(02-05-2018, 02:05 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: something about the size of amur tigers

(02-03-2018, 08:58 AM)peter Wrote: V. MAZAK - 'DER TIGER' (third edition, 1983) - STANDING HEIGHT OF CAPTIVE TIGERS

a - Introduction

Many years ago, I found a copy of Mazak's great book 'Der Tiger' in a small bookshop somewhere in Amsterdam. Everything you want to know about tigers is there. I read it many times and still consider it a classic. My advice is to buy it when you can.

One of the things that stood out was the information about wild Amur tigers. Back then, in the early seventies of the last century, Amur tigers were considered an enigma. There were a lot of rumours, but nobody was able to provide good information. Mazak opened a door that had been closed for a very long time, that is. The reason was that Mazak, able in Russian, had contacted a number of Russian biologists and hunters. 

Apart from Amur tigers, something else stood out. Mazak's paragraph on the size of tigers ('Die Größe der Tiger') is long (pp. 178-196) and has a lot of information. Quite a bit of it was unique back then. The reason was that he had done a lot of work himself. He not only had measured a lot of skulls, but he had also measured and weighed a number of captive Amur tigers. Apart from that, he collected information about the actual standing height of captive tigers in European zoos.  

This post is about the standing height of captive tigers in European zoos. Poster 'Betty' had a question about the way the height was measured. I think it's best to let Mazak answer that one himself.            

b - On the method used to measure the standing height of captive tigers

Here's a scan of page 179 of the third edition of Mazak's book. It is about the paragraph in red. Mazak said he had collected information about the actual standing height of captive tigers in a number of European zoos. My guess is that most of the information was collected in the sixties and early seventies of the last century.

Here's a summary of the paragraph (in German). 

A scale was placed in front of the bars. When the tiger was standing directly in front of the scale, the measurement was recorded. Mazak said that every tiger was measured in the same position and in the same way. Applying the method took a bit of time, but it produced results.

I tested this method in the facility I visited in the nineties of the last century. I placed a steel tape in front of the cage and watched the tiger for some time. Every time he was right in front of the scale and not moving, a measurement was recorded. In order to prevent errors, I used a margin of 2 cm. Example: when I saw the tiger was about 90 cm. when standing right in front of the scale, I recorded a score of 89-91 cm.  

When I had 10 scores, I left the room. A keeper instructed by someone else was then asked to repeat the experiment. Next day, there was a follow-up. We only compared the scores when the experiment was finished. 

As for the conclusion. If different people use this method to measure the actual standing height of one and the same tiger in the same cage, the averages, based on at least 10 scores, compare. With 'compare', I mean that the difference between the averages never exceeded 1 inch (2,54 cm.). The average difference was about 1 cm. only. This to say that the method described by Mazak produced reliable results every time it was used.  

Based on what I read, I concluded that Mazak himself participated every now and then:        

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

c - Standing height of captive tigers in European zoos 

The table below was posted before. In order to get to more clarity, I decided to add a few lines. Horizontal red lines were used to distinguish between the 5 subspecies. Horizontal blue lines were used to distinguish between males and females. All tigers were measured in the sixties and early seventies of the last century:    

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to the averages found. In males, the difference between altaica (101,86 cm.), tigris (93,30 cm.), corbetti (88,00 cm.), amoyensis (84,00 cm.) and sumatrae (77,17 cm.) is quite outspoken. In females, the differences between altaica (85,00 cm.), tigris (82,00 cm.), corbetti (79,25 cm.), amoyensis (77,50 cm.) and sumatrae (67,00 cm.) are more limited. 

Mazak measured 7 adult male Amur tigers. On page 180 of his book, he added the standing height of a very large male Amur tiger in the Duisburg Zoo. This giant, not in the table, was 110,00 cm. at the shoulder. If we add the 3 males I measured in a facility, the average of 11 captive male Amur tigers is 102,41 cm. 

Some time ago, I also posted information about the actual standing height of what must have been Indochinese tigers (Panthera tigris corbetti) and lions from northern Africa in the Paris Zoo ('Jardin des Plantes'). The average of the Indochinese tigers more or less compared to the averages of P. tigris corbetti in Mazak's table. Male lions from northern Africa were a bit taller (just over 3 feet). They more or less compared to captive male Indian tigers. 
 
The differences between males and females are most outspoken in altaica (17,41 cm. or 20,48%) and sumatrae (10,17 cm. or 15,18%). In Indian tigers (11,30 cm. or 13,78%), Indochinese tigers (8,75 cm. or 11,04%) and Chinese tigers (6,50 cm. or 8,39%), the difference was less outspoken.

I might have seen male Amur tiger 'Nicolajev' (see the table) in the Rotterdam Zoo ('Blijdorp'). Compared to their neighbours (African lions), the Amur tigers I saw were very old, very tall and very long, but thin as a rail. The keeper told me he had the skin of another captive male Amur tiger at home. 

As to the very large Duisburg Zoo Amur tiger. He was born in 1965 in the Rotterdam Zoo. Later, he was transported to Duisburg. In 1970, at age 5,5, he was 110,00 cm. at the shoulder (actual standing height) and 320 cm. in total length (measured in a straight line). His weight was estimated at 280-300 kg. (618-662 pounds). His mother was caught in the Ussuri region. The parents of his father were caught in the same region.

In the early eighties of the last century, I saw a male Amur tiger in the zoo of what was then West-Berlin. Although taller than the Duisburg Zoo tiger, he wasn't as robust. The parents of this tiger were caught near the Ussuri river. 

Amur tigresses average 85 cm. at the shoulder, but I saw a few definitely exceeding 3 feet in different circuses. One of them, although fit in all respects, was very close to 440 pounds. Her parents were caught near the Ussuri as well. The trainer told me she wasn't interested in mating. The only male she liked was a very old male tiger caught in the late sixties in northeastern China (Manchuria). The trainer said it was the largest cat he had ever seen. The photograph showed a tiger of prehistoric size, far exceeding the others I had seen. I did my best, but the photograph wasn't for sale. The tiger had saved his life on two occasions. The trainer confirmed what I had seen in facilities and zoos: tigers and brown bears don't mix. 

Over the years, I saw a lot of captive big cats. An adult male standing 3 feet at the shoulder is impressive. A male of 3.3 is very large and a male of 3.6 is exceptional. I saw 2 male Amur tigers exceeding 3.8. Based on what I saw, I'd say that captive male Amur tigers are the tallest big cats. Wild Namibian lions, however, seem to compare. I'm very interested in the way they were measured.

(02-07-2018, 10:34 AM)peter Wrote: BETTY

a - The measurement and weight of the Chinese tiger in your previous post
 
You posted the same picture (referring to the tiger in post 1,474) some time ago. Back then, however, the numbers (length and weight) were different. I want to use the information, as there's not much reliable information about the size of Panthera tigris amoyensis. 

Can you get to a conclusion on that particular male tiger? The more you find, the better. Thanks.

b - The intention of this thread

This thread is dedicated to wild tigers. Information about captive tigers can be used at times, but only when we have no other option. Example. 

It is not possible to measure the actual standing height of wild tigers. For this reason, biologists measure the length of the front leg. As they use different methods, the results often are confusing. In order to get to some clarity, I decided to post the table from Mazak's book ('Der Tiger'). The photographs you and Amnon posted were much appreciated, as they show that the actual standing height of captive Amur tigers, as Mazak concluded, is impressive at times.

In order to answer your question, I'll do one more post on an exceptional captive tiger. After that post, I propose to return to wild tigers.

(02-08-2018, 09:54 AM)peter Wrote: BETTY

Thanks for the clarification. I assume the measurement was taken 'over curves'. I'll use the information for the table on Panthera tigris amoyensis. It was a male tiger of 192,5 kg. (424 pounds) shot in 1965. In which Province is Changde Hefu? 

a - The Duisburg Zoo tiger

When I posted the table with information about the standing height of captive tigers in European zoos from V. Mazak's book 'Der Tiger', you asked for a bit more on the Duisburg Zoo tiger. This tiger is not in the table, but Mazak was informed about the size of this tiger by the director of the Duisburg Zoo Dr. W. Gewalt in a letter.

I decided to scan the page. It's about the paragraph in red directly below the table:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

It's in German. Here's a translation of the sentence you're interested in:

" ... This animal (Mazak is referring to the male tiger 'Amur' from the Duisburg Zoo), born in the Rotterdam Zoo (in The Netherlands) in 1965 ..., stood 110 cm. at the shoulder at age 5,5 (sic!) (Zoo director Dr. W. Gewalt, in litt. 8.12.1970) ... ". 

In the same sentence, Mazak added that his mother had been captured in the Ussuri regio. Both parents of his father had been captured in the same region as well. As the Duisburg Zoo tiger was born in 1965, it's very likely that his mother had been captured in the late fifties of the last century. 

Here's one more photograph of this exceptional male. The other tiger, by the way, is an adult female:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

b - The Sungari River tiger

In 1965, at age 5, the Duisburg Zoo tiger was 320 cm. in total length 'between pegs' and estimated at 280-300 kg. 

I've read reports about wild male Amur tigers of similar size, but all of them were dismissed as 'unreliable' by a number of biologists going over all reports about a decade ago. One of the few records considered as 'reliable' was from Baikov. The 560-pound tiger he shot near the Korean border in 1911 still tops the official table. Here he is:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Most of the other records of Baikov, however, were dismissed.

The Jankowski's also hunted Amur tigers. In 1943, they and a Korean professional hunter shot a very large male tiger near the Sungari River in Manchuria. In one of his letters to V. Mazak, W.J. Jankowski, one of the sons of J.M. Jankowski, wrote that this male, at 11.6 in total length (most probably measured 'over curves'), was estimated at " ... not less than 300 kg. ... " ('Der Tiger', pp. 189). A few days before he was shot, the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear, of which they found a leg and the head.

Not so long ago, poster Warsaw (Carnivora Forum) said that a book written by one of the Jankowski's had been published. The Sungari River tiger was mentioned. According to Warsaw, the length mentioned by V. Mazak (11.6 'over curves') was the length of the skin. He added that he found nothing about the bear allegedly killed by the tiger.

Some posters informed me about the post of Warsaw and asked for my opinion. All I can say is that V. Mazak, regarding the Sungari River tiger, referred to J.M. Jankowski's letters. He also published a photograph of the tiger in his book: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

   
Watch the part at the right bottom. It says: photograph taken by W.J. Jankowski. This is the same W.J. Jankowski who featured in Mazak's book. The reason he featured? He and V. Mazak corresponded. Mazak, that is to say, got letters from W.J. Jankowski. Not one letter, but letters. Watch the s at the end of letter. 

Mazak was much impressed by the information provided by W.J. Jankowski. On page 185, he wrote he considered him as an authority on Amur tigers. At page 186, Mazak said that W.J. Jankowski, more than once, wrote that the Sungari River tiger was the largest Amur tiger he, his brothers and his father, ever saw. On page 189, quoting from the same letter of W.J. Jankowski of May 8, 1970, Mazak added that they had to cut the tiger in 9 pieces to get him out of the forest. As each of the 9 men carried a piece of 30-40 kg., W.J. Jankowski thought the tiger was not less than 300 kg. The additional information about the very large male brown bear killed by the tiger is in the same letter.

Many, many years after the event, according to Warsaw, one of the Jankowski's apparently published a book with a bit of information about the Sungari River tiger. The tiger was shot in July 1943. W.J. Jankowski wrote V. Mazak in 1970. And some years ago he apparently published a book, which was immediately used to disqualify the information provided by V. Mazak. And now they want my opinion. Right.

Here it is.

I never met V. Mazak (he died well before his time), but I met a man he considered as a friend: Dr. P. van Bree (see pp. 217). Based on what he told me, it's clear he liked V. Mazak a lot. That should tell you something, as he had a different opinion about many others. In his experience, V. Mazak was productive and able in all departments. To him, there was no question that V. Mazak was honest and accurate. When he made a mistake, he admitted he did. In public. In the third edition of his book, on page 183, he wrote he had been misled by a few hunters about the size of Amur tigers. 

Did Dr. P. van Bree see the letters of W.J. Jankowski? Yes. Did he see the photograph in this post? Yes. Is the addition on the photograph (photograph W.J. Jankowski) true? Yes. Dr. P. van Bree saw the photograph. Did Mazak have contacts in the former Sovjet-Union? Yes. Did he speak Russian? Yes. Was W.J. Jankowski there when the Sungari River tiger was shot in 1943? Yes. Was he the one who took the photograph? Yes. Was he one of those who carried a piece of the tiger out of the forest? Yes. Was he the one who corresponded with V. Mazak? Yes. Was he the one who informed Mzak about the details? Yes. Did he add the tiger had killed a eaten a very large male brown bear a few days before he was shot? Yes. Was the Sungari River tiger exceptional? Most definitely. Did he compare to the Duisburg Zoo tiger? Yes. If anything, the Sungari River tiger is a bit more robust. Watch the skull in particular.   

So what about the book published by one of the Jankowski's some years ago?

I never saw it. Aa far as I know, it wasn't translated. 

The tiger was shot in July 1943, when W.J. Jankowski still was a young man. In 1970, 27 years later, he informed V. Mazak about the tiger. Based on the information in Mazak's book, he had not forgotten about the tiger. In his letters, he more than once underlined that the Sungari River tiger was one of a kind. He also remembered a lot of details. Almost 70 years after the event, he published a book. According to Warsaw, not the tiger, but the skin was measured. There was no information about a bear he allegedly killed.

What to say? W.J. Jankowski was an old man when his book was published. Maybe he forgot about a few things. Maybe he sent everything he had about the tiger to V. Mazak in 1970. Maybe the focus was on something else in the book he published. I don't know. 

I do know that V. Mazak was respected by many. More than anything else, V. Mazak's book made a lasting impression. After I read it a number of times, I acted. I measured lions, tigers and skulls. I talked to people who know a lot more than I do. I read what was available. I know V. Mazak mixed weights of captive and wild Amur tigers. I also know he was a bit tentative at times. Finally, it's clear he was guided by fascination. In the end, however, the conclusion is that he was right in nearly all departments. 

Books written by those who have firsthand experience top my list. As far as I know, V. Mazak never saw a wild tiger. In spite of that, he wrote a book that compares in all respects. Remarkable.

(02-11-2018, 05:00 PM)Amnon242 Wrote: Peter:

one more thing, you wrote "When you see Amur tigers of that size all the time, it no doubt will have an effect. For you, it's clear that captive Amur tigers are the largest big cats by a margin"

Its not like that, as I wrote, white begal tigers are of similar size. Well, I have seen just 2 white bengals...one was 220 kg weighteed (pure muscle!), the other one was over 250 kg (250 kg weighted at the age of 3), I think that his prime weight is going to touch 300 kg mark.

Difference: amur tigers are definitely longer and with more slim bodies. On the other hand, there are amur tigers who are bear like creatures - overall very robust animals.

When it comes to comparison between amur tigers and lions, Id say, that amurs are obviously bigger, but huge lions are comparable to average amurs. Another difference is that amurs are longer, but lions have more robust bodies. On the other hand amurs have obviously stronger legs.