WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
The Java Tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica)
The Java Tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica)
|
The Java Tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica)
|
Great stuff guys.
Not that this is scientific by any means, but Proske specifically mentions how his light eyed (sumatran and java) tigers are specifically more aggressive than any other cats he worked with. I wonder if lighter eyes has anything to do with being a island tigers.  (04-29-2014, 11:08 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Great stuff guys. The green eyes or blue eyes could be the recessive gene of the Pleistocene tigers, but the modern Mainland tiger can also have light eyes, although they are rare and mostly found among the Amur tiger and Indochinese tiger population.
Interesting. I would like to see if any studies have been done on eye color and lets say: human predation, personality towards tourists and jeeps i.e. charging etc... as well as aggression towards others. I wonder if a tiger like Shivaji has lighter eyes than a tiger like Ram (rajas bro) who is more shy and reserved.
(04-30-2014, 12:58 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Interesting. I would like to see if any studies have been done on eye color and lets say: human predation, personality towards tourists and jeeps i.e. charging etc... as well as aggression towards others. I wonder if a tiger like Shivaji has lighter eyes than a tiger like Ram (rajas bro) who is more shy and reserved. Except the blue eyed white tigers, i've also seen some regular Amurs with green eyes. But Amurs are generally considered to be more docile than Bengals, so the tigers with light eyes are not necessarily meant to be more aggressive.
Ya, I was also looking at some wild bengal pics and lots of them seem to have light eyes as well.
Size of the Balinese tiger and its Taxonomy, is V. Mazák completelly wrong???
Following the new wave of discoveries presented by Phatio on the Javanese tigers, I present new evidence, although from museum specimens. In these days I manage to found several new documents about the evolution of lions and tigers, and for that reason I stooped to write an article about the evolution of these animals, because I was interested in knowing more on this issue, at the light of new studies. Focusing on the tiger, there is a new document from Dr Yamaguchi and others, from 2013, named "Locating specimens of extinct tiger (Panthera tigris) subspecies: Javan tiger (P. t. sondaica), Balinese tiger (P. t. balica), and Caspian tiger (P. t. virgata), including previously unpublished specimens". I attached the document. In this paper, the team of Scientists found several new specimens from these subspecies in museums and they present a large list. The next steep in the so awaited DNA study of these animals, specifically those of the Sunda. This document present the idea that the plain statement of "no subspecies" from Dr Kitchener was probably wrong in the issue of the Caspian tiger, as the vast area probably presented some few differences in morphology. However, they backed the study of Dr Driscoll and his team, which suggested that the Amur and the Caspian tigers are the same and only subspecies-population. In this case, Yamaguchi and his team states that there is the need of another study with more specimens, and IF the result is corroborated, the entire Caspian and Amur tiger population should be renamed as Panthera tigris virgata. On the Sunda tigers, they also accepted now that the evidence suggest that the Sunda tigers could be a completely different subspecies or even another species of tiger and that the Balinese and the Javanese tigers were probably of the same taxonomic group, but they are cautions. Read the document, it is very well explained. Finally, the main event, check this out: "Only three photographs of the Balinese tiger appear to have been known previously. Perhaps the most famous and most widespread photograph is of the tiger shot in 1925 (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Another photograph of an animal shot by Zandveld in Bali is published by V. Mazák (1983). Also, there is a photograph of a tiger shot by Baron Oszkár Vojnich of Hungary at Gunung Gondol, northwestern Bali, in November 1911 (Buzas and Farkas 1997). Figure 5 is only the fourth known photograph of the Balinese tiger. It appears that more than 50 Balinese tigers were shot during the early 20th Century (Boomgaard 2001), suggesting that some unknown Balinese tiger specimens may still exist." Now, here is the NEW picture of the Balinese tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author If you ask me, this specimen is as large as a Sumatran tiger or the Pantanal jaguars. Kitchener (1999) pointed out that the database of the extinct tigers is so small that is impossible to get a good idea of the real morphology of those tigers. In this case, there are only 9 skulls published in literature, and only 7 of them are from adults (3 adult males and 4 adult females). With such a small sample, is practically impossible to get a comparative good image of the entire population. Mazák (1981) guessed that the Balinese tiger probably weighed between 75 to 100 kg (there is not a single weight published about the Balinese tigers), and he also estimated the total length as about the same than leopards of jaguars. However, it is possible that Mazák made a mistake, creating a wrong idea that Balinese tigers were very very small, while in fact, the sample is too small to get an accurate idea. Besides, Mazák did not know the Gondol tiger, which base in the published measurements and the skull, it was of the same size than the largest Jaguars in South America. Some tiger ago, I created a table with the calculated weights of all the Balinese tigers skulls available, using the formula of Christiansen & Harris (2009), here are the results:  *This image is copyright of its original author More information in this page (post 27): http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/7/Eve...IPoG8kXK7U The results corroborated the calculations of Mazák (1981) on the females, but did not match with the males, presenting higher figures. Now, we need to add this new picture, which shows a large specimen, probably also between 120-130 kg, but I may be wrong. It seem that the long accepted "fact" that the Javanese and Balinese tigers were very small is incorrect. 1. Pictures and calculations of weight show that Bali tigers were as large as those of Sumatra. 2. The largest skulls from Java are of the same size than the maximum found in South China (349 mm against 348 mm, respectively) and are prety close on average (only 7 mm less). 3. Data suggest that Java tigers were larger than those from Sumatra, especially by the fact that they had a larger prey base. Finally, the long quoted weight of 142 kg for the Java tigers, although is correct, it is only ONE weight, and we don't know if that figures is a "freak" specimen, or if its a "average sized" specimen or maybe a "small" male. We simply don't know. A deep investigation on the facts convinced me that the sizes presented by Mazák (1981) are more wrong every time that I found new studies, not only in the Bengal and Amur tigers, but now also in the Bali and Javan tigers. Your comments are appreciated here. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Here is the attached document of Dr Yamaguchi and his team. Read it entirely please, it is very interesting. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Edit: I will like to add that Tigerluver once told me that the formulas published by Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2009) can give somewhat low estimations. If this is true, the calculated weights for the Bali skulls could be slightly more. Personally, I think that the weights for the Javanese tigers were between 80 - 160 kg (smallest female and largest male) and those of the Balinese tigers were between 75 - 130 kg. This is my guess now.
Great finding Guate, and i can't believe that this is the offspring of the mighty Ngandong tiger.
From 900 pounds going down to less than 300 pounds, this is the magic of the evolutionary nature. 
Extremely short on time, but I'll try to give some thoughts. You're on to something, Guate.
On Javanese size, my opinion is that they were no smaller than the Sumatran form. Like you've stated, dimensions are as large if not greater. But there's one more significant aspect of the Javanese form I've found, they're the most robust bone-wise of species (mentioned the data here and there in the blog and our good old extinct felid discussion). So same dimensions plus greater robusticity equals greater body mass. I unfortunately have not been able to get my hands on data from the Bali form, so I can't tell you any info the bone robusticity. Takinga a quick glance at your chart, I noticed that a couple of mathematical corrections prove your point even better. Christiansen's isometric estimation of skull size underestimates small specimens while overestimating large specimens, and thus, it is highly likely that the specimens of those Bali skulls were heavier than what is shown on the chart. Furthermore, the Mazak database is so and so for weight estimation, as Amur's are proportionately the lightest. I will go off the assumption that Bali tigers were proportionately heavier as per the island tiger trend, thus again, the mass estimation as per the isometric equation and database is likely an underestimate. In sum, good catch. The lack of data may have given us a false sense of the Javan and Bali form's relative sizes. I conclude that the Javan form may have been larger than the Sumatran form. With not as much as confidence due to the lack of data, the Bali form may have approached the size of the Sumatran form and not been a miniature as currently thought. 
Grizzly Claws says: ~Great finding Guate, and i can't believe that this is the offspring of the mighty Ngandong tiger. From 900 pounds going down to less than 300 pounds, this is the magic of the evolutionary nature.
Similar to the Andes bear compared to his ancestors.
Just for comparison, here is the picture of Slamet, the Sumatran tiger that weighed 148.2 kg.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Make the comparison, the Balinese tiger seems just slightly smaller, if not barely equal, for me at least. What do you think?
I agree, both seem about three men long in body length.
I found that the Gondol tiger had a total length of 245 cm, with body length 174 cm. I don't have my equation file at hand, but from memory of what numbers I generated, that is a specimen around 130 kg- 150 kg. 
Thank you very much Guate. Honestly this is beyond my expectations, you know it's so hard to find photos of an animal that officialy declared extinct.
about the size of the Bali tiger issue, well i have no idea that they can grow almost as big as their sumatran cousins. But we don't know if that the normal size of the Bali tiger or just one of the freak. and due to the limited data (weight or skull measurements) and photos, we may never know the answer. to me, based from all the available photos, i still believe that on average they are the smallest tigers ever lived. Their smaller body size may have been caused by island dwarfing, you know... a condition when natural forces cause species to shrink in size over time in isolated locations, presumably because resources are severely limited. Remember that Bali is a small island with no large game available. @grizzlyclaw & tigerluver, speaking about the Ngandong Tiger, here is the image of a new tiger fossil found in 2011 from Sangiran, Central Java. Unfortunately no information about the exact measurements of this bone. they just said that this bone belongs to a large Tiger who lived around 1,8-0,9 mya.  *This image is copyright of its original author the good news is, every year during wet season, many fossil reveals themselves in there. so who knows, maybe something interesting waiting to be found. for example, recently they found fossils of dwarf elephant (stegodon) and giant ape. check this out: Fossils of rare, ancient animals found in Tegal, Cental Java Agus Maryono, The Jakarta Post, Purwokerto | Archipelago | Mon, December 01 2014, 5:31 PM  *This image is copyright of its original author Key discovery: A fossilized fragment of a gigantic ape’s lower jaw was unearthed at an archaeological research site in Semedo, Tegal regency, Central Java in 2013. (Courtesy of Unsoed Purwokerto) The Yogyakarta Archaeology Agency has said that it has found fossils of two rare, ancient animals in Semedo, an archaeology site in Semedo village in Kedungbanteng district, Tegal regency, Central Java. The unearthed fossils of the species -- dwarf elephant (stegodon) and giant ape -- are considered to be an extraordinary finding as the agency says those species have never been seen before. Agency head Siswanto said the two fossils were found separately. The dwarf elephant fossil was discovered in 2013 while the giant ape fossil was found this year. “These two findings are important because after we examined them further, we found that the dwarf elephant was an endemic fauna in Semedo. That’s why we named the species stegodon [pygmy] semedoensis,” Siswanto said. The archaeologist explained the findings in a general lecture at the University of Soedirman (Unsoed) in Purwokerto, Central Java, on Monday. Siswanto said the naming of the species was based on a number of scientific reasons. Based on morfometria mandibular analysis, for instance, the discovered dwarf elephant species belongs to stegodontidae, an extinct family of proboscideans. Its mandibular size was below normal. Siswanto further explained the dwarf elephant fossil was a representative finding because it had never been found in other archaeological sites. The species had also never received a scientific name before. Results of fossil examination showed that stegodon semedoensis was a stunted animal species as shown by the small size of its teeth and lower jaw. Siswanto said the agency was still analyzing two fossils of teeth still attached to the lower jaw of the species identified as an ancient giant ape. “It’s a phenomenal and sensational discovery because all this time, fossils of the species could be found only in China, India and areas in Vietnam that cross border with China,” said Siswanto. He said archaeologists had previously concluded that the habitat of the gigantophitecus species was only on China and South Asia. “The discovery of gigantopithecus in Semedo proves that the ancient giant ape species--around 3 meters tall (between 9 and 10 feet)-- also lived in Java,” said Siswanto. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/...tegal.html
Nice, the Gigantopithecus did coexist with the Ngandong tiger during the mid-late Pleistocene.
I wonder if the tiger did actually prey on the giant ape.
In fact, no, this news article only mention its existence (of Gigantophitecus), but not that it lived in the same time.
Check this page: http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/21/bo...IZthckXK7U We concluded that the giant apes get extinct before the arise of the Ngandong tiger, but at its time, there was allready the smaller Homo erectus soloensis, which was of the same size than modern humans. More details in the link that I post here. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |