ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

MARCO POLO ON TIGERS IN CHINA

I read this quite some years ago and posted a few scans in AVA. Marco Polo wrote tigers in northern China, larger than the 'lions of Babylon' (he most probably referred to tigers), were used to hunt all kinds of mammals. 

On the map below, you can see he traveled from the northeastern part of China all the way to the southwest. As a result of wars, tigers and other big predators had multiplied in this region to such an extent that they posed a real threat to travellers. This is why they had to sleep in cities en this is why cities had walls. 


MAN-EATERS

In those days, tigers were found in many elevated and barren regions with few large ungulates. Although this most probably was the reason they turned to humans, it also was a fact tigers had a bad reputation in other parts of China. Many of those living in the region just south of the Chinese Wall in the northeast hunted humans. Same for Manchurian tigers (read May Taylor's book on the Jankowski's).

In the twentieth century, man-eaters were still common in many parts of southern China. Caldwell wrote that one community in the early twenties of the last century had lost sixty people (...) in a few weeks only (H.R. Caldwell, 'Blue Tiger', pp. 72). Some man-eaters appeared to be black, whereas others were blue. Here's a normal coloured tiger Caldwell shot: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

And here's one of the famous 'blue tigers':

*This image is copyright of its original author

MOUNTAIN CATS

If we use the map posted by Tigerluver and add the two below (from the seventies of the last century), it is clear that tigers in China inhabited elevated regions. As the southeastern part of China was one of the few regions were tigers survived the last big eruption (the Toba eruption, about 73 000 years ago), one could conclude that modern tigers started out as mountain cats and be right:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

In the Tierpark Berlin, I watched the cats for a long time. They have lions, jaguars, Java leopards, snow leopards, cougars, Sumatra tigers, Indochina tigers and a few Amurs. Lions, jaguars and leopards, in my eyes, were somewhat different from the cougars (a small cat, but as large as most leopards, if not larger) and the tigers. I saw slightly bulkier bodies, a heavier way of moving and less muscular limbs. The attitude also was a bit different. Compared to them, snow leopards, Montana cougars and tigers were more muscular in the limbs and more athletic in general. They were dancing all the time, whereas the others seemed to be a bit sluggish and less active.

Not saying one is more powerful or faster or whatever than the other (as they very much compare in most aspects), but cougars and tigers in particular definitely move in a different way and also seem faster and more alert. Huntingwise, cougars probably top the performance list (relatives). The other cats also are capable of remarkable feats, but cougars, like tigers, could do it more often.

One often reads cougars are inferior to the more solid and heavier jaguar, but the Montana cougar I saw could be (more than) a match for the jaguar. This is also what Indians told me in Surinam and French Guyana. Not doubting the power of the jaguar here, but ability can be expressed in different ways. Breaking skulls is one, but I wouldn't underestimate speed. Before the jaguar is awake and geered up, he could have lost his coat. Remember the cougars in that part of South America as as small as they get.


SUBSPECIES AND MANAGERS

Anyhow. The article posted by Tigerluver was interesting. If we look at the map in the article he posted and add the info on size we have, the conclusion is China tigers, most probably, were as diverse as it gets. The northeast had (and has) Amur tigers, whereas the northwest might have been Panthera tigris virgata. I don't know if Yunnan tigers and those further west were Panthera tigris tigris (don't think so) or Panthera tigris corbetti, but there is, in my eyes, no doubt that those in central parts of China were different from those in the southeast (Panthera tigris amoyensis). 

Although all tigers are Panthera tigris, local conditions definitely had an effect. Local adaptions shouldn't be dismissed because they create confusion for managers or biologists. One could also turn it round and say the fact they apparantly quickly adapt to local conditions enabled biologists to use a few basics to get to distinctions. The ideas of Kitchener are sound, but it shouldn't result in a loss of information. We should study a few thousands skulls first. If I saw distinct differences, others no doubt will confirm.    

Tigers in China inhabited very distinct sub-regions. New genes undoubtedly were introduced at regular intervals when humans were unable to prevent young males from dispersing, but everything I know says there were distinct local differences.                      

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply