WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
 (02-28-2025, 06:31 AM)peter Wrote: APEX Yes, I saw Prof. Wroe's video over a week ago. Its a good video, but he solely focused on information and studies published about tiger-bear relations during the period 1992-2012 (WCS & Tkachenko). There's plenty more recent information, data, and accounts of tiger predation on brown bears he never mentioned in his video. There's more recent studies, accounts, and even videos he could have presented. Interestingly, Prof. Wroe, a specialist in bite forces and skull morphology of mammalian carnivores, said: "We found that a 177 kg tiger can exert a bite force at the canine teeth that is around 20% more than that of a 355 kg polar bear, more than twice its own size" ("Bite Forces and Evolutionary Adaptations To Feeding Ecology In Carnivores", Per Christiansen & Stephen Wroe). Undoubtedly, as I've also mentioned several times in my previous posts, even a medium-sized tiger's bite is far more devastating and lethal than even a significantly larger male brown bear or polar bear's bite. Not to mention, the tiger's much longer, thicker, and sharper canines which penetrates much deeper than a large male brown bear's much smaller and blunter canines. Prof. Wroe's video, uploaded a month ago, definitely needs an update on Amur tiger-Brown bear relations/information. And I think he would definitely agree. However, when I read the comment section, I saw that Professor. Wroe is now aware of the account of Odyr hunting and killing the large adult male brown bear. He mentions this case in the comment section 5-6 days ago. ( I'm not "Heaven-dy9lj", this was a random youtube user talking to the Professor ):  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 Late Pleistocene tiger fossils from the Shiriyazaki on the Shimokita Peninsula northern Honshu, Japan
This is a comparative report on Shiriyazaki's Japanese Late Pleistocene tiger fossils published last year.Although many previous reports on Japanese tiger fossils were very small, the tiger fossils collected in this report are all very large, with an overall size equivalent to that of male Amur tiger, and even some individuals significantly larger  *This image is copyright of its original author Fossils were collected from different locations in Shiriyazaki, involving dental materials and limb bone materials. I have selected some materials to discuss, and more materials can be found in the original text: <下北半島尻屋崎地域産トラ化石> Bull.Gunma Mus.Natu.Hist.（28）：45－64, 2024. 1.Comparative materials The comparative material is an elderly male Amur tiger, born in Germany in 1992. The male Amur tiger was kept in Hamamatsu Zoo(浜松市動物園) from 1995 to 2010 at the age of 18. The cause of death is believed to be related to lymphadenopathy. "Name: ルー(Lu), International Lineage Registration Number: 3920  *This image is copyright of its original author This individual has a very large skull(380mm×284mm) and an overall limb bone length comparable to other male Amur tiger individuals (Tiger-04, AMNH85404, AMNH85396,M.S.241/M.S.242). 2.Upper canine These three canine teeth are all very large. The translation of the relevant measurement indicators: 全長=total length 歯冠前後径=anteroposterior diameter of crown base 歯冠頰舌径=lateromedial diameter (buccal lingual side) of crown base 歯冠高さ（頰側）=crown height (buccal) 歯根最大前後径=maximum anteroposterior diameter of tooth root 歯根最大頰舌径=maximum lateromedial diameter of tooth root  *This image is copyright of its original author The main text does not provide a comparison between them and Amur tigers. Here, I use Boneclones' Amur tiger skull as a substitute for comparison. The measurements are shown below 歯冠前後径:26.9mm(L) 26.6mm® 歯冠類舌径:20.4mm 歯冠高さ（頰側):58.9mm(L) 58.3mm® I don't have root measurement data for male Amur tigers, but considering they are larger than the largest root measurement data (31mm) among dozens of male South African lions in Smuts' article[<Age determination of the African lion (Pantheva leo) >], their size is indeed very large.The relatively small crown height may be due to individual developmental differences and taphonomy influences (see figure), and overall, these canine are undoubtedly the size of male Amur  *This image is copyright of its original author Other premolar materials show individual variations in the development of the anterior cusp and the boundary morphology of the labial and buccal sides, with overall measurements similar to those of Amur tigers 3.Appendicular skeleton In terms of overall size, these tiger appendicular bone fossils are almost the same size as those of "ルー", with only a few individuals slightly smaller (such as NMNS9621).But many Appendicular skeleton elements, such as the femur, are proportionally more robust than "ルー", which may be due to the lack of activity in captive individuals. Impressively, there is a large incomplete humerus and it's maximum distal width(内顆・外顆間の幅) is 97mm.The lateromedial diameter and anteroposterior diameter at the end of the deltoid crest are 35mm and 43mm, respectively, and the bone is very thick and robust.  *This image is copyright of its original author There is a record of a very large tiger humerus in Gross 1992, with a maximum length of 373mm and a maximum distal width of 96mm, almost the same width as this incomplete humerus.And a robust watualang tiger humerus(NM1933,353mm greatest length and 99mm distal width ) also have the similar width. There is another extremely large individual worth mentioning:NMNS25891(5th metatarsus).  *This image is copyright of its original author The measurement values of all aspects of this Mt5 material are larger than "ルー", and the difference in length is more significant (132vs118). its overall size should be comparable to the elderly male cave lion in Siegsdorf (132.5mm, Gross 1992:127). Specifically, this cave lion is a medium-sized individual of the Late Pleistocene European cave lion. Summary The tigers in this region during the late Pleistocene were very large, with an overall size similar to that of male Amur tigers, and some individuals slightly smaller, possibly due to sexual or individual differences (size differences are not particularly significant compared to "ルー"). There are also some very large individuals among them, whose Appendicular skeleton elements are much larger in size than the normal male Amur tiger, reaching the size of a medium-sized cave lion.It is worth noting that there are also reports of giant wolf and brown bear fossils in this area The SOB and OH of tigers
The Supraoccipital breadth(SOB) relative to the Occipital height(OH) In previous studies, it was considered a significant distinguishing feature between different subspecies of tigers, and even now it has at least valuable population identification significance.
 *This image is copyright of its original author In tigers, the relative width of SOB can be clearly defined as gradually increasing from south to north on the Asian continent, which seems to be a functional adaptation caused by their corresponding ecological environment.
 *This image is copyright of its original author However, there does not seem to be much data on SOB in the literature, and it is generally not a major measurement value.
Its measurement method is"the smallest distance between notches of lateral margins of the occiput; the notch being situated approximately where sutura occipitoparietalis, sutura parietotemporalis and sutura occipitotemporalis meet"(Ji H. mazák 2008)
I have seen a good structural diagram(see blow, Narimane Chatar et al.2022) that can clearly distinguish these bone sutures. Please pay attention to the intersection of the occipital and parietal and the temporal in the diagram.
 *This image is copyright of its original author In the posterior view provided by Ji H. mazak, the specific location is the highest point on the dorsal side of the mastoid process And the Dorsal view can be seen in Figure B. Búzás and B. Farkas 1996.
 *This image is copyright of its original author In the publications of V. mazák and Ji H. mazák, it seems that I can only find specific data on island tigers and indochinese tigers (including Malayan tigers)
 *This image is copyright of its original author However, in his publication<Recent Advance in Tiger Phylogeny, In the Evolution and Geographical Variation >(Chinese version), he listed the scatter plot data of male SOB for all subspecies.
 *This image is copyright of its original author According to the scatter plot, we can see that the Amur tiger has a significantly widest SOB, both in terms of relative width and absolute width.Corresponding to the logarithmic axis of SOB, the SOB of some particularly wide male Amur tiger individuals may even reach around 90mm, almost 1.8 to 2 times that of some small Java and Bali tigers.
One of the male Sumatran tigers is very interesting, with a maximum recorded SOB of 83.4mm. Such a huge size makes it easy to find in scatter plots. From the graph, it can be seen that its SOB is almost as wide as the widest male Bengal tiger and comparable to many male Amur tiger individuals, which is very astonishing.
@peter
Professor. Wroe, in his video, showed this picture of the skull of an Asiatic black bear that was killed by a tiger. An Amur tiger with broken canines killed an Asiatic black bear by crushing its skull with the stubs of its canines, reported by Tkachenko. This highlights the devastating bite force of a tiger, and shows that tigers, with broken canines, can even kill bears by destroying their skull. Some years ago, I also saw pictures of the skull of an Ussuri wild boar that was killed by a tiger who crushed the boar's skull with a bite. There's no doubt, that in some cases, tigers do kill bears and wild boars by crushing their skulls with a lethal bite. Asiatic black bear skull crushed by a tiger (Tkachenko):  *This image is copyright of its original author
(03-02-2025, 07:40 PM)return 80 Wrote:The two posts I previously posted only explained some phenomenon reports, but did not provide content explanations. Indeed, this is very necessary, so here I share some of my views Although Hasegawa has reported multiple tiger fossils sites from Japan, unfortunately, these materials have not been systematically organized, so I can only provide some speculations on why Shiriyazaki's Late Pleistocene tigers were so large.  *This image is copyright of its original author According to the ecological geographic model of tiger populations by Luo et al. 2024(https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02185-8), we can see that during the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum,Fig.B), Japan was connected to the Asian continent due to sea level decline, and at this time, Japan was also a high probability habitat suitable for tigers (red area). Some of tigers may have migrated from China to Japan, and very large tiger fossils were also discovered during the last interglacial period(Fig.A) and the LGM in region 2(These habitats, which are considered highly likely to be suitable for tigers, have also yielded large tiger fossils in many locations). However, due to the long-term interglacial and glacial replacement during the whole Pleistocene, tiger fossils in other Pleistocene sites in Japan may be relatively small (as Peter pointed out, island dwarfism may have occurred at specific times that Japan is not connected to the Asian continent). The second one is about the explanation of the occipital.At first, when I posted this related context, I just wanted to explain some data, but personally, I also have my own views on this phenomenon.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Generally speaking, the occipital is directly related to the very important occlusal muscle - the temporalis muscle. In northern tigers (Amur tigers and Caspian tigers), the sagittal crest is also very developed, which indicates the need for strengthening their occlusal muscles. Amur tigers have the strongest sagittal crest and widest occipital. Relatively speaking, although the Caspian tiger is very developed, it is not as exaggerated as the Amur tiger. My viewpoint is that the size of SOB is the same as the level of development of the sagittal crest, which is also an evolutionary feature supporting the theory that Amur tigers need to gnaw on frozen meat in extremely cold regions.The same example can be seen in cave lions, where these Pleistocene cats can even be distributed within the Arctic Circle, and many of them also have very wide occipital. This feature is not entirely related to body size, as the largest tiger in history, Panthera tigris soloensis, like Java tiger and Bali tiger, has relatively thin occipital, while the Sumatran tiger is believed to have been formed by natural hybridization between continental and island tigers, although this theory still requires more evidence The above are some of my opinions. Everyone could share your idea~ (03-08-2025, 03:54 PM)return 80 Wrote:Additionally, this is a slight supplement to my explanation(03-02-2025, 07:40 PM)return 80 Wrote:The two posts I previously posted only explained some phenomenon reports, but did not provide content explanations. Indeed, this is very necessary, so here I share some of my views Tiger fossils from the last interglacial period in region 2
Although I still have more information and data on tiger fossils, I may discuss them in more detail later.In the Qingjiang(Chinkiang,see<What is Tiger>, But I must clarify that the tiger fossils in this area come from different eras, and the author Andrew C. Kitchener simply listed them as Middle Pleistocene tigers) River Basin between the last intergalactic period in Region 2 (90000-120000 years ago,silver carp Hill). There are fossils from at least 3 different individuals, almost all of which are the size of male Amur tigers - super large male Amur tigers, similar to the giant Japanese tiger fossils we previously discussed. These materials include a tiger maxilla with a length of 113mm for C-P4 and 40mm for P4 (almost the same size as the maxilla of the largest Amur tiger skull) A mandibular anterior segment larger than any modern tiger's mandible record,Its related measurements are much larger than the mandible of a male Amur tiger(ルー)with a skull length of 380mm A 425mm femur(The size of a large male Amur tiger) A 340mm tibia(The usual size of male Amur tigers) Additionally, The interesting thing is that in the research I previously cited（ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02185-8 ） The genetic similarity between their ancient Russian tiger samples and today's Amur tiger is not high, while an ancient tiger from nearly 2000 years ago has a relatively high genetic similarity with the Amur tiger. This suggests that today's Amur tigers may actually be very young tiger populations, and they have not been separated from other tiger populations for too long. The other research also proving that a tiger sample(Da an Tiger) from northern China during the Late Pleistocene(more than 40000 years ago) is from an extinct branch of tigers that had been separated from modern tigers for hundreds of thousands of years(see https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.0617)
Share a skull photo
 *This image is copyright of its original author It may have been taken by Ji H. Mazák and catalog number is ZIN 4046(housed in Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences). According to relevant archives, it should have come from Yili(Kuldzha), Xinjiang Province, northwest China in 1888 
RETURN 80
Many thanks for the additional information (referring to posts 2,794, 2,795 and, in particular, 2,797 and 2,798). Those interested in the evolution of tigers in northeastern Asia no doubt found their way. If you have time, it would be appreciated if you could post a bit more about the two 'waves' from China. During the first wave, it's quite likely tigers encountered cave lions (also referring to Baryshnikov's publication about bones of carnivores found in a number of caves in southeastern Russia). In this post, I want to return to a table I posted in the thread 'Amur Tigers' not so long ago. I'm referring to this table:  *This image is copyright of its original author You posted additional information about tiger 04, which was poached in Heilongjiang. As a result, we now know it was a young adult male of approximately 170 kg (and not 161,1 kg) ranging between 37-50 months of age. This means I (referring to your post in the thread 'Amur Tigers') can now use it in a table that has information about the skull size of young adult wild male Amur tigers. This table is necessary, because I have some doubts about the age (of the former owner) of some of the skulls used in 'Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between the skulls of tigers from mainland Asia' (Cooper, DM) et al, Royal Society Open Science, 2022). The table above has information about 14 tigers. Of these, 10 belong to Panthera tigris altaica. The question is if you know a bit more about skulls 02, 05, 06, 09, 10, 11 and 12. Did the skulls belong to wild Amur tigers? Is there information about the age of the former owners of these skulls? When were they acquired? Using the table, my guess for now is skulls 02, 06, 10 and 11 belonged to adults. With 'adult', to be complete, I mean 5 years (and older) for females and 6 years (and older) for males. As to the skull of the heaviest Amur tigress on record. In an article about the Morden-Graves expedition in the 1929-1930 winter in northeastern Asia, there's a paragraph about the Amur tiger. It has detailed information about the length and weight of 2 males and 1 female. V. Mazak ('Der Tiger', third edition, 1983), after a bit of research, discovered the males were measured in different ways. One of them was measured 'over curves', whereas the other was measured 'between pegs' after he had been skinned (...). There was some confusion about the weight as well. Mazak found that one of the males had been weighed without the skin (...). The female apparently was measured 'between pegs'. The article has information about the skulls of the 2 males, but I didn't see anything about the female. If her skull, as you wrote, really was 286 mm in greatest total length, chances are she was a young adult. My guess is at least one of the males (I'm referring to the male with a skull with a greatest total length of 335 mm) was a young adult as well. Where did you find the information about the skull of the tigress? (03-08-2025, 04:37 PM)return 80 Wrote: Share a skull photo Very nice photograph of a skull of a wild Caspian tiger! Anything known about the measurements? Weight? (03-06-2025, 08:06 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: @peter Thanks Apex. Judging from the sutures (completely fused) and the teeth (quite a bit of wear), the skull most probably belonged to an oldish Himalayan black bear. As to tigers losing (some of) their canines. Some years ago, on a Russian forum, a paper was published about tigers captured with Aldrich footsnares. Some males, while trying to escape the snare, damaged their teeth. While, as Miquelle later said, there's proof of wild tigers with an incomplete set of canines doing just fine, it's also true healthy canines are of vital importance for big cats hunting large prey animals. Wild tigers often suffer from dental problems. Today, most of these are a result of natural causes (and age), but a century ago, in what used to be British India in particular, not a few were a result of an uncareful shot. In one of the books of Kenneth Anderson, there's a (true) story about a tiger that lost most of his teeth in this way. The result was most animals he hunted were able to escape. Humans, however, were not. After gaining quite a reputation, Anderson decided to hunt him. This tiger killed with his paws and used his claws to scrape the flesh from the bones, because he couldn't use his teeth anymore. (03-14-2025, 03:08 PM)peter Wrote: RETURN 80Hi peter, Thanks for you reply. Yes, these Amur tiger skulls are specimens used in wildlife monographs or tiger research books. Although not every specimen has a record of its original location, it is true that they are wild Amur tigers. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of age related information about these specimens, and I'm not a zoological researcher at present, so I can't go directly to the Institute of Zoology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to check them personally. The only individual among these Amur tiger skulls that I can confirm may reach your standard age of 6 years or older is Tiger-06, which is 09725. I have previously posted information about it I also have another skull photo of it. Its premolars have obvious wear, and its upper canine are also partially broken, so there is no doubt that it is an older individual.  *This image is copyright of its original author In addition, there are two female tiger individuals in this table whose age I can determine. Tiger–12(09412),In the original records, it was defined as juvenile or subadult. Tiger-14(6102),From the photos taken by Ji H. mazák, it is undoubtedly an adult individual.  *This image is copyright of its original author However, there is a conflict between the records in the table and the information I am aware of. The producer of the table may have simply attributed some of the specimens to males based on their size. I will now share some information that I know.These pieces of information are from<FAUNA SINICA>(Mammalia Vol.8: Carnivora),<Survey Report on Mammals in Northeast China>,<Tiger Research>and Ji H. mazák's Records Tiger-02 :There is no sex record or original location record in<FAUNA SINICA>. I guess it's classified as male in the table because of its huge size Tiger-05(09414):There is no sex record or original location record in<FAUNA SINICA>.But in Ji H. mazák's records, it is an adult female individual. I don't know any evidence that it is male, maybe because of its larger body size record? Based on the collection time of 09725, it is speculated that it should be a specimen before 1957 Tiger-09(SO 460):It is also a specimen from Heilongjiang, and according to relevant records, its collection time was December 1977.However, as far as I know, this male seems to have no body measurement data other than skull measurements.In the<Heilongjiang Province Mammals>(《黑龙江省兽类志》), its body data records are blank.  *This image is copyright of its original author Tiger-10(09417):It was recorded as an adult male tiger in Northeast China along with 09725(But maybe not over 6 years old, I haven't personally come into contact with this specimen), and the collection time should have been earlier than 09725 Tiger-11(SO 387):The time and location of collection are unknown, and the gender is female. The heaviest wild female Amur tiger skull record.
In Goodwin's 1933 publication, he reported on three tigers in the Ussuri region, whose skin and skeleton are now preserved in AMNH.Mazák published his correspondence with Goodwin in his 1967 publication (p.522), I also have the book <Der Tiger>(third edition), which explains that the weight reported by Goodwin in 1933 was the weight after peeling the skin(p.188). So, by combining their data, we can also obtain relevant catalog numbers and corresponding individual data: AMNH85396 [9ft 7in total body length(after skin,between pegs),200kg(after skin),217.5kg(total weight),335mmGSL,237mmZB)] AMNH85404 [10ft total length over curves,230kg(after skin),249.1kg(total weight),345mmGSL,237mmZB] And the 167kg Ussuri female tiger is also recorded in the AMNH archive, with the catalog number AMNH85405. In Adam Hartstone Rose et al.'s research(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113437) on the skull morphology of captive and wild lions and tigers, they used and measured many AMNH lion and tiger skulls, including this 167kg female tiger AMNH85405.They provided all the measurement values in the supplementary materials of the paper.  *This image is copyright of its original author I think their measurements are quite accurate, such as AMNH45519 and AMNH44520, two South China tigers of different sex,Their results are 313.8mmGSL × 210.5mmZB and 271.2mmGSL × 118.7mmZB.This is very similar to Allen's measurement results for these two specimens.In addition, their AMNH85396 is almost identical to Goodwin's measurement results.  *This image is copyright of its original author Therefore, I can assume that their measurement results are accurate. The GSL of AMNH85405 is only 286mm, less than 290mm, which is lower than the average size In addition, according to records from the AMNH database, the largest wild tiger skulls they measured for both females and males were Bengal tigers.AMNH 54460 is a Bengal tiger from Uttar Pradesh, India, The 40.7mm P4 is also the largest extant tiger P4 size record I have ever seen. AMNH54458 is a female Bengal tiger from Nepal,its skull size is extremely large, even comparable to the male Amur tiger AMNH85396 (03-14-2025, 03:10 PM)peter Wrote:Unfortunately, I do not have its measurement data as Ji H. mazák and V. mazák have not publicly disclosed detailed information about the Caspian tiger. I know their average GSL is about 340mm, but from Nobuyuki Yamaguchi's data, except for the particularly large 369mm skull, almost all normal sized male individuals are 335-340mm in size, and they should have used the same skull specimen. Therefore, I believe that if ZIN4046 is not the largest skull (369mm), then its skull length should also be around 335-340mm(03-08-2025, 04:37 PM)return 80 Wrote: Share a skull photo But I know a male Bengal tiger who not only has detailed skull records, but also very detailed body data records, which is AMNH113744 in the screenshot of the supplementary materials I just sent.This is a photo of this specimen that I obtained from the research of Qigao Jiangzuo et al  *This image is copyright of its original author According to AMNH's database records, it is a male Bengal tiger captured from Chunakahn in northern India in 1936. The total length of the body is 310cm(over curves), the chest girth is 137cm, and the Body mass recorded is 236kg.These are data converted from feet, inches, and pounds. It retains its complete skin and skeleton, and I have some measurements of its skeleton. It is the largest wild tiger skeleton measurement record I have ever seen. The measurement data of its limb bones is slightly larger than the wild male Amur tigers AMNH85404, AMNH85396, and Tiger-04 mentioned above, and is about the same length as the captive male Amur tigers CN5698 and CN6049 in Per Christiansen's sample, but slightly shorter than CN5697.It is one of the few individuals in tigers whose radius can exceed 300mm and approach 310mm
RETURN 80
Yet another shipment of very interesting information. Many thanks! I'll discuss your last 2 posts in detail in a few days, because I need to go over de information I collected over the years first. I'm, in particular, referring to information I found in a number of journals. One of them, of course, is the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS). In the early part of the 20th century in particular, many interesting letters of experienced hunters were published and discussed. As a result of your posts, the table in my last post (I'm referring to the table with information about 14 tigers posted by KTKC in the former AVA forum) has become more clear. All skulls mentioned in that table belonged to wild tigers and I also think all of them were from China. It's a pity we won't be able to solve the age problem completely, but my guess is most questions will be answered sooner or later. I agree there's some doubt regarding the gender of some tigers in the table. Tigers -05- (09414) and -09- (20460) might have been (adult) females. I'm not too sure about skull -10- (09417) as well. Could have been a youngish male or a very large female. Skull -02- (08193) most probably belonged to an adult male. As to skull -05- (09414). The former owner of skull had a total length of 283,9 cm 'between pegs' with a HB length of 185,5 cm (tail 98,4 cm). A tigress with a total length of almost 9.4 (referring to feet and inches), of course, is unusual, but I have a number of records of tigresses from what used to be British India that more or less compare. I'm not only referring to letters of hunters in the JBNHS, but to information from Forest Officers (referring to a number of books I read and discussed in this thread some years ago). Most tigresses (well) exceeding 9 feet (274,32 cm) were measured 'over curves', but most isn't all and Forest Officers, as a general rule, measured all tigers they shot 'between pegs'. Some tigresses shot in central and northern India exceeded 9 feet 'between pegs' in total length. Same for Nepal, although they were measured 'over curves'. The tigress shot in the Russian Far East in the 1929-1930 winter (referring to the Morden-Graves expedition) also was 9.3 measured 'between pegs', but she, like the two males that were shot, had a very long tail. Apart from that, there's recent information (referring to a number of articles I read). I'll post a number of scans in future posts. As to the tigress shot in the 1929-1930 winter in the Russian Far East also mentioned in V. Mazak's book 'Der Tiger' (1983). The information you posted answered every question I had in that the skull measurements clearly show she was a young adult. The next question, of course, is if a young adult wild Amur tigress could be able to get to 167 kg and 9.3 in total length measured in a straight line. The answer, I think, is in one of the recent (Chinese) studies discussed in this thread not too long ago. The study had numerous tables of captive Amur tigers that showed captive Amur tigers quickly grow until age 3-4 (not much difference between males and females). During the transition to adulthood, however, they (no exceptions) lost quite a bit of weight. After reaching adulthood (5 years in females and 6 in males), they started growing again. In wild Amur tigers, it doesn't seem to be different. A seasoned Russian biologist who measured and weighed quite a number of wild Amur tigers recently said the largest male he had seen was a young adult. He added adult wild males averaged 220-240 kg, with some individuals reaching, and even exceeding, 280 kg). The interview (posted in this thread) was posted by our member 'Apex Titan'. The conclusions of this biologist contradict those of others. Batalov and Fomenko, both more than once, said a wild male Amur tiger exceeding 200 kg is considered as 'large' in most districts. My guess is we'll never know, because only few wild Amur tigers are weighed these days. There are, however, reliable reports about heavier tigers from northeastern China. Feng Limin, in a recent interview, said one male was 270 kg, whereas another was 250 kg. It is, however, not known of the 270 kg male was actually weighed. The weight of the famous 'Sauraha tiger' (from Royal Chitwan, Nepal), for example, was the outcome of a regression analysis. His exact weight wasn't know, because he bottomed a 500-pound scale with ease. I went over the dataset of Hartstone Rose numerous times, but, regarding the tiger skulls, was unable to find information as to the subspecies. Is there an appendix that has additional information about the skulls in the table? While I agree in general terms with the conclusion of many researchers (and posters) there's no difference between Indian and Amur tigers (referring to total length, weight and skull measurements), it has to be remembered the number of skulls of Indian tigers in (a limited number of) natural history museums (in the UK in particular) far exceeds the number of skulls of wild Amur tigers. Indian tigers, if anything, seem to have the edge, but most (large) skulls were collected in the period 1870-1950, when the number of wild tigers far exceeded the number of wild tigers today. Not a few hunters, after the appeal of Pocock (in the JBNHS), sent their 'best' skulls to the British Museum. Four of the skulls in the British Museum (referring to the dataset of 'Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between the skulls from mainland Asia', 2022) exceed the skull you mentioned in greatest total length. They were acquired in 1879, 1882, 1901 and 1950. I'm not suggesting I thought I saw a bit of selection at the gate, but it's clear the British Museum has a unique collection og magnificent skulls. In the Amur tiger skull department, the opposite seems to be true. Most skulls, even those in well-known Russian museums, were acquired in the period 1970-2010. This is the period Amur tigers seemed to be on their way out. When a big cat is heading in that direction, chances are it will affect the average size (also referring to information collected in northern India and Nepal about a century ago). The overview I saw (referring to the study mentioned above) suggests skulls of young adults may have been included. Last but not least is large Amur skulls tend to disappear these days. In one of his last posts, our former member 'Wave Riders' said the (large) skulls V. Mazak measured in the sixties and early seventies of the last century (in Berlin) were gone. Based on the information I have, I'd say Himalayan and Kaziranga tigers top the list of averages (referring to total length and weight), but in the department of outlyers, Amur tigers stand a very decent chance. I've seen too many exceptional individuals (referring to Amur tigers) to conclude they're few and far between. I would, for now, however, agree with those who think the difference (in size) between captive and wild Amur tigers is remarkable. Could be a result of the population bottleneck in previous century, but it could also be a result of a lack of data. Unclear.
Hi peter,
Tiger-05 (09414) is an early specimen collected before the 1957. Although the measurement method in<FAUNA SINICA>is between pegs, I personally believe that this does not necessarily mean that it was measured in this way at the time.Although the body measurements, including hind foot length, are indeed very large On the Chinese Internet, I have also seen that some animal fans will communicate with biologists to obtain tiger size data, but some informations are usually difficult to confirm, and I am cautious about this before the official publication.Of course, this does not mean that Amur tigers with such a huge weight do not exist now. I can share some information that I know. Firstly, we all know that weight can easily change. The Amur tiger named 'dale' captured by WCS has a weight variation of nearly 30 kilograms, and this situation is even more exaggerated among different individuals. The Tiger-04, AMNH85396, and AMNH85404 mentioned above are very similar in terms of skull size, skeleton size, and body measurement data, but individual weight differences can reach 30-80kg. I have communicated with some paleontologists who have measured these materials at AMNH, and the data obtained from them shows that even the heaviest AMNH85404, weighing nearly 250kg, has no significant difference in the attachment crest of the deltoid and pectoral muscles on its humerus compared to AMNH85396. It is not a significantly strong tiger. So my point of view is that in many cases, weight is just one of the reference values for evaluating body size (the size of the skeleton is also important). There are not many opportunities to measure the weight of wild Amur tigers, so in some cases, the tiger's weight can only represent its weight at the time of capture From what I have learned about tiger conservation agencies in China and Russia, they usually do not weigh tigers, especially in China. In the Russian Far East region, in recent years, tigers with serious health problems and wandering too close to human settlements in peripheral areas have usually been captured and weighed. It is obvious that the weight values of these homeless and unhealthy individuals are not high. In China, in recent years, there have been two confirmed wild male Amur tigers weighing 270kg+and 225kg. The former is an individual mentioned by Professor Feng Limin during an online event on World Tiger Day a few years ago, and there are some message claiming that this individual was measured because of the accidental death. Another individual weighing 225kg is a young male tiger who was captured for invading human settlements. The local forestry bureau reported a weight of 225kg at the time of release. I think these two numbers are accurate. In fact, Professor Feng Limin has mentioned more than once that he has seen tigers weighing over 250kg, and reference materials suggest that theoretically the largest wild Amur tiger can reach nearly 300kg. However, his main work does not include measuring the morphological data of tigers, but rather conducting ecological observations and field investigations of national parks. In recent years, I have learned from my personal observations, news reports, and exchanges with tiger conservation workers. The number of Amur tigers in China has significantly increased, and the frequency of encounters between humans and tigers has gradually increased. In a graduate thesis on tiger ecology research in national parks about 8 years ago (2017), there was a significant gap in the number and proportion of tiger prey species in China compared to Russia. However, there has been significant progress in recent years, or in the future, I will discuss in detail the current situation and existing problems of Amur tiger conservation in my opinion. Hartstone Rose's research does not provide detailed specimen information of tigers. You can access AMNH's online database, which is publicly available. However, sometimes for maintenance purposes, it may go offline.This is the website of the database https://www.amnh.org/research/vertebrate...n/database There may be significant differences in body size between captive and wild Amur tigers, but in my opinion, this should depend on the method of captive breeding. I obtained skeleton data of a total of 11 adult male(both wild and captive) Amur tigers from literature and communication. The smallest three were captive individuals, and the largest three were also captive individuals. They were samples from PER CHRISTIANSEN. As far as I know, in some Amur tiger themed zoos in China, they have specialized breeding lineages and plans for large Amur tiger individuals. Therefore, in the case where these large individuals are used as artificial breeding fathers, they may indeed have some body size differences from naturally bred wild counterparts. In my opinion, there doesn't seem to be any significant difference in size between the skull of the Amur tiger and the skull of the Bengal tiger. Zoologists only noticed the Amur tiger in the mid-19th century, and as far as I know, the skull of an adult Amur tiger scientifically measured in the 19th century is only a normal size individual of 345mm, which came from present-day Jilin Province, China. And there was no good statistical data for several decades until the 1940s. As Pocock said, the Amur tiger may be larger than the Bengal tiger, but there is no evidence. Since the 1940s, the Amur tiger in the Russian Far East has been facing a very serious endangered problem. So, I don't think there is any evidence to trace back the size of the Amur tiger in history. Although from the measurements of zoologists, it seems that the largest Amur tiger skull is always slightly larger than the Bengal tiger skull The difference between lion and tiger skulls
These are some of my opinions from my communication with Peter, and I am sharing them here for everyone to discuss There are some obvious differences between the skulls of tigers and lions, with major differences in Skull shape (tiger skull has a shorter and rounder face, lion skull has a longer and flatter face), nasal, ventricular margin of the mandibles, and Cranial volume,so on.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author (1) Biological evolution
According to modern molecular biology research, the separation time between Neofelis and Panthera genera is approximately in the last period of the Miocene Li et al. (2016).  *This image is copyright of its original author The fossils of one of the earliest members of the Panthera genus(Panthera principialis), as well as the earliest fossils that can be defined as lions(Olduvai upper Bed II), may not provide us with good information to answer why the skulls of lions and tigers have such significant differences.  *This image is copyright of its original author The fossil history of tigers is relative long. If the ancestral species Panthera palaeosinensis is included, the fossil history of tigers can exceed 2 million years, and the earliest tiger fossil can be traced back to 1.3 million years ago (a P4, similar in shape and size to modern male tigers, in Gongwangling, Lantian, Shaanxi Province). Fortunately, the ancestor species of tigers, Panthera palaeosinensis, has preserved many relatively complete skulls, which can answer our question about the characteristics of tiger skulls.  *This image is copyright of its original author Ji H. mazák once proposed another species, Panthera zdanskyi, which is more likely to be the ancestor of tigers. However, his research only compared the holotype specimens of Panthera palaeosinensis and Panthera zdanskyi, and their differences may be due to age and gender. As more related fossil materials are studied, other paleontologists in China believe that they are actually the same, both Panthera palaeosinensis  *This image is copyright of its original author On multiple skull specimens of Panthera palaeosinensis, we can find skull features (Skull shape, nasal, ventricular margin of the mandibles, and cranial volume) that distinguish tigers from lions. Among them, the cranial volume is very significant. The holotype specimen of Panthera palaeosinensis is estimated to have a cranial volume of approximately 200-220 cubic centimeter based on Hemmer's morphology, which is larger than that of jaguars and comparable to modern African female lions and Asian lions. However, it should be noted that its maximum skull length is only 240mm, and its relative cranial volume is already comparable to that of modern continental tigers. Therefore, we can say that as early as the earliest primitive species, some characteristics of tigers already existed (2) morphology adapting to the environment
Here, I would like to give examples of snow leopards and jaguars. From the results of molecular biology research, they were almost simultaneously isolated from various branches of the Panthera genus (the latest Pliocene, about 2.7 million years ago).  *This image is copyright of its original author Their skull and tooth morphology are significantly different from other members of the Panthera genus, especially snow leopards.  *This image is copyright of its original author However, based on fossil evidence, their morphological features evolved in a very short period of time, and early fossil species of snow leopards and jaguars did not have very unique morphological features. In the Panthera gombaszogensis jinpuensis of the Middle Pleistocene, the thick and robust premolars of the Jaguar appeared noticeably, and the true morphology of the Jaguar may not have officially appeared until the Late Pleistocene. In a recent study on the fossil history of snow leopards(see <In a recent study on the fossil history of snow leopards, they newly described the Late Pleistocene snow leopard fossil species P u. lusitana ， This late Pleistocene snow leopard only showed obvious skull morphology adapted to the plateau> ), they newly described the Late Pleistocene snow leopard fossil species P.u. lusitana,This late Pleistocene snow leopard only showed obvious skull morphology adapted to the plateau. From the above two examples, we can see that the environment can cause significant morphological evolution in Panthera species in a very short period of time. Although tigers have a fossil history of millions of years, their distribution range has always been stable within Asia, or in other words, very stable habitats in southern Asia. The earliest tiger fossils were found in China and Java. Even after the end of the Pleistocene, tigers still thrived in Java and China, although unfortunately, the Javan tiger is now extinct. Although there have been changes in the animal populations, climate, and environment of China and Java over a long period of time, and tigers have indeed undergone changes in size and morphology, these effects are clearly not as significant as the extreme environment of the plateau and the different prey types in South America on snow leopards and jaguar So my final conclusion is that many of the characteristics of tigers themselves are inherited from ancestral species, which have been different from lions for millions of years. And tigers have a relatively stable habitat area, which allows them to avoid making significant morphological adaptations to extreme environments like snow leopards do |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |