+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Terrestrial Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-terrestrial-wild-animals)
+---- Forum: Wild Cats (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-wild-cats)
+----- Forum: Tiger (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-tiger)
+----- Thread: Indo-Chinese and Malayan tigers (/topic-indo-chinese-and-malayan-tigers)
Indo-Chinese and Malayan tigers - peter - 04-27-2014
Post information about Panthera tigris corbetti (and Panthera tigris jacksoni) in this thread.
RE: The Indian and the South-East Assan Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris and Panthera tigris - GuateGojira - 04-27-2014
Suggestions:
1. The title is too long, Just put the "popular" name on it.
2. Better use "Indochina" instead of "Assam".
RE: The Indian and the South-East Assan Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris and Panthera tigris - Richardrli - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 09:58 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Suggestions:I think the title should be Bengal and Indochinese tiger, these are the most correct terms.
1. The title is too long, Just put the "popular" name on it.
2. Better use "Indochina" instead of "Assam".
RE: The Indian and the South-East Assan Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris and Panthera tigris - GuateGojira - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 10:23 AM)'Richardrli' Wrote:Agree, the title should be "The Bengal and the Indochina tigers". [img]images/smilies/exclamation.gif[/img](04-27-2014, 09:58 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Suggestions:I think the title should be Bengal and Indochinese tiger, these are the most correct terms.
1. The title is too long, Just put the "popular" name on it.
2. Better use "Indochina" instead of "Assam".
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - peter - 04-27-2014
The title has been changed.
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - brotherbear - 02-01-2015
I read a great deal here about big impressive tigers. I have learned that the Amur tiger averages roughly 420 pounds. Has the weight of the average Bengal tiger been determined?
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - GuateGojira - 02-01-2015
Using both modern and old records, Bengal tigers seems to average about 210 kg (463 lb). If we use only modern animals, including the Sundarbans, the average seems about 200 kg (440 lb), but if we use only mainland tigers, the average seems to be about 219 kg (483 lb).
I am quoting from memory, so the actual figures could be about one to five kilograms of difference, more or less.
Interestingly, if we join the old and the modern Amur tiger records, they also have an average of about 200 kg overall.
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - Richardrli - 02-02-2015
Just two questions:
1. Where was the northern range limit for the Indochinese tiger? I was under the impression that it stretches into southern China, so could the Sheung Shui tiger shot in 1915 in Hong Kong be corbetti instead of amoyensis ?
2. Are the tigers of Burma (Myanmar) all Indochinese or mostly Indochinese but with Bengals in the western part bordering India?
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - Richardrli - 03-23-2015
Does anyone know about this?
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - peter - 03-23-2015
Richardrli\ dateline='\'1422887799' Wrote: Just two questions:
1. Where was the northern range limit for the Indochinese tiger? I was under the impression that it stretches into southern China, so could the Sheung Shui tiger shot in 1915 in Hong Kong be corbetti instead of amoyensis ?
2. Are the tigers of Burma (Myanmar) all Indochinese or mostly Indochinese but with Bengals in the western part bordering India?
Apologies for a very late reply. If it happens again, try the extinction thread. That is the place I visit most.
BURMA
As for the second question. To my knowledge, it has never been answered in a satisfactory way. One reads a few lines here and there, but I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed document. Here's what I know.
Over the years, I found many records I consider reliable. I noticed Assam shows more variation than all other regions in India. Just south of the Himalayas, tigers quite often reach a large size, but further south and east males seldom exceed 9 feet 'between pegs'. There is a letter in the JBNHS about the length of tigers in the Naga Hills. The average length of 18 males was 8.7 and females averaged 7.9. Only one male exceeded 9 feet. Two males in good condition were 330 and 344 lbs. There are more letters in the JBNHS about Assam tigers and all roughly underline the impression I have: quite big just south of the Himalayas and much smaller in the south-east. Same for the books I read.
In the day of the British Rai, Burma was largely covered with dense evergreen forest. Tigers were not often hunted. Two of those who did (Burgess and Thom) wrote about their experiences. Thom's longest taped 9.4 and 9.0 'between pegs'. One other was 10.4, but I think that one was measured 'over curves'. He thought the 9.4 tiger was as heavy and robust as they come and he had seen lots of tigers in India. Burgess only shot 13 tigers in Burma. Three of those taped 9.8, 9.4 and 9.0 'between pegs'. Peacock, quoted by Pocock (1939), underlined the findings of Burgess and Thom and he wasn't the only one. All in all, I'd say tigers in northern Burma were a bit larger than those in south-east Assam. The photographs I saw showed Burma tigers were different from those shot in India. Somewhat darker, a different stripe pattern and more pronounced colours. I also noticed many skulls were more rounded.
A year ago or so, there was a documentary on Myanmar on the BBC. The tigers I saw were very close to those I saw on the photographs published a long time ago. I think there is a difference between Assam, the Naga Hills and northern Burma. The Naga Hills could be a divide. Same for the other ranges in that region.
After Mazak's proposal was accepted in 1968, all tigers in south-east Asia were quickly moved to Panthera tigris corbetti. I have strong doubts about the validity of corbetti. My guess is he is used to cover a lack of knowledge. South-east Asia is too large amd has too much geographical variation for one subspecies only. Everything I know points towards different regional types. Tigers probably have a common ancestor, but he disappeared a long time ago and 73 000 years is a long time to develop. Long enough to get to different local types.
CHINA
Just before Brandt's book was published in 1856, tigers still were common in many parts of China. Those in the north-west could have belonged to P.t. virgata. In central and northern China, man-eaters were so common that travellers were adviced to sleep in the cities. In that part of China, tigers could have belonged to P.t. styani. In the north-east, P.t. altaica was common. Near the great rivers in the centre, P.t. amoyensis was anything but shy. Then there were the Amoy tigers, also belonging to P.t. amoyensis, but distinctly different. Based on what I read, tigers in south-east China, from Amoy to northern Indochina, could have been very similar to those who reached Singapore at times. In my opinion, all belonged to P.t. corbetti. The tigers in south-east Tibet again were different. They had to be if you have a look at the map. Could have been P.t. styani. I read many rumours on P.t. tigris in the south-west of China. Many apparently were no different from Sunderban tigers today and it could be some just followed the great rivers to the south.
My guess is Amoy tigers and Indochina tigers were one and the same. If we would have been able to take a closer look, differences no doubt would have been seen, but that chance has been lost.
My guess is all mainland subspecies were present in China in 1800. The devastation between 1850-1950 must have been immense. Today, apart from a few tigers in the north-east, there's nothing left. Nothing at all. Hard to believe, but there you have it.
When Tigerluver posted the article on Javan and Bali tigers in the extinction thread (referring to Xue et al, 2015), I decided for a few posts on P.t. corbetti. You are invited to participate.
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - GrizzlyClaws - 03-23-2015
A large canine tooth that @Pckts acquired from Thailand, and it could belong to an Indochinese specimen that was getting farmed by the Tiger Temple.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - Pckts - 03-23-2015
(03-23-2015, 09:15 AM)'Richardrli' Wrote: Does anyone know about this?
*This image is copyright of its original author
Interesting, but she was captive born and there really hasn't been any success of captive tigers having a good track history in the wild.
It would also need many, many litters to actually make any difference in the gene pool. I also think one sub species would become much dominate and since she may have only been half and she would only breed with pure bengals, I would assume the siberian gene would not make much of a difference over generations.
But I am not a genetist by any means, just a guess.
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - GrizzlyClaws - 03-23-2015
I am quite sure that the gene marker of the Caspian tiger can be found among the population of the North Indian tiger, that's why some North Indians can look similar to the Amurs.
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - Amnon242 - 03-23-2015
(02-01-2015, 09:42 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Using both modern and old records, Bengal tigers seems to average about 210 kg (463 lb). If we use only modern animals, including the Sundarbans, the average seems about 200 kg (440 lb), but if we use only mainland tigers, the average seems to be about 219 kg (483 lb).
I am quoting from memory, so the actual figures could be about one to five kilograms of difference, more or less.
Interestingly, if we join the old and the modern Amur tiger records, they also have an average of about 200 kg overall.
219 kg average is pretty impressive...decisive advantage against wild amurs and equal to captive amurs...who are very huge felids. I have seen 220-250 kg tigers (including 220 kg bengal - white...btw no fat, just pure muscle) and these animals are really monstrous, especially when you see them in 1 meter distance :-)
BTW what are the data about sundarban tigers? Are they really that small?
RE: Indian and Indo-Chinese tigers - Pckts - 03-23-2015
219 kg for a cat is massive, when you see it in person, up close, Im sure it blows you away. In a wild cat that is all muscle Im sure its even more intimadating. Thats just the average, human males average 5'9-5'10 yet you can watch a basketball game and see 7'ers out there. Big cats are the same way, imaging being meters away from Madla or Waghdoh. Probably leaves you speechless.