(02-26-2015, 01:09 AM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: for all we know, It could've been a two on one fight. remember no one saw the actual fight, just heard the commotion and figured something was wrong and that's when Baikal's dead body was found. The enclosure that Baikal managed to get into had two sub-adult male brothers weighing around 350lbs each.. 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/09/25/tiger-killed-by-younger-tiger-at-assiniboine-park-zoo

I'm of opinion that they both teamed up to eliminate him and from my understanding, Sub-adults do team up occassionally to wipe out a common enemy. (In the wild and captivity) [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]


 

 

 

(02-26-2015, 12:57 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: By estimation, since he got killed by a 2 years old 350 pounder.

The average captive male Amurs are about 450-500 pounds, while this male was quite old, so it was plausible that he may lose more weight.
 





 

Quote: 

Check this link  (posted by Rofl before)
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/09/25/tiger-killed-by-younger-tiger-at-assiniboine-park-zoo

So both the Baikals are different.



This is the picture of the fighting tigers

*This image is copyright of its original author

Check the video in the link 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/tiger-attack-at-winnipeg-zoo-needs-independent-probe-group-says-1.2778510

 

 

 

 
 

(02-27-2015, 11:03 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: Peter, I don't think anyone has ever asked you this question over the years but i just wanted to know if you had a favorite tiger from the past or present (captive/wild).. I'm very curious 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Or this one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

   
The forest I see has a tiger. One like him:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sumatran tigers are forest animals. They blend like no other big cat and they are not there when you actually see them. Elusive animals. Although smaller than other subspecies, they are not as small as you think. Sumatran tiger skulls have inflated bullae, because they use their ears extensively. In a forest, you got to have great ears.

Java tigers have the best designed skulls. The forehead is very vaulted, whereas the mandibula is more concave than in other subspecies. The vaults generates a lot of power at the tip of the canines, but also offer protection against a blunt force. Java skulls could have been the example for the engineers who developed the T-34 tank, probably the best tank of WWII (according to German generals). 

Indian tigers have the classic design. Close to the maximum size the species can reach, they found the best combination between athleticism and strength. Although I'm amazed at the large and heavy-skulled Kazirangha tigers, a tiger like Raja in his prime is closer to the typical tiger for me:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Amur tigers are walking the edge. Today's Amur tigers adapted to overcome tough conditions, distance and competition, which resulted in an impossible combination of length to preserve energy, durability to endure violent weather changes and strength to overcome resistance quickly.

What we see today, however, is a result of a very recent adaption. An adaption to poverty. A century and a half ago, in the 'Sea of forest' south-west of Primorye, conditions allowed for animals at times similar in weight to the largest shot by Dunbar Brander in Central India. Today, a male of 500 pounds has yet to be weighed, but captive Amur tigers show what the basic design was. The average for captive adult males is close to that mark.

The most striking feature of Amur tigers, in my opinion, isn't size, but attitude, best expressed in the face and behaviour. I've seen it time and again in captive animals. Amur tigers are tough tigers, even in captivity:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The best photograph I saw is this one. It shows a forest, tough conditions and a big cat matching them. It also shows what the result of poaching really means. There will never be a better one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  


Many assume tigers are typical forest animals, but I have my doubts. In Pleistocene Asia, a few million years ago, they inhabited both elevated as well as low-lying and forested regions. A few centuries ago, according to J.F. Brandt (1856), tigers still inhabited very different regions. As the largest were recorded at the edges of their range in the southwest (northwest India and Nepal) and the northeast (Manchuria and Primorye), one has to assume slightly elevated regions with park like conditions could be most suited. 

Sumatran tigers developed in forests for many thousands of years. Maybe this is the reason they, as J.H. Mazak and Groves proposed, are different from mainland and Java tigers. If they are different, the reason is the forest. They are the biggest cats a dense tropical forest could accomodate, I think.

In dense forest, prey size isn't crucial for big cat size. It's the ability to get to the right place without being heard and seen and get a decent reward. Leopards are real good at it. Sumatran tigers are today's leopards in Sumatra. They show a lot of variation in size. In times of need, some hunt frogs, but others go for large herbivores. The one with the widest reach has the best chance in a forest that has both small and large animals. For tigers, it's about large animals. Sumatra has plenty of them, so the tiger was more suited in the end. They could be old world tigers, but they also are new world leopards. 

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - Wanderfalke - 03-03-2015

(03-03-2015, 09:17 AM)'peter' Wrote:

(02-27-2015, 11:03 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: Peter, I don't think anyone has ever asked you this question over the years but i just wanted to know if you had a favorite tiger from the past or present (captive/wild).. I'm very curious 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Or this one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

   
The forest has a tiger. One like him:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sumatran tigers are forest animals. They blend like no other big cat and they are not there when you actually see them. Elusive animals. Although smaller than other subspecies, but they are not as small as you think. Sumatran tiger skulls have inflated bullae, because they use their ears extensively. In a forest, you got to have great ears.

Java tigers have the best designed skulls. The forehead often is very vaulted, whereas the mandibula often is more concave than in other subspecies. The vaults generates a lot of power at the tip of the canines, but also offer protection against a blunt force. Java skulls could have been the example for the engineers who developed the T-34 tank, probably the best tank of WWII. 

Indian tigers have the classic tiger design. Close to the maximum size the species can reach, they found the best combination between athleticism and strength. Although I'm amazed at the large and heavy-skulled Kazirangha tigers, no doubt the biggest wild cats of today, a tiger like Raja in his prime is closer to the typical tiger for me:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Amur tigers are walking the edge. Today's Amur tigers adapted to overcome tough conditions, long distances and tough competition, which resulted in an impossible combination of length, durability and strength. What we see today, however, is a result of a very recent adaption. It was an adaption to poverty. A century and a half ago, in the 'Sea of forest' south-west of Primorye (Manchuria), conditions allowed for animals at times similar in size to the largest shot by Dunbar Brander in Central India. Captive Amur tigers, however, show what the basic design was.

The most striking feature of Amur tigers, in my opinion, isn't size, but attitude, best expressed in the skull and face. Wild Amur tigers are tough tigers. They don't show it, but it's there:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The best photograph I saw is this one. It shows a forest, tough conditions and a big cat matching them. It also shows what the result of poaching really means. There will never be a better one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  


Many assume tigers are typical forest animals, but I have my doubts. In Pleistocene Asia, a few million years ago, they inhabited both elevated and quite barren regions as well as low-lying and forested regions. A few centuries ago, according to J.F. Brandt (1856), tigers still inhabited different regions with very different conditions. As the largest tigers were recorded at the edges of their range in the southwest (northwest India and Nepal) and the northeast (Manchuria and Primorye), one has to assume slightly elevated and open forestlike regions could be most suited. 

Sumatran tigers developed in forests for many thousands of years. Maybe this is the reason they, as J.H. Mazak and Groves proposed, are different from mainland and Java tigers. If they are different, the reason is the forest. They are the biggest cats a dense tropical forest could accomodate, I think.

In dense forest, prey size isn't crucial for big cat size. It's the ability to get to the right place without being heard and seen and get a decent reward. Leopards are real good at it, but the Sumatrans took over, probably as a result of the rich pickings. Some hunt frogs in time of need, but others might go for very large herbivores or even elephants. The one with the widest reach has the best chance in a forest that has both small and large animals. The Sumatran forest has plenty of large animals, so the tiger was more suited in the end. Sumatran tigers could be old world tigers, but they also are new world leopards. The old world leopards, of course, had to move. In Java, they developed into Panthera pardus melas. Their airborne relatives, living in the clouds of the forest, didn't bother. They're still there and doing ok.

 

 

Nice inside look into yur mind, Peter :-) Watched some videos on this site---> http://www.animals.hbh.ru/

and realised again, how tough, demanding and energy-sapping an amur tiger´s life must be. Almost as hot as in India in the summer and freezing cold in the winter. Rough and wayless terrain, long distances to walk in order to meet mates and find prey. If I had to choose, I wouldn´t want to be an amur tiger, rather an indian or sumatra tiger. the first has better prey and protection conditions and the second isn´t bothered the whole time with tourists like in India, dense forest with a lot of potential to stay elusive and good prey base, almost a life like all tigers had before humans multiplied like a virus.
 

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - Roflcopters - 03-05-2015

I second that, thank you for taking your time out to go in details about how you truly feel about tigers deep down. I feel the same way,  I have always been fascinated with tigers. As a child, I remember going to the zoo and I can recall how captivated I was by the sight of the tigers making a grand entrance for the crowd and it wasn't until i got a glimpse of a wild tiger on television that i began to get curious about their lives. I remember very precisely, It was a short documentary aired on National Geography about a Tiger vs Crocodile that fought over a sambhar kill (Abu of Ranthambore in the late 80's). How differently I look at tigers today. I can pretty much say that I've learned a lot more than your average person would have. The stories of Charger, Sultan, the Man eaters of Kumaon, the man eaters of the Sunderbans, the sumatrans, the Caspians, Jim Corbett are just far too exciting to not be involved with tigers. Thanks to the efforts of everyone here and in the past that shared their experiences, photos, stories and brought tons of informations on tigers. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

(Nice dense forest, 10000 shades of green, freedom, rich vegetation & plenty of prey)

this is what i feel about the extinct tigers in my dreams, Bali, Javan and South Chinese. No caspian, I imagine them differently in my imaginations. they're more like desert tigers to me. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is pretty close to what i see with my eyes closed on Caspians. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Or during the end of their reign, when humanity discovered their potential.. this is what they were reduced to, prior to their extinction.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Or this, in the Roman Times.


regarding the best picture of all time, I think we're on the same page here. Peter.

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is hands down the most heartbreaking picture ever photographed in the wild, what makes it even more interesting is the fact that all these cubs survived and are now under the watchful eyes of the Chinese/Russian authorities. If there's truly a story with an happy ending to it, this has to be it. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]








 

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - tigerluver - 03-06-2015

*This image is copyright of its original author

Database:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
Only adults were used. Body length scales near isometrically at 2.94, much different from Bengal scaling of >3.5. Chest girth also scaled negatively allometrically compared other species. The negative allometry might indicate a loss or limit of body/bone density in my opinion, as even a robusticity measurement is negatively allometric.

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - peter - 03-06-2015

The information posted by Tigerluver, to be sure, relates to wild Amur tigers.

Maybe you are able to produce a single table with the results for Indian tigers, Amur tigers and South African lions? Would be appreciated.
 

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - tigerluver - 03-06-2015

I'll transfer my length databases here soon, but I'll have to use total lengths as I've logged the most data like that. Though, I don't have as much on chest girth, any sources would be helpful for me to pump out a better equation. For lions, I've east African individual length data points, most courtesy of Guate. Any direction to sources with individual values (not averages or ranges as scientists have a habit of publishing) of South African lion girth and length, alongside the individuals's masses? 

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - peter - 03-06-2015

THE MEANING OF BIG CATS

a - The ultimate hunter

Cats are perhaps the ultimate terrestrial hunters. They will make a living anywhere given half a chance. The reason is design and the attitude needed to use it to perfection. Most domestic cats would easily survive when they would be forced to do so. We most certainly would not. Animals don't need us to survive. There's no question we need them.

Thousands of years ago, cats ruled the world for a long time. The attitude one would expect to go with it is still there, but most adapted when humans took over. All wild cats are adaptors, always ready to sneak in and join the party. Lions and tigers, I think, are a bit different in that they kept something that was there many thousands of years ago. Some would say it's an attitude typical for rulers, but I would go for something very close to what we call awareness. Supreme awareness.  

b - Lions

In lions, it's still very visible. Captive lions in particular seem to live in another dimension. A dimension that has no humans. They just don't care about us. Or anything else, for that matter. To them, we could be just another species sharing their world. Maybe they see us as potential competitors and maybe they see us as a potential source of food. I don't know, but I do know many captive lions do not like humans. Many keepers had bad experiences. I have reliable reports of incidents you wouldn't want to know about. Lions won't kill you directly when they get to you. They will make you regret the mistake you made first.    

The dimension in which lions live compares to a culture. As an outsider, you are not accepted. Only a lion is. The only exceptions I know of are (some) trainers and those who raised cubs to adulthood. At times, the unwillingness to communicate with humans is interpreted as a result of a lack of intelligence, but those who know wild lions would get to a very different conclusion. There's no doubt that they are intelligent. Maybe the unwillingness to communicate in captive lions is a result of culture and maybe it's their way to say they do not agree with the situation they face every bloody day for the rest of their life.     

c - Tigers

In captive tigers, awareness is visible, but 'tigerishness' often is not. My guess is it partly is a result of their solitary way of life. Solitary animals need to communicate. Lions can afford to shoot first and ask questions later, but tigers can't. No communication is not done, so they communicate. With every creature they see, humans included.

But maybe they do not communicate after all. Not in the way we think they do, I mean. They will figure you out. When you think they enjoy your company, they might have made up their mind. About the opportunity that will come sooner or later. The so-called lack of 'tigerishness', in my opinion, is more superficial than anything else. Very much so, I'd say. The moment you step into the cage, you enter their world and they will tell you in no uncertain way things have now changed. Not in the way lions or bears do, but they will tell you.

d - Monsters of God

Wild tigers and lions still are sitting on top of the world. It's their world and they know. Both are exceedingly intelligent and know things have changed. Humans now rule, but not in the way they did. We lack the abilities and the awareness they have and they know. Our strength is in numbers. They will make way for us, but we shouldn't overdo it. When we do, they will act and reverse the situation. They are wild animals and will never change.   

Wild big cats, as David Quamman wrote, are what we need. We need monsters of God. Not because we cherish fear, but because we know things might spiral out of control the moment they disappear. To me, big cats are not monsters. They are the ultimate result of evolution. They have just about everything I could think of and yet lack the things we often see in quite many humans. It's most certainly not a result of a lack of ability. When we think of big cats, we think of tooth and claw. It is, however, something different.

Big cats have power. So much so, they are capable to bring down even the largest herbivores and break their neck. They also have something that can be seen as an overdrive of aggressiveness. I saw it a few times and will not forget it. When we discuss tigers and bears or tigers and wild boars or elephants, we bring in weight, size and weapons. The main assett of a big cat, however, is the overdrive mentioned. It's a mental thing difficult to describe. 

e - Awareness 

When I see a wild big cat, I see wild country and all things we had only a century ago or so. The moment we lose it, it will never return. That's the moment the countdown will accelerate. In the last decades, we have witnessed a few things that can be seen as a prelude. It getting worse every year. Many think that nature will recover when it gets the chance to do so, but my take is it will go real fast once a critical threshold has been crossed. The reason is the extremes get more pronounced. There are interesting studies of rat societies. A collapse usually is announced with a neglect of child care and education. Than it's the turn of the gate keepers. Once they have disappeared, things go down real fast.

I don't think humans will succumb to internal strive. When they go down, it most likely will be a result of a collapse of research and logistics. Just like in a real war. We only need one virus able to adapt and a few years of no progress. No progress could be a result of cut-backs or big corporations deliberately benefiting from disease. It could also be a result of the decision to refrain from action in order to up the demand just one more month. Maybe someone decides a deadly virus is needed to win a war, but a criminal decision in order to make a few more dollars seems more likely. This, after all, is the ultimate result of the system we embraced. Once the internal check, the State, is demolished or removed, anything is possible.  

A weapon only has an effect when it is not used or when it is used with intention. Big predators show us how it should be done, but they had a very long time to get to the experience needed. And what do we see? Even at their zenith, they were far from invincible. Every big cat has to work hard for his money and any mistake can be the last. The reason is his potential victims also know about evolution. Evolution without balance is an experiment gone wrong, not evolution. A bad experiment will result in failure, meaning it will not survive. What we see now is not a failure, because it's still here.

A tiger, like all predators, is not a mindless serial killer. For me, a tiger, if anything, is about timing, balance and rightiousness. Guess why that is. Three concepts completely unknown to-, but deeply engrained in all mammals. All but one: the would-be predator who forgot he fell out of a tree while trying to get to a shiny object needed to impress the others. 

f - Porc

When you don't agree, don't hold it against me. Below is the one who told me. It's the tiger I sometimes see in my dreams. He's from Russia and likes hunting wild boars on steep hills. He's very good at it.

For some reason, I'm getting more and more interested in porc these days. Porc a la poivre (French), porc a la Indonesia (curry) and porc a la Chabarowsk (pickles). When I told the tiger about it, he said he always goes for porc a la right now, adding you never have a match when you need one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - peter - 03-06-2015

(03-06-2015, 10:08 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I'll transfer my length databases here soon, but I'll have to use total lengths as I've logged the most data like that. Though, I don't have as much on chest girth, any sources would be helpful for me to pump out a better equation. For lions, I've east African individual length data points, most courtesy of Guate. Any direction to sources with individual values (not averages or ranges as scientists have a habit of publishing) of South African lion girth and length, alongside the individuals's masses? 

 

Try the Appendix in the book of Stevenson-Hamilton ('Wildlife in South Africa'). It has details of the fifty largest lions he shot. 

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - GuateGojira - 03-06-2015

No need to ask, here is the table with the records of Stevenson-Hamilton:

*This image is copyright of its original author

I have finished that table months ago, but I wanted to add more data of other specimens from the Southern region. Sadly, time is not my friend right now, so take the data and use it.

Greetings to all. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
 

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - peter - 03-06-2015

Impressive averages by any standard. In head and body, Kruger male lions, a century ago, were equal to male tigers in Central India (also a century ago) and only two inches below today's male Amur tigers.

A few remarks have to be added, of course:

1 - Stevenson-Hamilton, as he announced in the Appendix, selected the fifty largest males, whereas the average for Central India was a result of a sample half that size. Some of the tigers Dunbar Brander mentioned were selected for size, but the great majority of the 42 he used for his average were not.   

2 - The Amur sample, apart from being significantly smaller as well, had a number of 3-year old tigers, some of which, judging from the other measurements, clearly had some growing to do. This is important, as there is no doubt there are significant differences between age groups (adolescents, young adults and mature males). For indirect proof, go to the Natal leopard table I posted in this thread. The differences between age groups are significant.

3 - If we would include the remarks to get to a more reliable average for India and Russia, my guess is tigers would be a bit longer in head and body and quite a bit longer in total length. Kruger lions would just fall short of 9 feet straight (let's assume they averaged 8.11), whereas Central India tigers would get to 9.3 and Amur tigers, without the 3-year olds, would probably reach 9.9.

4 - A century ago, Kruger lions were not as heavy as similar-sized male tigers in Central India. The Kruger sample, of course, is very small (5 males only) and it also is a fact the lions were adjusted (not true for Central Indian tigers), but a century ago a big male, as Stevenson-Hamilton wrote, was below 400 pounds, whereas a Central India tiger, according to all in the know, was well over that mark.

Today's Krugers are 414 pounds (adjusted), but that's still below the average for today's males in Central India. They could compare to the average for Primorye, but my guess is Miquelle, who thought males averaged 430 pounds, could be just about right.

The question is why Kruger lions, in spite of their large size, fall short of the average seen in India and Russia. My guess is WaveRiders, who thought Zimbabwe and East-Africa male lions, although a bit shorter, are more robust is right. Same as in tigers, so it seems. Those inhabiting Russia, in spite of their length, are not as robust as those living in better conditions in India, although it has to be added that tigers in Nepal and North-India, also very long, are definitely heavier than Amur tigers and those in Central India. We know food is not a factor in Kruger, but it is a factor in Russia. When food is no issue, like in India, tigers, at similar length, seem quite a bit heavier. Why is that?

5 - One last issue. Data. Why is it I see robust tigers not weighed time and again? Why is it Krechmar wrote there are still big tigers in Russia? How reliable is the sample used to get to the averages published and much quoted? The problem, as usual, is data. Good, reliable data. Plenty of them, to be precise. Why is it such a problem in so many regions with researchers? If we don't get enough data, the result can be misinformation. My guess is we are close to just that.

---

RE: ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - TIGERS (Panthera tigris) - tigerluver - 03-07-2015

*This image is copyright of its original author

n=53 for girth relationship. n=30 for length relationship.

The chest girth relationship is bad. Length is moderately strong.

A second for Amurs:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Total length this time, n=21

Note the positive allometry in mass vs. total length in the Amur tiger, opposed to the slight negative allometry in the body length relationship. From this, it looks like tails get proportionately shorter at greater lengths, causing the total length to not look as impressive as the mass of the specimen, when in actuality the specimen is long bodied but just short tailed as the graphs suggest.

Finally, I won't bother with a girth comparison, the correlation is abysmal for the Bengal tiger. But here's the side by side total length comparison:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

 

 

---