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)
|
Here is some aged subfossils of tigers and leopard in China.
The tiger jawbone and canine teeth look exceptional robust, maybe it could also belong to the Manchurian tigers? Since they were the only tigers in China who can reach this kind of magnitude.  *This image is copyright of its original author
peter
Thank you for good information. It was a great information. We need more information like the morphology and size of the North China tiger, Central China tiger, South China tiger, Indochinese tiger, Malayan tiger, Sumatran tiger, Javan tiger, and Bali tiger. 1. Siberian tiger size My opinion is gene is probably 2nd factor. The loss of size of Siberian tiger is definitely has to do with the prey. The last Korean tiger captured alive in North Korea. She was only 99 kg when she came to the South Korea. She was not properly feed in North Korea since it is very poor country. She reached 160 kg when she taken cared properly in South Korea. The Korean tiger was not always smaller. Some males were around 330 to 360 cm long. It is also impossible to know the size of the Korean tiger from more than 200 years ago. Majority size records were from the 19 to 20th century. Government of the Joseon dynasty frequently offering the tiger hunt since mid 1400 because tiger caused so much human death through history. This may have been affect their size. And the most important one was that the prey depletion in Korea because of japanese. Since Korea and china educated japanese to survive thousands years ago, japan also believed traditional medicine on deer (like deer horn is using as medicine). japan over hunted and killed every livestock and wild animals in Korea. Even extremely adaptable animal like red fox couldn't survive in South Korea. They just killed everything and it was impossible for tiger to reach normal weight compared to other tigers in Asia. 330 cm long male Korean tiger and 3 meters long male Korean tiger were the same/smaller weight than large South China tiger like caught in Zhangjiajie. About gene. There is a documentary of searching 6 meters long crocodile. Herpetologist was talking about one reason was massive trophy hunting in 20th century may have been lost gene pool to grow huge crocodile today. This may have been the same for the Siberian tiger, if it is talking about the Manchurian tiger and tiger in Sikhote-Alin since their population in Russia was like 30-50 in 1960s. However, the Bengal tiger and Indochinese tiger was also highly hunted by british, french, amercan, and other westerner (mostly western euro) in 20th century. Their average weight (Bengal) is even bigger today, this may have been tiger is living in good area where other herbivores are also protected. There is not much information of the tiger size from Manchuria by hunter and zoologist in 20th century. Captive Siberian tiger growing big as other huge wild tigers. So my opinion is that number 1 reason is probably prey depletion in Russia. There may have been lost of giant gene from tiger lived in Manchuria. But they won't grow massive size (weight) if they are living in today's Russia. You have to eat and increase weight along with muscle. If you couldn't eat, then your weight will decreasing no matter how big you are. 2. About subspecies. I don't know all of those prehistoric subspecies like Washein tiger or P. tigris acutidens and Wanhsien tigers to make conclusion like residual population of the Wanhsien tigers. So far I know is that the tiger was endangered animals just like rhino, orangutan, and cheetah after the Toba eruption. Then they were widespread in entire Asia again from remaining population in China. I don't know how the Siberian tiger and Caspian tiger should distinguished as a single subspecies. Tiger is iconic animals in entire Asia due to their power and magnificent appearance. It is the number 1 animal frequently appearing in Asian culture where the tiger occurred (It is the same as the lion in Africa and the jaguar in Americas). Tiger is appearing in every culture and tradition in Korea. This is the same as in india and china. My friend from vietnam, indonesia, nepal, and thailand also told me tiger is the number 1 animal appearing in their culture. However, tiger is not really appearing in culture of Mongolia and other Central Asian countries. So far I know, there is no culture and traditional of dealing with tiger in Mongolia while they have many legends of animals like wolf and bear. I don't know how did the Siberian tiger and Caspian tiger actually lived together in these areas to view those 2 as the same subspecies. It is just a hypothesis with digging a few numbers of fossils or studying some numbers of bone. I think the Siberian tiger and Caspian tiger range maps were once connected just like other tigers in mainland Asia. But they were separated like a thousands years ago and separated/evolved to different subspecies. While a few individuals may have met each other in Central Asia. There is still debating on the closest family relative of the lion, jaguar, and leopard. Some studies says that DNA or genomic analysis shows the jaguar and lion are the closet family. While some studies says that the genomic/DNA studies shows the leopard and lion are the closest family. Thus, I don't see how to view them as those 2 tigers as the same subspecies. There is no absolute evidences of the Siberian tiger and Caspian tiger are the same subspecies. Or tiger subspecies has to be two. This will be change every time as someone is doing research on big cat genome. The Siberian tiger lived in outer place of Greater Khingan mountains was probably genetically very closer from the Caspian tiger lived in the Altai mountains, Tian shan mountains or other central Asia like Balkhash lake. However, how is it possible that the Siberian tiger in Sikhote-Alin and Korea was the same subspecies as the Capsian tiger in Caucasian mountains and area near the Caspian sea? This is even further distance than India/Malaysia from Manchuria. If Malayan tiger and Indochinese tiger are the 2 different subspecies, then there is no way that the Siberian tiger and Caspian tiger was the same subspecies. Again, this is what biologists are still debating on today that how to distinguish the subspecies. That is why IUCN cat specialist people declared nonsense like tiger subspecies has to be 2: Sunda tiger and Asian tiger. It is okay with me (even though I personally don't trust IUCN cat specialist people since majority of paper written by them were mainly from tiger murder countries in 1800 to 1900), but a problem is zoo. Zoo probably mixed breed all of different captive tiger subspecies in future. Because I spoke with one zookeeper dealing with the Asiatic elephant. A group of Asiatic elephants were from Indochina, but one member was Sri Lanka elephant. They are not the same subspecies, but her answer was they are the same subspecies far s they know. A problem is Sri Lanka elephant was evolved to different subspecies in island for a long time. It makes more sense to cross breed with Indian elephant, rather than the elephant from Thailand. And future of captive breeding tiger? I don't think their future would be okay to preserve pure tiger subspecies. Just I wrote about Minnesota zoo lied and sent hybrid tiger to the Korean zoo and ruined all of the captive Siberian tiger in entire Northeast Asian zoo. Was it because of no DNA test in 1980? I read a lot in Korean website where people speak about tiger. Many of them are still wondering why did these criminals in Minnesota lied about hybrid tigers are pure Siberian tiger. Some extreme people think there should be a punishment like Minnesota zoo should never involve in a tiger conservation in Asia unless they are going to pay a billion dollars to fix their mistake (I am totally fine with this since I am planning to conserve the Siberian tiger and Amur leopard). I spoke with one person working in Panther walking on cheetah, she was absolutely denying of introducing the African cheetah in Iran where the critically endangered Asiatic cheetah habitat since these 2 evolved to different subspecies in variety habitat for a long time. She was also not agreeing to view the same subspecies of the tiger in Asia. I feel like more biodiversity will be destroyed in future since every animals were evolved in a different habitat for a long time. The most concern that I have is I hope anyone involving in Amur leopard reintroduction or captive breeding program. I hope these people do their job seriously to not release hybrid leopard in wild to ruin pure breed Amur leopard. And they should do their job seriously to conserve pure Amur leopard, instead of keep mixing hybrid leopard. And is it the bengal tiger in dudhwa national park is really not pure breed bengal tiger? I read the twycross zoo also lied and sent hybrid tiger to reintroduce in wild in 1976 just like the Minnesota zoo. I hope it was a pure breed Bengal tiger.
Rishi
It is post 512 I read tigers dominated the crocodile from record. I don't know where did this person got this information. He should have mentioned where did he read it. Yes, I think tiger kills the saltwater crocodile on the land, and it go the other way around if it is in water. I read many crocodile fan is always saying that the tiger couldn't take down the saltwater crocodile. Crocodile usually hunts animal when animal is drinking water. Or when animal is completely vulnerable since they are swimming in water. One serious problem for croc is that they are poikilotherm. They are completely vulnerable when they are lying in sun to regulate its temperature (metabolism and energy). There is one tiger in Sumatra is maintaining his or her territory with 3 legs (lost it by trap) and I remember I read one tiger in India lost one foot, but he or she saved its territory for a 3 years. I think some people are underestimate the tiger. Especially ignorant people like lion fan who doesn't know about big cat and they just think lion is the king of the beast.  (01-14-2018, 12:47 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I was also suspecting that the diversity within Amur tiger population could be the result of the admixture with other paleo tiger population. 1 - THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER In the last three decades or so, I read everything I could about tiger evolution. Summaries were made to limit the amount of information. Every now and then, I found a book about Amur tigers or articles written by those who Amur tigers hunted in the first decades of the last century. Later, I read what was availble about skulls. You know I also photographed and measured quite a few big cat skulls. In between, I talked to biologists, hunters and trainers. In the facilities I visited, I watched big cats for a long time. Every now and then, I measured and weighed a few. I'm not saying that the attempt to get to a bit of insight was a complete failure, but it took a lot of time to understand that you need more than your brain to get to a bit of understanding. People who moved to wild regions often say they learned to develop their senses. All of them and then some more. They also said a new dimension seemed to open up after they had adjusted. Meaby something similar is happening when you focus for many years on something you're really interested in. What I'm saying is there are different ways to learn and different ways to consume and digest information. Not everything you learn can be captured in words. In the end, after a long time, a picture emerges. I don't think it's related to information collected by others. It's also not a result of a particular incident. It seems to be a product of digesting everything you saw, read, heard and felt. It's personal. For those involved, it's a kind of insight based on what he or she considers as essential. Others no doubt would describe is as a product of fixation or imagination. Both are true to a degree. It depends on the eye of the beholder, that is. 2 - SUNDA TIGERS There is a fundamental difference between tigers from what's now Indonesia and tigers from other regions in Asia. Indonesian tigers, and those from Sumatra in particular, seem older and more 'wild at heart'. This regarding tigers today (not Manchurian tigers). They evolved in a part of Asia where humans, back then, were few and far between. Over the years, they adapted to ever changing conditions. When they had nowhere left to go, a kind of war between tigers and humans developed. On Java, tigers, after it had been invaded by the Dutch, faced similar conditions as Amoy tigers in southeastern China a century later in that they often had no other option but to hunt domestic animals and humans. The reports I read suggest they, like lions or wolves, might have hunted in small packs in the end. The last Javan tigers inhabited remote, densely forested and elevated parts of Java. Although some think Java still has tigers, it's very unlikely. But they still very much exist in the minds of many people and you never know. Meaby Phatio will find evidence one day. Bali had less people and there was a clear separation between humans and tigers. There was no real need to hunt them. The problem is that Bali was, and is, a very nice place to visit. In the first decades of the last century, hunters saw Bali as a kind of paradise. The island is limited in size and if you had some time to spare, you had a decent chance to get a shot at a tiger that was considered as something special back then. Bali tigers disappeared in the fifties of the last century. Sumatra tigers had more room than Javan and Bali tigers. Sumatra is a very large island, still largely covered with forest. It had, and still has, a lot of wildlife and few people. For a very long time, tigers, apart from a few regions, were not hunted. After the Dutch started operations, the situation changed. Tigers didn't take it lying down, as it was a fight about territory. During the second half of the 19th century, Sumatra could have been the most dangerous place to live. India also had a reputation back then, but compared to Sumatra, it wasn't that bad. Today, Sumatra has 300 - 800 tigers. Although they, regarding humans, behave in a different way, tigers and humans still perish during conflicts. Confirmed man-eaters, however, seem to be a thing of the past. 3 - TIGERS OF NORTHERN ASIA Apart from a few exceptions, the region between the Caspian Sea and the Russian Far East (RFE) always was thinly populated. If there was a region where tigers had the opportunity to hang on for a very long time, it would have been there. Although parts of this region are suited for tigers, the conditions never quite compared to India, southeast Asia, Sumatra, Central China or Manchuria. My guess is that the number of tigers between, say, Lake Aral and Lake Baikal (north of the Gobi) always was very limited. For this reason, it's likely they traveled a lot. As most of them had plenty of room to stay out of sight, quite many settled, and bred, in suitable parts in central and eastern parts of Siberia. Although research says that Caspian tigers moved east, it's also likely that tigers in northern China and southeastern Russia would have moved west every now and then. When fire-arms were introduced, the region between the Caspian and Lake Baikal lost its tigers. By then, however, P. tigris altaica and P. tigris virgata were just about one and the same. The region between Lake Baikal, Beijing (in the south) and what is now South-Korea (including the islands) in the southeast always had tigers in the Holocene. Although large individuals have been shot in all parts, heavyweights were mostly seen in hotspots. One of these could have been the alleged former Imperial Hunting Reserve, just southwest of Sichote-Alin and west of what is now North-Korea. Manchuria, north of the former Imperial Hunting Reserve, could have been another. 4 - AMUR AND MANCHURIAN TIGERS Although tigers from different parts of northeastern Asia no doubt interbred, there could have been two quite distinct types. Typical Amur tigers are long, tall and quite large-skulled, but not as robust as one would expect. As a result of a population bottleneck, variation in size today is not as outspoken as in most other subspecies. My guess is it never was because of the demanding conditions. Manchurian tigers, also large, seemed (as extinct) to be a bit more robust and, regarding humans, more aggressive. My guess is they showed more variation because of both better conditions and more influx (northern China). We can only guess about the size of the average Manchurian and Amur tiger, as only few reported about the tigers they shot. When they, only the largest featured. In the first decades of the last century, George Jankowski considered a 550-pound tiger as large. His sons later shot a male possibly exceeding 650 pounds near the Sungari River (Manchuria). Tigers of similar size were shot by others as well. Based on what I read, it's likely that some individuals shot in the 20th century well exceeded even 700 pounds. These giants, however, were not accepted by authorities. In a report on the size of Amur tigers published not so long ago, the 560-pound male shot by Baikov in 1911 near the Russian-Korean border still tops the list. Remarkable, as Baikov's reports about two other, much heavier, males were dismissed. 5 - PLEISTOCENE TIGERS As to P. tigris acutidens. Although bones of this Pleistocene tiger have been found near the land bridge between Asia and America, he wasn't able to cross it. There's, however, no question that he reached the northeastern tip of Asia. Although not suited to deal with large empty regions, P. tigris acutidens must have been accustomed to exceptional conditions. Same for P. tigris altaica. They too have to deal with long and severe winters and they too are able to survive and breed, whereas timber wolves struggle with energy deficits. Could P. tigris acutidens have managed to hold on until the Holocene? And if so, could he have mixed with Caspian tigers moving east in the Middle Pleistocene (assumption) or the Holocene (fact). Based on what I read about cave lions in western Europe, the answer is affirmative. The missing link between P. tigris virgata and P. tigris altaica could be P. tigris acutidens. My guess is that P. tigris acutidens and P. tigris virgata bred. Amur tigers and Sumatran tigers breed in captivity, so size is not decisive. The result, a smaller but more active animal, would have thrived in northeastern Asia. He still does. Could the robust Manchurian tiger have survived in northeastern Asia? Not likely. Wolves, much more active, don't make it and robust specialists unable to walk many miles a day every day all year long every year would struggle as well. In the RFE in winter, short rushes are not enough to succeed. Arctic long-distance walking can't be avoided. Brown bears, also large, can survive because they are omnivores including protein (fish) when possible. But brown bears in northeastern Siberia, except for a few freaks, are not much larger (heavier) than P. tigris altaica. The Ussuri brown bear, Ursus arctos lasiotus, is a larger animal, because the conditions in the RFE are better than in northeastern Siberia. They're also larger than Amur tigers, but the difference in size apparently is not large to displace male tigers. Males of both species, and tigers in particular, hunt females and immature animals, but they seem to avoid each other. A delicate balance. 6 - CAPTIVE AMUR TIGERS THEN AND NOW During the days of the Sovjet-Union, Amur tigers were exported to eastern Europe in particular. Later, they also were seen in other countries. China no doubt has a few Manchurian tigers. In those days, just like in the wild, some were long, tall and large but not very robust, whereas others were both very large and exceptionally massive. Biologists no doubt would consider it as a result of individual variation. Maybe it is, but it's also possible that there really were two (or three) different types. Hunters distinguished between Amur and Korean tigers. I also know they distinguished between Amur and Manchurian tigers. Most captive Amur tigers, although a bit larger and heavier, are very similar to their wild relatives, but some individuals seem very different from others. I saw a few of them. What struck me most was the difference in attitude. Most Amur tigers are quiet and stable animals, but the giants were very different. Keepers knew and kept their distance. They too distinguished between Amur and Manchurian tigers. The ones I talked to told me that they considered them as prehistoric monsters. As a result of their size and attitude, accidents were few. The Amur tigers exploding in my presence a few times were true Amur tigers. Keepers who saw Manchurian tigers explode told me that they often called it a day after some time. They felt watched all the time and often feared for their life. Clever animals, they were. Most Manchurian male tigers never bred, because they were considered as too volatile and too dangerous. Not a few of them killed their partner right away, especially in Chinese facilities. I still see exceptional males well exceeding 600 pounds every now and then, but they're definitely different from the animals I saw a long time ago. 7 - A FEW SCANS a - Marco Polo. He wrote that the 'striped lions' (tigers) in northern China were larger than those of Babylon (he was referring to Panthera leo persica). These 'striped lions' were used to hunt all kinds of game, including bears. He was amazed at the ferocity he saw. Based on the map below, it's safe to state that Marco Polo wasn't referring to Amur tigers but to tigers in northern China (P. tigris amoyensis):  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Map of northern China (from the early seventies of the last century) for reference:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - The alleged former Imperial Hunting Reserve situated at the border between Manchuria, Sichote-Alin and North-Korea (from 'The Tiger's Claw'):  *This image is copyright of its original author d - Pocock (1929) about the difference between Korean and Manchurian tigers:  *This image is copyright of its original author e - Heptner and Sludskij (1980) about the difference between Korean and Amur tigers (in German):  *This image is copyright of its original author f - Korean tiger (Kishi Gankuti):  *This image is copyright of its original author g - A typical Amur tiger: long, long-legged, large-skulled and moderately robust:  *This image is copyright of its original author h - Largest tiger shot by the sons of G. Jankovski and a Korean professional hunter in July 1943 near the Sungari River (Manchuria):  *This image is copyright of its original author i - Tiger distribution in Russia 1890-1910 and in the Middle Ages in western and southwestern Russia (Heptner and Sludskij, 1980):  *This image is copyright of its original author j - Why Amur tigers need to combine size and strength with athleticism. - Long winters, deep snow and severe cold:  *This image is copyright of its original author - Agile and powerful prey animals:  *This image is copyright of its original author - Large scavengers:  *This image is copyright of its original author - Hunters:  *This image is copyright of its original author - Hills, snow and few large prey animals:  *This image is copyright of its original author
peter
One problem is that not every places in the Manchuria has a plain. Southern Manchuria (especially the boarder of the Korean peninsula) has many mountain and center of the Manchuria looks like a plain which is suitable for giant tiger like in Assam. I think many records of the Siberian tigers from Manchuria by old hunters and naturalists like Yankovsky and Baikov were from the southern Manchuria and Russian Far East. I don't know many size record books of the Siberian tiger in Manchuria besides Yankovsky, Baikov, Korean hunters, and Mazak. Just read a paper written by Mazak, and he wrote the 306.5 kg Siberian tiger is the heaviest Siberian tiger. He also wrote the giant Siberian tiger in Manchuria caught by Yankovsky and Korean hunter was no less than 300 kg, but looks like Mazak didn't gave him as the heaviest Siberian tiger. Old Korean hunters also mentioned the Manchurian tigers were definitely larger than the Korean tigers, but the Korean tigers were known as exceedingly ferocious and more dangerous. And about a few Siberian tiger from Manchuria descent in Eastern European zoos. Are they pure Siberian tiger? I hope they are not hybrid tiger subspecies. I don't know the ancestor of the Siberian tigers in Harbin. It may have been the central part of the Manchuria (Heilongjiang) was the best place for the Siberian tiger. And what are the sizes of the two Siberian tigers bigger than 1911 male tiger in 1911 near the Russian-Korean border from Baikov's reports? Is it that the Great Van tiger who was 390 cm long? I think this tiger named Great Van was probably oversized. And who were the other people hunted the Siberian tigers who were the same size as the Korean hunter/Yankovsky's tiger in Sungari river in Manchruia, and their tiger size?
Were these males Manchurian tigers?
Stocky built frame with bad temper, since they were physically distinguishable from the Amur tigers.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
NAMIBIAN LIONS COMPARED TO INDIAN AND NEPAL TIGERS - INTRODUCTION
The post below is a copy from post 23 in the thread 'Modern weights and measurements of wild lions', also featuring in the Premier League. That post was a response to a post with recent information on the size of lions in the northern part of Namibia posted by 'The Lioness'. In order to respond, I first decided for a new (original) table on Namibian lions. As the aim was to compare them with tigers measured in the same way ('over curves'), I added two tables with information on Nepal and Indian tigers and tigresses shot a century ago. I had to do it this way, as there is no table with weights and measurements of wild Indian and Nepal tigers today. This means that recent info on lions is compared to old info on tigers. A pity, but it is the only option for now. Post 23 of the thread 'Modern weights and measurements of lions' has 6 paragraphs. In the fifth, the effect of food on size is discussed. After reading it, I decided to post a copy in this thread. As I, computerwise, still operate in the amateur department, it took an effort. With a lot of help from Rishi and Sanjay who told me how it's done real slow (many thanks) and a neighbour, I succeeded in the end. Better read the first table in the post below well, as it has two very exceptional animals: one young adult male with a total length of 11 feet 'over curves' (...) and an even more remakable lioness of 317 cm. (10.5) 'over curves'. Hope you enjoy the post. LIONESS Interesting site and info. Many thanks. I knew Kalahari and Etosha lions were large, but I was surprised at the Namibian averages. This post has a few tables with measurements of wild lions and wild tigers. They can be compared, as both (lions and tigers) were measured in the same way ('over curves'). I'll start with Namibian lions. A - LENGTH, BODY DIMENSIONS, UPPER CANINE LENGTH AND WEIGHT OF 6 MALE AND 5 FEMALE LIONS IN NORTHERN NAMIBIA  *This image is copyright of its original author B - EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS Two individuals deserve special attention. The first is ♂ 10, known as 'Leo'. This young adult has a shoulder height of 145 cm. (...), a head and body length of 247 cm. (...) and a total length of 335 cm. (11 feet exactly). Exceptional, as he still has a bit of growing to do. Lioness 'Spots' is even more exceptional, as she is 317 cm. in total length. I never heard of a female cat exceeding 10 feet in total length measured 'over curves'. The average of the Namibian females (just over 9 feet in total length measured 'over curves') is even more impressive than that of the males. A pity only 5 females were measured. C - ON THE METHOD USED TO MEASURE A BIG CAT A big cat, just like a human, should be measured 'between pegs' (in a straight line). For some reason, this method seems to be out of date. Most biologists now measure wild big cats 'over curves'. This method can be applied in different ways, resulting in confusion. For this reason, it was severely discussed in the thread 'On The Edge Of Extinction - A - The Tiger' about a year ago. Poster 'WaveRiders' in particular had severe doubts about the way this method was applied in Nepal a century ago. The tables I posted had a number of male tigers ranging between 10.6 - 10.9 in total length 'over curves'. One wonders about his opinion on the 11 feet Namibian lion. Anyhow. D - ETOSHA LIONS COMPARED TO COOCH BEHAR AND NEPAL TIGERS The 6 Namibian males averaged 297,4 cm. in total length 'over curves', or just over 9.9. One inch longer than the famous Cooch Behar tigers shot in northeastern India more than a century ago (males measured in the same way), that is. In chest girth, the Namibians also slightly exceeded the Cooch Behar tigers. Same for weight (484 vs. 461 pounds). As to the effect of sample size. The 3 male lions in the table averaged 219 kg. (484 pounds). They were 23 pounds heavier than the Cooch Behar tigers, that is. Apart from these 3 weights, I found 6 more. As some had been weighed more than once, I used the average of all attemps. These 6 males (203, 208, 180, 210, 185,71 and 177,33 kg.) averaged exactly 194 kg. If we add the 3 males in the table, the average for all (9 males) is 202,34 kg. (just over 446 pounds), as opposed to 461 for the Cooch Behar male tigers. I don't know if all Namibians were baited, but chances are that quite many were. There is a conflict between ranchers and lions in northern Namibia. It was one of the reasons the project was started. Of the 53 Cooch Behar tigers weighed, 7 were loaded with beef. All in all, I'd say that the Cooch Behar sample is more reliable in this respect. It's more difficult to compare the 6 Namibians to the 66 Nepal tigers shot before World War Two. The reason is that the Nepal tigers, apart from one exceptional male of 10.9 and 705 pounds, were not weighed. All I can say is that the Nepal males were a few inches longer. Here's a table with measurements and weights of 131 male Indian tigers and 66 male Nepal tigers shot in the period 1869-1939 for comparison:  *This image is copyright of its original author E - PERSPECTIVE e1 - Males Based on what I have, I'd say that the Namibians top the list for length (in lions). I also think they're taller than anywhere else. I'm not that sure about weight, as we need to know a bit more about the Crater. If Packer says Crater lions are big, they're big. The problem we don't know how big. As to exceptional individuals in lions. It's well-known that very large individuals can be found nearly anywhere. The longest skull I measured (408,00 mm. in greatest total length) was from a lion captured in what's now Ethiopia. I have one record of a male lion of 10.2 in total length measured 'between pegs'. The second longest is 9.10. The longest measured in Namibia is 11 feet in total length measured 'over curves' (...). If we deduct 6-7 inches, he would be 10.5-10.6 in total length 'between pegs'. This means he compares to the giant tiger shot by Hasinger in northern India in the late sixties of the last century. This tiger was 11.1 in total length 'over curves' and 10.7 'between pegs'. The giant male in South Africa Stephenson Hamilton was after ('Tshokwane') a century ago could have compared, but that's just speculation. Looking at the averages, the conclusion for now is that Nepal male tigers top the list for total length 'over curves'. I think they also top the list for weight. Northern India (including Bhutan) could be second. In the table above, 33 males shot in northern India averaged 298,18 cm. in total length. In weight (444,46 pounds), they compared to the Namibian lions (446 pounds), but my take is the Indians were heavier. The reason is that many large males were not weighed (see the liner notes in the table above). Cooch Behar male tigers more or less compare to Namibian male lions, but the Cooch Behar sample is more reliable. For now, I'd say that the Namibians are fourth, just ahead of the Amur tigers, but we have to add that the Amur sample, which included 3-year old males and a few 'problem tigers', is a bit feable as well. Based on the averages we have, I'd say that wild male tigers of large subspecies seem a bit longer than the longest lions (2-4 inches). In the department of exceptional individuals, however, the difference seems to be very limited. The main difference is that male tigers reach, say, ten feet 'over curves' more often than male lions. Remarkable, considering the total number of tigers and lions. In weight, the difference seems to be more outspoken. If we ignore the exceptional Amur tigers well exceeding 700 pounds shot in the 19th century (not accepted by authorities), the 10.9 and 705-pound Nepal tiger tops the list for now. The heaviest wild male lion is the Kenian lion shot and weighed by De Kock. This exceptional male was about 600 pounds and also had a very large and robust skull. e2 - Females The average of the 5 Namibian females is exceptional in all departments. Here's a table with averages of Indian and Nepal tigresses for comparison:  *This image is copyright of its original author Not Nepal or Indian tigresses, but wild Amur tigresses, at 274 cm. in total length measured 'over curves', top the table for tigresses. The Namibian lionesses, at 274,6 cm., are a trifle longer than Amur tigresses. The weight table is topped by Cooch Behar tigresses (310 pounds). Although shorter, they were, and still are, more robust than tigresses from other regions. Compared to the 5 Namibian lionesses (320 pounds), however, they lack 10 pounds. We can compare both tables to a degree, but there are two problems. One is sample size. One can't compare the average of a small sample with the average of a large sample. The reason is the considerable amount of individual variation in big cats. A large sample, even in a region known for large individuals, has large and small animals. The effects of small or large individuals will disappear if the sample is large enough. If the sample is small and has a giant or a dwarf, these exceptions will have a considerable effect on the average. Have another look at the lion table above. Male no. 5, an adult, is much smaller than the others. Without him, the average length of the 5 others is not 297,4 cm., but 307,7 cm., a difference of 4 inches. Another problem is that (most of) the Cooch Behar tigresses (we returned to females) hunted wild animals, whereas the Namibian lionesses, forced by conditions, thrive on cattle. Although some think that the effect of this way of life is limited, it most certainly isn't. Bears and big cats living on lots of protein all year every year not only are much heavier than their relatives going for berries (bears) or small prey animals (tigers), but also larger and I mean larger. Quality isn't the only factor affecting size. The amount of food also has an effect. Humans today eat a lot of crap, but they eat lots of it. The days of starvation are all but over, that is. The result is that humans are bigger, and larger, than a century ago. Same for other mammals, like big cats. Africa and India have long been a paradise for animals. Tigers of large subspecies were and are a bit longer and heavier than lions also living in food hotspots. The reason is that tigers don't have to share. If you live in a food hotspot and don't have to share, chances are the averages will be a bit more impressive in the long run. Today, most Indian tigers live in small, but well-stocked, reserves. As a result, they thrive. If we add competition, chances are only the fittest will survive. There are no good samples, but I'm quite sure that Indian tigers today are a bit bigger, and larger, than a century ago. In some regions, the average of territorial adult males most probably is very close to, or even over, 500 pounds. For indirect proof regarding the effect of food, we need to visit Russia and Manchuria. A century and a half ago, this region was thinly populated, densely forested and well-stocked. The result was large tigers. In the 20th century, hunters discovered this new paradise. It didn't take them very long to finish it. After World War Two, there were 50 tigers left, meaby even less. As a result of protection, they made it to today, but the effect of habitat destruction, overshooting and a population bottleneck still is well visible. The Russian Far East no longer has many large herbivores. Tigers, for this reason, need enormous territories to make ends meet. The conditions are so difficult, that timber wolves, often faced with energy deficits, decided to call it a day. A century ago, very large packs were not uncommon in the Russian Far East. One of the reasons that hunters in the Russian Far East are willing to tolerate tigers today is that tigers limit the number of wolves. The days of very large tigers in the Russian Far East, however, are over. Not a result of genes (captive Amur tigers still are the largest big cats), but of conditions. Captive Amur tigers can get to their potential, whereas their wild relatives can not. Same for bears and big cats living in conditions were protein is no problem and hunters are not allowed. Lions living in northern Namibia thrive on cattle. The result is quite many large animals and impressive averages. Most of the animals weighed were baited, but they were big, and large, before they were baited for the reason stated. Sexual dimorphism in lions seems to be less outspoken than in tigers. The table above shows quite a bit of overlap between males and females. Lioness 'Muna' had the longest head (54 cm.) by a margin. In skull circumference (88 cm.), she also topped the average for males (83 cm.). Lioness 'Spots', at 317 cm. in total length, is the the longest female cat I know of. The average chest girth of the 5 lionesses would have been over 125 cm. if the immature lioness (no. 8) would have been removed from the table. This means that they would have averaged well over 150 kg. (351 pounds). The main differences between males and females were neck length (20,24%) and leg length (15%). In total length, the difference was well below 10%. F - TO CONCLUDE It could be that some have a few doubts on the averages of the Namibians. I know the sample is small. I also know that most thrive on cattle. Their neighbours, however, also are large. Etosha lions are known for their size. Same for the Kalahari lions. One Kalahari male, although loaded, was 260 kg. What is large? Large is long, tall and robust (over 400 pounds). Compared to a human, a 203 kg. (448 pounds) male lion is a giant:  *This image is copyright of its original author
May be Siberian tiger fur, trunk length of 270cm.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
BETTY
Enormous skin. Where did you find it? Can you add a bit more? Same for the other large skin tiger you posted some time ago. Thanks.
PANTHERA TIGRIS AMOYENSIS - M
1 - Introduction Last spring (May 2017), I finished a series on the Chinese tiger. The last post (1,186) was 'PANTHERA TIGRIS AMOYENSIS - L', meaning the continuation has to be 'PANTHERA TIGRIS AMOYENSIS - M'. And a continuation it is, as I found quite a bit more. I'll start with the source of a scan posted in the last post in May. That scan had information about the size of tigers shot in the southeastern part of China in the last decades of the 19th century. 2 - The Encyclopaedia of Sport & Games (edited by the Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire), Volume IV, London, 1911 When I posted the scan mentioned in the first paragraph (see above), I added it was posted a long time ago by a member of AVA. I printed the scan and asked him about the source. Most unfortunately, he left the forum just before I did. Some weeks ago, poster Greatearth said he had seen the scan before. He added he would send me a link to the book (many thanks, Greatearth). The book, as I suspected, was published a long time ago. It has different volumes. Most fortunately, all were digitalized. I first read Volume II, edited by the Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire Hedley Peek and F.G. Aflalo and published in 1898. The paragraph about the tiger was written by J.D. Inverarity. As the pages I printed were a bit below par, I decided for Volume IV which was published in 1911. The paragraph about the tiger in that volume is identical to the paragraph in Volume II which was published in 1898, but has more photographs. The scans below are from Volume IV printed in 1911. I didn't post the complete paragraph, but the part about the Chinese tiger only (pp. 283-284). The photograph on page 283, by the way, is not from China, but India. Most of you have seen it before, I think. The information about the size of Amoy tigers is interesting. Remember that Amoy tigers were measured 'between pegs' and not, as in most of India, 'over curves'. According to a Mr. R.P. Bruce, who had first-hand information, the longest he saw was 9.2 in total length. It must have been a very long-bodied tiger, as it only had a stump for a tail. R.P. Bruce also explained why man-eaters were common in that part of China in the last decades of the 19th century: tigers were numerous, but there was no game. For this reason, they hunted near villages. Interesting read:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(01-19-2018, 02:01 PM)peter Wrote: NAMIBIAN LIONS COMPARED TO INDIAN AND NEPAL TIGERS - INTRODUCTION In my opinion, this is related to the shooting angle. when shooting lions closer to the lens, the lens will be larger than the actual size. For some typical examples, a lioness is closer to the camera and looks larger than it actually is.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Graphic Content, viewer discretion advised.
Heart-wrenching pictures indeed, but they're real... & the world needs to see. Unknown source & origin. Chinese black-market... Maybe Malayan tiger fur, trunk length of 270cm.  *This image is copyright of its original author They even have white tiger skin. Length of 280cm.  *This image is copyright of its original author Trunk length of 300—310cm.  *This image is copyright of its original author IndoChinese. Trunk length 280cm.  *This image is copyright of its original author More.  *This image is copyright of its original author Probably Siberian, trunk length of 310cm.  *This image is copyright of its original author From the level of "craftsmanship" it's clearly evident how big & active this cartel is!  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Massive Bengal tiger, maybe poached.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Looks like a Sumatran. Trunk length of 300cm.  *This image is copyright of its original author Fresh stripped, without stretching... Openly displayed & sold.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (01-25-2018, 11:25 AM)Betty Wrote:(01-24-2018, 06:50 PM)peter Wrote: Where did you find it? Can you add a bit more? Same for the other large skin tiger you posted some time ago. Thanks. Collectors & merchants! Aren't possession of those illegal yet?  Plus, there are white tigers. I'm positively sure that most of these have been sourced from tiger farms. #1,452 & #1,462 are Sumatran. That means there's is high chance either or both were poached animals! How is this even allowed to be displayed like that (doesn't look like a bust)? Is China even considering taking steps against those, it about time! Also could you stop now? I don't care how long they are. It's turning a bit sadistic. This is not Carnivora... (01-25-2018, 01:02 PM)Rishi Wrote:(01-25-2018, 11:25 AM)Betty Wrote:(01-24-2018, 06:50 PM)peter Wrote: Where did you find it? Can you add a bit more? Same for the other large skin tiger you posted some time ago. Thanks. Chinese law has banned the sale of tigers, but there are still people trading in the black market. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |