be more specific in this question? There are several animals with questionable record sizes, like the anaconda, the white shark, the brown bear, etc.

Greetings and Happy New Year to all!!!

Anonymous said...


Raul said...

Hi everybody. Just a little correction, in Nowell and Jackson (1996), the weight of the heaviest leopard from India was stated as 70 kg, like I put it in my previous comment, however, I have manage to found the original source of the record, which is Pocock (1939). There, the original figure is of 152 lb, which is about 68.9 kg, and was hunted by Dunbar Brander. So, it is a hunting record, but it came from a very reliable source, so is trustable.

By the way, he quote a record from a Bengal tiger of 608 lb (275.8 kg) hunted in Gwalior and other of 645 lb (292.6 kg) hunted in Kumaon. While the second one is clearly an exceptional male, the first was about the same weight as the heaviest Nepal tigers weighed by scientist, so is clearly a reliable record.

Good night.

Anonymous said...

I love this site and tigers are my favorite animals ever. But I was wondering if there could be some research and a small arcticle or factfile on the Maltese tiger. It's a rare and an especially interesting tiger because it comes in this pale blue to blue-gray color. I don't know very much about it because I never know what to believe on the internet. So if you could please find time, could you get some information on this tiger? I trust this site to post truthful information, not fibs. Thanks.

snowforest said...

Hi Madeleine,

Thanks for dropping by. Maltese tigers are not a separate tiger subspecies and thus are not individually profiled in this site. They occur owing to a genetic anomaly in normal ochre colored tigers, most commonly the South Chinese tigers. Thanks for dropping by and your kind words about this blog.


Thanks again for your valuable input. It is much appreciated!

Dustin Munro said...

vThank you Raul for the answers to my questions about scientifically record sizes and weights of the animals I mentioned.I call on anybody encountering record sizes of these or any other animals-including reptiles,birds,fish try to capture it alive and get the size scientificly measured and weighed to prove that it is the size and weight that is documented.Two examples of RECORD SIZES that if true should have been presented to scientists for verification are:
1.Record size moose in Kamchatka said to weigh over 2300 lbs.There are claims of both moose and Grizzly bears in Kamchatka being over 2500 lbs-lets get it proven if any that size are captured or killed.
2.Record size wolf in Alberta,Canada said to be around 235 lbs which seems to be a doctored photograph.There probably are wolves weighing over 200 lbs but lets get it proven too if any are captured or killed.

Raul said...

Hi Dustin, good to read about you again. About this two animals (brown bear and wolf) I have some data, check it out:

First, the Brown bear:
There are many weights and measurements in the literature, however very very few are truly reliable. For example, even the most professional hunters accept that the suppose records of bears over 1200 or 1500 lb area highly questionable and are probably just myths (Russ, 2004; Etling, 2003). Many weights in the old literature are just estimations. If we going just to the scientific sources with male bears ACTUALLY weighed, we get this:

Kodiak Island: 611 kg.
Alaska (Coastal Alaska Peninsula): 442 kg.
Yellowstone NP: 500 kg. (Exceptional male).
Jasper NP, Alberta: 356 kg.
Yellowstone NP (Blanchard study): 325 kg. (Gorged with “dump”)
*Source: Blanchard, 1980.
These are some of the few brown bears in America that had surpassed the 300 kg, while just two populations of brown bears in North America had reached the 300 kg in the average; all the others are much lower. This is the reality against the myths posted by the bear-fans in the web.

Now let’s see the male brown bears of Eurasia:
Slovakia, Europe: 328 kg. (Swenson et al., 2007)
Ussuri-Amur: 321 kg. (Kucherenko, 2003)
Kamchatka: 250 kg. (Kistchinski, in litt.)
Tibetan plateau: 109 kg. (Schaller, 1998)

Cases of killing very big bears (up to 500-685 kg) in Kamchatka are known (Novikov 1969), but extremely rare. However why there is not real confirmation of this figures?

It is important to mention that there is not such thing as “giant brown bears” in the Amur region. As it is know, the Amur tiger is the dominant animal in the Amur and there is no one record of a tiger killed by a bear in the field corroborate by scientist and the hunters report don’t state the health stage of the tigers, no even they age, so, they are NOT reliable (Dale Miquelle, personal communication). The average male bear there is of 264 kg and the female 189 kg (Kucherenko, 2003).

The record in Guinness is a male of 751 kg hunted in 1894, in the Kodiak Island.

Second, the wolf:
Feldhamer et al. (2003) put a range of 20 to 80 kg for the male wolf.

The famous “Lobo”, the last wolf of New Mexico, weighed 150 lb (68 kg) and was described as a very large male. The Mexican wolfs reached a maximum of 70 lb (31.7 kg). Source:

The Indian wolf weighs 18 to 27 kg (Sharma & Kumari, 2002).

Wolf in Central Rusia: 34 to 49 kg. There are reports of 72 kg+ (Novikov, 1962).

The red wolf (Canis rufus) weighs 20-40 kg (Nowak, 2005).

The heaviest wolf on record weighed 79.4 kg according to The International Wolf Center in Ely in the US state of Minnesota. That was an animal shot dead in east central Alaska in 1939, said Andrea Lorek Strauss from the centre, who added that she investigating whether there were any heavier wolves recorded outside the United States. However, a grey wolf weighing 80 kg has been shot dead in northwestern Bulgaria, which if confirmed would make it the biggest wolf ever recorded. AFP, Thu Jan 4 2007.

There is a record of a male wolf of 86 kg hunted in Ukraine after World War II (Wikipedia, version 2009).

The heaviest wolf of Canada weighed 172 lb (78 kg), while the heaviest wolf captured for radio-collaring weighed 122 lb (55.3 kg).

As you can see, all the “record” wolfs, except that of Ukraine, fit in the range of 20-80 kg stated by Feldhamer et al. (2003). Wolfs over 200 lb are probably just exaggerations.

These are the facts. If some one can found other -actually proved- records, it will be good.


Anonymous said...

my favorite animal is tigers any kind they are all interesting thank you for this info

Anonymous said...

My Fave Animal Is The Bengal Tiger. Thank You For This Information. It Was Very Helpful To Me.

Anonymous said...

Raul, let's get this straight SON. Don't tell me what is correct and incorrect about the size of Bengal tigers and African lions. That just makes you look like a prick...and a flawed one at that. Sure, on average a Bengal tiger will be bigger(only a bit bigger mind you, though) than the average African lion. As I've heard from both Craig Packer and Dave Salmoni, common folks(that means YOU Raul) like to exaggerate the size of the Bengal tiger. By the way, I also have years of experience in this field, so dare NOT provoke me...and don't take everything you find on the interwebs via Google, Yahoo, etc seriously. Some of the facts you've posted are flawed, so be sure to check with ACTUAL experts by emailing them and talking to them in person if someone like you will ever get the chance to do.

Raul said...
"Sorry Anonymous (lion fan), but the lion is no match for the mighty Bengal tiger."

Um, wut? Are you serious chum? I'm now a 'Lion Fan', and therefore I must be also biased against the tiger, eh? WRONG. That comment alone proves to me you're one of those big cat retards who goes around the internet spreading your filth about how "tiger pwn lions!" or the "lions DESTROY tigers". LMAO! Sorry, but I care for no such things, and besides...both sides are clearly ignorant of the other, though personally the 'tiger fans' are a bit worse. Anyway, I have no further desire to talk to someone like you. Begone! *flicks you away*

Anonymous said...

Also would like to point out that my very first comment was not to be misinterpreted as a attack on Bengal tigers, but merely clear up a simple and understandable misconception. If people like Raul want to take it as something else, then so be it...that's their problem. Both tigers and lions have their own strengths and weaknesses, just like any other living creature on this planet. I respect and love them both.

Anonymous said...

raul is a know-it-all faggot

Raul said...

“Anonymous”, why the need of the insults? You came here and dare to treat me like if you were an “expert”. You talk hard, but were is the evidence to support it????

Craig Packer had said many times that he believe that the tiger is larger, Dave Salmoni to, just that he believe that the lion is better fighter, that’s all. But none of them had said what you state here. By the way, who are you that don’t even dare to put your name here haaa???? I have study tigers and lions, together with all the other cats, all my life and I have even published documents about them, in English and Spanish. I have debated this point many times in several forums and I had always won, so you most take care with your words, because every people can come here and say that had “talk” with experts but no one had put the evidence.

Other thing, ALL the data and references that I had put here came from scientific books and official documents, not Google, Yahoo, or whatever, IGNORANT. I always put the reference like you can see. So, your attacks are just jealousy or the result of an inferior mind.

Finally, every man that had see a wild Bengal tiger can state with out hesitate that the African lions are no match for them. For example, look the famous giant tigers of Bandhavgarh: Bohka, B2 and Bamera male, just to mention a few. And that with out mentioning the tigers of Nagarahole, Kanha and those huge beast of Chitwan, Manas and the famous Kaziranga. So, is simple, the actual Bengal tigers are to much for ANY lion. Present Bengal tigers average about 221 kg (except for those of Sundarbans), with those of Nepal averaging 235 kg and those form Kaziranga maybe more. African lions, at the best, can reach an average of 202 kg, and that in the case of those of Zimbabwe. Normal male lions average 170-190 kg. Big difference, don’t you think???

I have tons of evidence to support every single statement that I had put here, so, don’t come here to challenge me. You want evidence, ask for them and I will put it here right away. That’s the difference between the real experts (even been amateurs) and an ignorant like you. Sorry, but you insult me first, and with out a reason.

Anonymous said...

about the leopards records it's importnat to say that bailey weighed only two leopards in Kruger National park and not to find the largest leop in Africa or in Kruger.
stuar& stuart, Peter turnbull kemp, novel and jackson and also sunquist and sunquist never said that leopards up or over 90 kilograms doesn't exist, but only that are very rare!
Sunquist and sunquist said that most of leopards weighed over 90 kilograms had a full stomach, BUT NOT ALL. Sunquist and Sunquist reported few records of africans leopards long 1,90 (exluding tail) and you can immagine that the weight of these animals are not under 85 kilograms.
There are record of a live specimen captured in namibia at 96 kilograms documented by Gerald Hinde.
Peter Turnbull Kemp said that leopards over 90 kilograms are exceptional, but exist of course.
At average south african leopards are about 6o kilograms, so larger than an average canadian wolf, so it's logical that the heaviest leopards are slighly larger than tha heaviest canadian wolf.

Anonymous said...

sorry for my english

Anonymous said...

ROFLMAO! Wow, 'bout time you replied Raul, and what a lame one at that. "Oh , I'm GREAT Raul and I'm right 'cause I have proof from documents, books, and other resources that I have at my disposal!" No, what YOU have is absolutely nothing, just like your life. I can see your "inferior" mind has taken offense to being called "son" and "prick". Oh boo hoo! I hurt your internet ego! Well, your latest reply just proves my point. I don't need to act like YOU to prove to myself that I excel far beyond your comprehension of animals in general, so I am done trying to get facts into your thick head that houses your very inferior and smaller mind. So, I rest my case. I don't know why I wasted my time with a simpleton like yourself, and nor do I need to post "proof" like you and so many wanna-be animal experts like to do and use in the messed-up world known as the internet. The opinions I got from both Packer and Salmoni both never stated the lion had to be so much more bigger to defeat a tiger in the first place, but both said the lion is a better fighter. It's like a pitbull versus a bigger dog...the pitbull can weigh less than his canine opponent, but he would still come out the victor. Anyway, to sum it all up to YOU, the African lion would win more than he would lose against a Bengal tiger and that's a FACT. I'm not saying the Bengal wouldn't win any encounters at all, but he wouldn't win more than he would lose.

And here-

There's my email address if you wish to try to debate me anymore on this subject, since I won't be wasting any more time replying on here. There's enough spam about this nonsense already, and this is supposed to be just about Bengal tigers. So, the ball is in your corner. Make your choice.

P.S: Also, you should've replied to the jerk who called you a "f%*#@#", which is definitely a much worse name than the ones I used! :P

Anonymous said...

By the way Raul, you said you always won when it came to this kind of topic, eh? Will then, looks like your winning streak has just ended with me! You'll never beat me or even persuade me to take your opinion on this matter...not ever.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, well, when I said it was "fact" that the lion would beat a tiger in a fight, I should've said it would be "more probable". The word 'fact' doesn't fit, and in the end it only makes me like you which I most certainly am not.

Anonymous said...

I like how you think you're so smart Raul when you can't even make a coherent sentence. Grammer fail much? LOL

Raul said...

Let’s put some things clear, ok?

First: Bailey doesn’t weight JUST two leopards; he weighed 14 males and 16 females. However he locks them in subcategories like “Old”, “Prime”, “Subadult” and “Large cub”. From all this animals, the heaviest males weighed 70 kg (two individuals) and the heaviest female 43.2 kg. All of them corrected by stomach content.

Second: I never say that the leopards over 90 doesn’t exist, no even that this scientists say so. I only copy-paste the paragraph when he said that the existence of males over 90 kg could be for the stomach content.

For this two points, check this out:

Leopards up to 190 cm in head-body were probably measured over the curves, after all, this could be leopards as large as lions of tigers, which is obviously doubtful, but not impossible at all, if we believe in the existence of lions over 250 cm and tiger over 290 cm in head-body length.

The record of Namibia, as far I know, doesn’t state if it was baited or “full-belly”, nor even if it was corrected by stomach content. However is reliable and I put it in my list of the heaviest leopards recorded by scientist. Check this out:

Just a correction, the record of the heaviest leopard in India, showed as 70 kg in Nowell and Jackson (1996), in the original source it said 152 lb, which is about 68.9 kg (Pocock, 1939). As you can see, there is just one male over 90 kg recorded by scientist, and those reports of leopards over 90 kg in Iran are not confirmed, sadly but true. The same can be applied to the large males of Kenya. This doesn’t mean that the leopards can’t reach the figure of 90 kg, but at least, these most be exceptional males, like a tiger of 280 kg or a lion of 270 kg.

The average weights for the regions are amazingly published in Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) “Wild cats of the world”. Here is the pic:

Anonymous said: “At average south african leopards are about 6o kilograms, so larger than an average canadian wolf, so it's logical that the heaviest leopards are slighly larger than tha heaviest canadian wolf.”
I think you are correct; the leopards are relative heavier than wolves. The heaviest wolves weighed up to 80 kg, but are rare cases. This is important to understand, top figures are not as common as we think. They normally weight 50-60 kg.

This is what I like to talk, about animals, they sizes, behavior and other interesting things, not to discuses matters with no importance like the “Vs” theme. I came here to share information, not to receive insults of bad people that spend their lives spreading lies and hate.

About the commentaries of the “Lion fan”, you write heavy, but, WERE IS THE EVIDENCE??? Sorry, but write to you was, is and will be a waist of time. And remember, I am not a native speaker and even I can see that you made many grammar mistakes to. As matter of fact, there was only ONE person that says this many times. So, are you Damon (A.K.A. The Bold Champ) from AVA forum??? If that is the case, you are such a coward!!! I never say that I was the “smarter” here, for the contrary; I stated many times that if some one had information that can correct me, it will be good if it is published here. But you simple came here to attack me, that is sign of simple hate with no reason. Sorry for you, but I will not follow your game.

snowforest said...

No further inflammatory/animal vs animal comments on this site.

Anonymous said...

i love leopards, i thank you very much Raoul for the data. The leopards on 90 kilograms are very very rare, so i think that a classical african large male leopard is on 70 max 80 kilograms, with 80 more rare.
I avoid fight between animals, specially interpecies conflict.
Thank you again i'll try to find more data not only on mass, but on other leopard featuers

Anonymous said...

I don't think that exsits leopard on 100 kilograms, this is an exaggeration

Tiger Lover said...

Nice to see you here Raul.

Have you seen the latest pics of Kaziranga tigers posted in AVA ?

Tiger Lover said...

Check out this link for plenty of Bengal tiger pictures

Raul said...

Hi Tiger Lover. Yes, I had visited de AVA forum in these days and those images are IMPRESIVE!!! There is no doubt that the present Bengal tigers are the heaviest wild cats in the world right now.

For every one else, visit the link presented by TigerLover, and you will see some amazing pictures of the king of the jungle: the Tiger.


Raul said...

Check this out:

This are very good news for the Bengal tigers, specifically, those huge animals from Kaziranga NP. Download the study in the link.

This new study shows that the Kaziranga NP had the highest tiger density in the world!!! Check the study; this is a real hope for tiger conservation.

Greetings to all!!!

Anonymous said...



Raul said...

Yes, this is the sad reality in the wild, Bengal tigers are really endangered. Even when one population is actually growing up, that’s not the case of all the others. Populations like those of Sariska and Panna, had been banished by the poachers, and even the “guards” could be involved, as Dr Chundawatt suspect.

Tigers and humans can’t live in the same place, like Dr Thapar, say, so habitats free of people are fundamental for the tigers.

Real protection for the poachers is very important, but not only for them, but for they prey to, after all, new evidence show that the most important cause for the extinction of the Caspian tiger (western population of the Amur tigers) and the Javan tiger was the lack of prey, and because of that, they lives were unsupportable

Well, this are two of the most important actions that most be made for protection of all the tigers in the world.

Let’s see other ideas from new comments.

Dustin Munro said...

Click on African Golden Cat(to se a new photo and article),Asiatic Cheetah and Asiatic Lion to see my propasal for raising their numbers and rewilding them.

WildTigerWatch said...

Folks, Check out this link for Wild bengal tiger pics,

Anonymous said...

Hi big cat lovers! What a great site. I too love big cats, all of them. My favourite is ussually the one I have last read about or watched a documentary on. I find it hard to seperate them in terms of sheer beauty and fitness for purpose. They are stunning and remarkable creatures and as their numbers dwindle we all become the poorer.

I also love bears and wolves, cape hunting dogs, birds of prey and the honey badger! There is something inherently fascinating about predators and I can understand why people have their favourites, and would like them acknowledged as the foremost predator: the toughest, the biggest, the most fearsome...

But it is exactly this kind of talk that leads to grubby men meeting in secluded spots and matching their dogs against one another.

Every animal is unique, every circumstance unique and reports of this animal or that animal being supreme is a fallacy. It is pointless and frankly, a bit distateful. To fall out over which is better - lion/bear/tiger is just plain silly.

They are all prodigiously powerful beasts, and the thought of them tearing each other to shreds turns my stomach. I far prefer to think of them thriving in their habitats than in an ampitheatre.

David K

Anonymous said...

cool liked it

Parag said...

I think tigers are one of the most beautiful creatures on Earth. And these are even more so. What a shame that man has been such an enemy. Hopefully, we have wised up. The thought that future generation­s would be unable to share the world with these regal creatures saddens me.
Bengal Tigers

Raul said...

A little correction, tiger DO prey on full grows rhinos, in fact, they prefer the male ones because they travel alone and are relative easier to kill than the buffaloes that travel in groups; this is a common case in Kaziranga NP. Besides, sloth bears are prey of the tigers, they don't afraid of them. If a tiger want to eat bear, it just kills one, that's all. The reputation of the sloth bear is greatly overrated.

Raul said...

Other thing, the highest density of tigers in India is in Kaziranga NP, not in Corbett NP. The population of tigers in Sundarbans is not the highest in the world, India have more tigers, even when its populations are scattered. Finally, the tiger from Guinness, actually, could weight 311-324 kg empty belly. Even then, this is the heaviest cat in modern days.

Anonymous said...

bengal tigers are 9 - 10 feet and weigh 221 - 575 pounds but can weigh up to 600 pounds and be 11.5 feet long though 12 feet is quite rare.
Siberian tigers are my favorite even though I luv all tigers

Anonymous said...

Does the Bengal tiger have a predator? I couldn't find anything that said something about a Bengal tiger's predator.

Anonymous said...


Jordan Langley said...

Kill any stranger! Anonymous is a stranger! Get the Anonymousses out of blogspot. They're invading!

Jordan Langley said...

Tigers will attack children by knocking them over and trying to bite them but the guardians (parents, grandparents, etc.) will seperate them. Children are way too young to be successfully preyed on!

Jordan Langley said...

"Kill Anonymous!" the tigers said to eachother. "OK! He's a stranger! Lets protect people from strangers!" said another tiger.

John Martin said...

Harvard & HBR Business Case Study Solution and Analysis Online - Buy Harvard Case Study Solution and Analysis done by MBA writers for homework and assignments. All of the solutions are custom written and solved individually once orders are placed.
Case Studies Solutions

Post a Comment