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

[GuateGojira]

(10-15-2023, 08:24 AM)peter Wrote: GUATE

A very interesting series of posts, as always. A few of the points you addressed will be discussed below (from the top down).

a - Weight and heel width

In the end, to keep it short, it is about Table 7.5 (Kerley et al., 2005). It says the correlation coefficient ® between heel width and weight in more or less healthy wild Amur tigers of 3 years and older is 0,55 for males and females. Meaning heel width really is a decent indicator of size (weight). 

The correlation between chest circumference and weight is much stronger, but in order to measure the chest, you need to capture the tiger first. In order to capture the tiger, you need to follow the trail and get to a guesstimate in order to administer the correct dose when you find him.   

The point I made, however, is age, health and conditions have an effect. Health, as you underlined, is an important parameter, but age even more so. In wild tigers, there really is a significant difference between a young adult (3-5 years of age) and an adult male. Only few healthy wild young adult male Amur tigers reach 170-180 kg. Most range between 140-160 kg.

b - The height of the polar bear

In my previous post, I said large male polar and brown bears can reach a height of 9 feet when standing on their hind legs. I added a photograph of Ursula Böttcher and polar bear 'Alaska' taken in 1984. You said the photograph is deceptive, because Ursula was 5.1 only. Also meaning 'Alaska' wasn't 9 feet. Finally meaning I was wrong. 

Let's assume Ursula, as you said, was 5.1. When she performed, however, she always wore boots. The heels (referring to the photograph I posted) could have been about 2 inches. Meaning she was about 5.3. Let's assume for now she was 160 cm. 

I had a closer look at the photograph you posted and used a ruler to get to a guesstimate. Ursula has a height of 90 units. Let's say 1 unit equals x. If Ursula, wearing her boots, was 160 cm, it means x (160:90) is 1,777. Polar bear 'Alaska' has a height of (just over) 153 units. This means he was (153 x 1,777) 271,88 cm on his hind legs, perhaps a bit more. One feet = 12 inches (30,48 cm) and nine feet = 108 inches (274,32 cm). Alaska was 271,88 cm (a bit over 8.11). The difference between 274,32 and 271,88 = 2,44 cm (almost 1 inch). Meaning I was just about right. 

Ursula, as you said, was a brave woman. All of those prepared to enter the ring with a full-grown predator have a lot of confidence. I interviewed quite a few trainers and read a number of books in which trainers feature. Most big cat trainers worked with bears before they started with cats. They agreed adult male polars bears can be very dangerous. If an adult male likes you, however, he is a true friend prepared to defend you no matter what. I posted a true story and heard of more stories I consider reliable. Brown bears, on the other hand, are different. Adult males in particular can be moody and unpredictable. 

c - The Köln zoo tiger

You said you doubt the length of male Amur tiger 'Altai'. To underline your doubt, you added a photograph showing both 'Altai' and his keeper.  

I assume you remember post 1,549 (18-04-2018)? Our member 'Betty' posted 'Two fatal tiger attacks in zoos - Case report' (Tantius, B. et al., 2015). Those executing the autopsy measured the tiger. He was 240 cm from nose to tail root. The tail was 96,5 cm and the total length was 336,5 cm. The report has a few photographs of the skull. Every photograph has a ruler.  

When I read about the incident, I tried to find out a bit more. The videos I saw didn't suggest he was an exceptional individual. Same for the photographs I saw. It has to be remembered, however, that 'Altai', at about 3 years of age, still was a young adult when he arrived at the zoo. At that age, male tigers are still growing. Wild adult male tigers, as you know, continue to grow after they reach adulthood. In length, there usually is a pronounced difference between a young adult and a mature male.

Those present at the autopsy (read the case report) were professionals. I assume they measured the tiger in a straight line ('between pegs'). The reason is I talked to Dr. D. Mörike, curator of the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart in 2012. I asked her in what way big cats are measured in zoos and natural history museums in Germany. The reason I asked was some of the labels of the skulls I measured had additional information about the length (and weight) of the former owner of the skull. She said every big cat was measured 'between pegs'. No exceptions. 

The case report (see above) isn't clear about the method that was used to measure 'Altai'. Was the tiger measured before the autopsy started? If so, in what way? By who? If not, was the skin perhaps measured after it had been removed? It was, after all, an autopsy. I didn't find answers to these questions, but assume for now those who measured the tiger followed the protocol. Meaning 'Altai' most probably was measured in a straight line.

All photographs of the skull in the case report, as I said above, have a ruler. The ruler has a length of 12,5 cm. I know a photograph can't be used to get to a measurement, but the photographs in the case report were taken by someone who knows his business. My guess for now is the skull was exceptional. In order to find out more, I intend to visit the museum that has the skull and measure and photograph it myself. I also want to contact Tantius to find out a bit more about the way the tiger was measured. 

Anyhow. Tiger 'Altai' was just 4 years of age when he was shot, meaning he still had a bit of growing to do. 

If you want to find out a bit more about tiger 'Altai', read post 1,549. Post 1,559 has scans of the complete case report. And while you're at it, read post 1,583 (about a large captive Amur tiger in China) and post 1,586. The last post has interesting information about the weight of two exceptional wild male Amur tigers shot in Korea. Unfortunately, the information was never discussed. 

d - Amur tiger skull measurements

I recently read 'Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between skulls of tigers from mainland Asia' (Cooper et al, 2022).  

The paper is well written and interesting, but the dataset isn't available yet. It's remarkable their findings largely contradict Mazak's conclusions ('Notes on the Siberian long-haired tiger, Panthera tigris altaica (Temminck, 1844), with a remark on Temminck's mammal volume of the Fauna Japonica', Mazak, 1967). Mazak also found adult wild male Amur tigers have a very large sagittal crest, but the skulls he measured also had a wide rostrum. The explanation offered in the recent paper is interesting (referring to the well developed sagittal crest of wild male Amur tigers), but doesn't quite seem to cover it. 

My aim is to post the link soon.

e - Anyuisky tigers

In my previous post, I wrote Gotvansky saw prints of which the heel width ranged between 13,5-16,0 cm. He described the tigers that left them as 'very large', 'enormous' or 'gigantic'. 

You said it's unclear if he referred to the width of the print of the fore paw or the width of the heel. I reread the reports and concluded he referred to the width of the heel. This conclusion is confirmed by the photograph in one of the reports. It shows a print in the snow and a tape. Gotvansky really measured the width of the heel, and not the width of the paw. No question. 

Are Anyuisky tigers really exceptional? The photographs I saw suggest males in particular are robust animals with large skulls. The Khabarovsky Krai seems to produce quite a few of them. I'm referring to, for instance, the 3 photographs Apex recently posted in the Amur tiger thread. They show Kolchin, a tigress and a male. All of them were 'trapped' by the same camera. Although the male seems to be a bit closer to the camera than Kolchin and the tigress, he seems to be plenty robust. 

In spite of what I consider to be 'cimcumstantial evidence' (regarding the size of some males in Anyuisky), I still have a few questions. The tiger known as 'The Beast' had a heel width of 13,5 cm. This is the tiger standing next to the big old male brown bear in the famous photograph first posted by Apex. Gotvansky knows both and said they were exceptional individuals. 

I have no clue as to his weight (referring to 'The Beast'), but those who saw him agree he was very large. Gotvansky, however, said Anyuisky has more exceptional males. Some of the prints he found had a heel width of 16,0 cm. The prints, to be sure, were not found in winter, but in summer. He described the tigers that left them as 'gigantic'. 

Are we to assume these males exceeded 200 kg? Or 250? 

A report of 22 December 2017 not written by Gotvansky says males with a heel width of 10-13 cm range between 200-350 kg, whereas females with a heel width of 9-12 cm range between 150-250 kg (...). Do these prints and weights relate to Anuisky tigers? Have they been weighed? I don't know, but I don't think it's likely. I do know Anyuisky had 16 tigers in December 2017 and 25 in 2022. Remarkable, as the national Park is not that large. It points towards good conditions. 

It's unlikely the discussions about size will be concluded one day. The reason is only few healthy tigers are captured these days. For now, one can only say some male tigers in some districts of the Khabarovsky Krai seem to be large. Considering the heel width of some and the observations of Gotvansky, they could be as large as they come. A result of good conditions? Protection? A combination of factors? 

One of the factors seldom discussed is age. Based on what I read, Anyuisky seems to have a few old individuals. Although some struggle with their health at times (referring to observations of Gotvansky), they always seem to recover. In about 5 years, Gotvansky, apart from the 3 tigers killed by cars and a male tiger found in a river, never found a dead adult in the park. In the years wild boars were few and far between, tigers solved the food problem by moving in and out of the park. It's known wild tigers continue to grow in length when they reach adulthood. In good conditions, they continue to put on weight for a long time. Anyuisky is located in a quite remote region. It could be possible most tigers (get the opportunity to) die of old age.       

Anyhow. This is one of the Anyuisky male tigers. Is he average-sized? Large? exceptional? If exceptional, does that mean he's 220 kg? Or, like in northeastern China, 270? We don't know. I do know he's compact, stocky and large-skulled:  

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author 
Would he compare to the Duisburg Zoo tiger, who, at 320 cm 'between pegs' (measured), 110 cm at the shoulder while standing (measured) and 280-300 kg (estimated), was the largest Mazak ever saw? Or is the model similar and the tiger average-sized? The Duisburg Zoo tiger was about 6 years of age when he was measured and photographed, meaning he was entering his best years. The Anyuisky male seems to be older. Is this the reason some of the males in the national park have large legs and paws, large skulls and a robust body?    

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

A quick response.

a - Weight and heel width
I think that I need to clarify you what is the meeting of a correlation of 0.5. In paper, that will be a "decent" indicator of size, but in real life it is not, it is barelly reliable. The problem is that is almoust like throw a coin and wait for the best. Check how many times people that capture tigers failed in they estimations of weight when they try to capture them? We are talking of experts that captured tigers before, not simple rookies. In other words, if a calculated figure based in this measurement suggest to you a figure of 250 kg, that also means that the standard deviation is still high, and that the weight could be as high as 280 kg or as low as 220 kg (this is just an example, as the deviation could be even larger with a low correlation).  This image explain better may point:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Statistic is a good tool but we need to learn how to use it. Normally only figures of over 0.75 are used as "reliable" and just over 0.90 are trustable. All depends of the investigator at least, but no one is going to use low positive correlation. About the health and the age, these factors will be important but you must also take incount that young specimens can be as large as adults in some cases.

b - The height of the polar bear
You don't see my point, let me clarify. The appreciation of the huge size of the bear was based in the size of the woman at its size, certainly the animal could be bigger or smaller than your appreciation and only because we know the size of the lady is that we actually can get an accurate idea of its height. But what about the cases when we don't know? Are we allways going to guess to estimate sizes? That is not size, that is just look, like you in this case that your estimation of size was accurate. I will like to make mine, when I have the time, and check if we get the same results.

But again, my point is not to know if your estimation was correct or not, is to show that appreciation is important and to have a comparison point of view. With no point of reference, that bear could be of about 2 meters or about 4 meters.

c - The Köln zoo tiger
I know the case, I read it in its moment, even then please pay attention to the information of the case, it is a young male of no more than 4 years old and you believe that will measured 240 cm in straight line? Let's see this comparision:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is the Ngandong tiger with a head-body of 230 cm straight and is the biggest tiger ever known. Do you realy believe that a young male will measure the same.

Still don't believe me, well this image is a Ngandong tiger but with a head-body of 240 cm.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Do you still believe that a young male tiger will measure the same as the biggest tiger even known to science? Please let's use logic, not feelings.


d - Amur tiger skull measurements
They still don't published the measurements, however remember that they analisis are based in statistic not in regular appreciation. That is why they differ from Mazák. The point is that the massiviness of the Amur tiger is not related with its "exceptional" size (which never was) but with its diet and the meat that they consume.

e - Anyuisky tigers}
I will like to see the articles, pictures or books from where to got those measurements and claims. Do you have an idea of how big is a heel of 16 cm wide? No living cat had a paw like that, and I highly doubt those are heels measurements, those are certainly wide of paw, or they were incorrectly measured, one of the two options. With incorrect I am not saying that the expert measured incorrectly (which or course is a possibility) but I also refer with the type of soil, which even in dirt areas with no snow may suggest incorrect dimentions (again check the situation with the census in India). Please read what the Russian experts said about the print of the paws (specially the fragment that I showed to you). Again, the personal appreciations are missleiding, I am sure that if you ask to many Indian naturalists that constantly take pictures of tigers they will say that they tigers are the "biggest", but at the end, only a real measurement of the animal can show if that is correct or not.

About the three pictures of the two Anyuisky tigers and the man, it is clear that the perspective affected the image, specially the male tiger with looks very disproportioned. I will make a comparative image of them to show this distortion. Big heads are possible, but there is a point where you can see if is a natural form or a ridiculous dissproportion.

About this: "A report of 22 December 2017 not written by Gotvansky says males with a heel width of 10-13 cm range between 200-350 kg, whereas females with a heel width of 9-12 cm range between 150-250 kg (...). Do these prints and weights relate to Anuisky tigers? Have they been weighed? I don't know, but I don't think it's likely."

Weights of up to 350 kg? Do you still believe in those reports? That looks more like a copy-paste of old figures that polute the internet since years ago. Like Dr Goodrich told me, this type of statements that penetrate even in "oficial" reports hence the myth that the Amur tiger was exceptional.

The picture that you use for example is pure speculation, only because it had a large head people believe that is a "giant", but there is no evidence of that.

May I ask: How big do you believe was this male:

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

How much do not think they weighed? That is my question. Reply