(09-03-2019, 03:10 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: Thought it's not a pleasant sight to behold, Bahawalpur Zoo in Pakistan has 2 heads of tigers (I assume Bengal tigers) next to a stuffed lion (incorrectly called a 'tiger'), and it appears that the Bengal tiger and Asiatic lion did occur in the area of Bahawalpur in the past, judging from the works of Kinnear (1920) and Nowell and Jackson (1996, referencing Roberts (1977)):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(09-03-2019, 05:52 PM)Lycaon Wrote: @BorneanTiger 

Do you have any photos of caspian tigers from Xinjang province?

(09-03-2019, 10:37 PM)Lycaon Wrote: @BorneanTiger 

I see .

(06-24-2019, 04:53 PM)Shadow Wrote: In latest discussion about subspecies it is good to remember, that legit biologists, zoologists and scientists are having there disagreements. So it would be surprising, if there wouldn´t be disagreements among people who are very interested about wildlife. That´s why it is good to remember, that if professionals can´t find a clear agreement, it can´t be expected here. So writing something like "that logic is absolutely wrong" is very strong statement and rises up question, that with what competence such statement is made? Especially when situation is like that.

Would it be better to say something like, "I can´t agree with your logic, because....". 

When looking at subspecies, one issue are possible genetic differences as far as I know. Then we can have some visible differences in size, looks etc. for some reason making population from some area to be easy to identify when comparing to population in some other area.

Then we can have maybe some other reasons... There can be then agreements or disagreements, that how big genetic differences can be considered so relevant, that some populations should be considered different subspecies. Something like that can be seen in latest debate between tiger specialists, which have leaded to current situation where Cat Specialist Group suggested two subspecies, but which in reality haven´t lead to any changes in for instance Amur tiger conservation. And as far as I know and believe, also no changes what comes to conservation of Bengal tigers.

This issue is quite complex, so when making postings and statements, I think that most would appreciate when text is wrote carefully and making clear points of view(s) and good reasoning easy to read. But everyone have to understand, that now we aren´t discussing about weights or heights, when talking about subspecies. There is no clear measurement to use in judging, who is right or wrong. Keeping that in mind and keeping calm is best way to discuss about a bit unclear things.

I can understand point of view of @Greatearth , but then again @BorneanTiger wrote also good postings and points of views, which can´t be ignored just like that. This kind of discussion/debate can be interesting and giving good information, when respect is remembered. Goal shouldn´t be to win or lose, but to give good reasoning.

(09-18-2019, 06:57 PM)peter Wrote: ON MR. LIMOUZIN'S SKULL AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SKULLS OF DIFFERENT BIG CAT SPECIES - I

a - Introduction

Some weeks ago, in the thread 'Size Comparisons', member 'Luipaard' posted information about a debate on a skull of a big cat shot in India in the early twenties of the last century. The debate in The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS) attracted some attention.

A Mr. Limouzin, who shot the big cat, thought the skull belonged to a very large male leopard. He was supported by Mr. Prater, an authority on big cats and skulls. The editors of the JBNHS published a photograph taken by Mr. Prater. It showed the skull of the big cat shot by Mr. Limouzin next to the skulls of a male leopard, a male Indian lion and a male Indian tiger. 

R.I. Pocock, of the British Museum, saw the photograph and quickly concluded it was a tiger skull. Mr. Limouzin and Mr. Prater disagreed. Pocock offered to examine the skull himself. Mr. Limouzin accepted the offer. When he returned to England in 1929, Pocock got the skull. He concluded it was the skull of a young adult tigress. The letter he wrote after examining the skull was published in the JBNHS. Not much later, Mr. Prater responded. In his letter, he explained why he got to his, incorrect, conclusion.  

b - On communication, misunderstandings and errors

A century ago, letters were often used to communicate. It took time to write a long letter, especially if accuracy was needed and drawings and photographs were included. It also took time to deliver a letter. Or a skull, for that matter. Furthermore, magazins were published only once a month. More often, it was less frequent. For this reason, it often took months, if not years, to conclude a discussion. Same for the discussion on Mr. Limouzin's skull.

A century ago, some of those who read the information on Mr. Limouzin's skull in the JBNHS no doubt concluded it belonged to a leopard. One reason was they only read the JBNHS for a few months of years, meaning they missed the letter of Mr. Pocock published in 1929. Another was Mr. Prater was considered as an undisputed authority on big cats and skulls. 

Today, as a result of the internet, communication is more or less instant. If you want to find information on a topic, you can find it in a day or less. That, however, doesn't mean you can get to conclusions in a day. In order to get to a conclusion, overview is needed. This means you have to read everything available. As authorities lost quite a bit of weight over the years, it also means you, conclusionwise, are more or less on your own. In most cases, this means you have to be well-informed.

To be well-informed isn't easy. One reason is it takes time to find good information. Another is one has to read. All of it. What I'm saying is it took time to get to an educated opinion a century ago. Today, the situation in this department are not that different. 

Member 'Luipaard' knew about Mr. Limouzin's skull, but didn't know about Pocock's letter published in the JBNHS. Same for the one who informed him. A pity, as he is considered an authority by those interested in leopoard skulls. The result is both thought Mr. Limouzin's skull was a leopard skull.

(09-22-2019, 08:59 AM)tigerluver Wrote: An amazing read regarding the historic ranges of the lion and tiger. I have attached the paper but here is the abstract:

Chronological distribution of the tiger Panthera tigris and the Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica in their common range in Asia

"Abstract
Highly mobile creatures with remarkable exploratory behaviour, the modern tiger Panthera tigris and the modern Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica colonised Eurasia during the Late Pleistocene (from 126000 ± 5000 to 11700 years before present, BP) and the Holocene (from 11700 BP to the present day). Their respective ranges have overlapped several times but we tend to ignore the extent to which they have really coexisted because this situation has not occurred in recent times.

We provide a state‐of‐the‐art review of all the data covering their chronological distribution, in order to evaluate the extent to which they have coexisted. We include new data from petroglyph analysis in Central Asia.

The data set covers two major biogeographical regions: the Palearctic Biogeographic Realm (western Asia and Central Asia) and the Indo‐Malaysian Biogeographic Realm in Monsoon Asia.

Lions and tigers shared space with a large variety of medium‐sized carnivores. We can hypothesise that, due to the plentiful prey and the diversity in habitats within their common range, they lived in sympatry there during the Holocene (although in local allopatry), as long as human interference was low.

The Indo‐Malaysian Biogeographic Realm offered the best habitats for coexistence due to the tropical climate, the variety of habitats, and the great diversity in prey. In temperate Asia, the carrying capacity was naturally lower due to cold winters and dry summers, except along the coasts. Suitable habitats were limited, in Central Asia, to the tugais of the alluvial valleys and the adjacent steppes. In this region, lions were particularly sensitive to stresses, due to their low adaptability to harsh winters, the long distance to their main population sources, and the likelihood that they were pushed into the steppes by tigers, where they were killed by humans, for symbolic or pragmatic reasons."

I strongly recommend all to read the full paper, it is filled with historic records of both species in Asia.