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)
|
 (12-09-2014, 09:02 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: In fact, no, this news article only mention its existence (of Gigantophitecus), but not that it lived in the same time. Wasn't the Gigantopithecus from China got extinct around 100kya? So the Gigantopithecus from Southeast was gone way before that? 
I've read that Giganotopithecus went extinct around 300 ka. The latest Ngandong faunal dating is 143 ka-546 ka, so we'll just go with the average, 345 ka, for the Ngandong tiger's age. Chronologically, the two species were together unless I've missed something, albeit we've no fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus in Java.
Here's the latest Ngandong dating study I know of: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado...ne.0021562 
Well, in that case, the new estimations of time from all old studies should be changed.
That is the problem with the old reports, as the previous estimations put the Ngandong tiger to about 100,000 years ago, now seems to be older. If that is the case, is posible that the Ngandong tiger shared habitat with this large apes. My question is, where fit the Meganthropus here? That giant hominid was not the Gigantopitecus, but a large specimen of Homo erectus that lived in the area. 
I would imagine that a giant tiger would wreak havoc on Gigantopitecus, unless they became strong climbers like their smaller relatives.
(12-09-2014, 10:49 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: I would imagine that a giant tiger would wreak havoc on Gigantopitecus, unless they became strong climbers like their smaller relatives.It would be like the Sumatran tiger and the orangutan scenario, just that in BIG!!! Sadly, as far I know, there are no long bones from the Gigantopitecus, so we don't know if those apes were capable of climbing trees.
Did the sumatran contribute to orangutans becoming stricly tree dwellers for the most part?
I'm not familar with the scenerio.
There is no direct evidence that Sumatran tigers forced the orangutans to live in the trees, after all, Borneo orangutans are also arboreal and that island don't have tigers (not in modern times, at least).
However, we most see the hole context of the case, in time and space. Orangutans evolved in the mainland of Asia, were tigers thrived, and latter traveled to the Islands, together with the large cat. It is also interesting that all great apes are basically arboreal, but only Orangutans pass most of they life in trees and rarely go down. In Africa, the only great cat capable to kill great apes in the jungle is the leopard, but even they most be beware of the large males of the species, specially in the case of the gorilla. This, and the absence of the lion in the forested areas of Central Africa, are possible answer to why the African large apes are more land living in comparison with the orangutan, which lived with a great cat (tiger) that specifically live in the woods. Other important point is that Borneo orangutans are recorded to travel more in the floor of the jungle, while those of Sumatra barely do this, living mostly in the trees. This could suggest that tigers (living or absent) do have some influence in the Orangutan behavior. Obviously, these are just assumptions, but based in the available facts. A deeper investigation of the orangutan behavior could shed more light in the issue. (12-08-2014, 06:02 PM)'phatio' Wrote: 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.The problem with the Bali tiger is a little more deep. I have not read (yet) a study about the possible prey animals available for tigers in they days. We only know about Sumatra and Java, and in this comparison Java wins and by a lot. That is why contrary to popular perception, Javanese tigers were (or are) larger than those from Sumatra. Hopefully, new scientists like Kitchener and Yamaguchi are trying to change the "old" views perpetuated by V. Mazák. On the size issue, its is true that we probably will never know the truth of its size, only 9 skulls are available and only 7 are adults, and the size of skins is not reliable. However, from the 4 pictures available, we know at least two large specimens and one small but very robust male. This suggest that Balinese tigers were not so small as leopards, and probably more close to the size and weight of the Brazilian-Venezuelan jaguars, which are know to weight up to 130 kg empty belly and measure 170 cm in head-body (maximum skulls of about 310 mm). Finally, I think that the smallest tiger population is probably between the Balinese tiger and the Sundarbans tiger, both of them reached the same weights (75 - 130 kg, smallest female and largest male), although early specimens in the last of these places were larger in the old days. However, while the Bali tiger probably evolved in this form do island dwarfism, the Sundarbans tiger suffer a lack of prey and poor habitat, although we don't know if the same happened with the Balinese tigers. What most impress me is the fact that the small Javanese tiger could kill the huge banteng, reaching almost six times its weight. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Ps. For those that can say that jaguars in Brazil weigh up to 159 kg (350 lb). I manage to found the book "Tigrero" of Sasha Siemel, and is from here that this particular record came. However, I see no evidence to suggest that those jaguars were actually weighed. Even worst, the picture of that jaguar named "El Asesino" (the Assasin), show a short body jaguar and fully gorged. At this day, the heaviest male jaguar captured by scientists is a male of 148 kg, with no apparent stomach content, but this male was probably exceptional. De Almeida (1991) statates that a maximum weight of 130 kg (empty) is the most probable for modern Pantanal jaguars, the largest of all.  (12-07-2014, 11:12 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Size of the Balinese tiger and its Taxonomy, is V. Mazák completelly wrong??? Interesting post, Guate. Í might shed a bit of light on the size of Sunda tigers in some time: a - I've ordered a few old and apparently unknown Dutch books about tiger hunting in a few weeks; b - I'm busy with skull and body dimensiosn tables of Sunda tigers, and c - I might visit the Budapest Natural History Museum next year. This will allow me to see the large male skull myself. JAVA AND SUMATRA For now, I can say the main difference between Java and Sumatra tigers is variation in that Java tigers, skullwise, show little variation, whereas it's the opposite in Sumatran tigers. The difference in averages, so it seems, is a result of a lack of small animals in Java tigers. Not so in Sumatran tigers. Some males and females are as small as Bali tigers, whereas others are similar to Java tigers. Sumatrans, so far, are the only ones in which female and male skulls overlap in size. My guess is they also overlapped in body dimensions and weight. Sumatra seems to have two distinct types. There is something else as well. I've noticed that Java tiger skulls, at similar size (greatest total length and zygomatic width), are heavier than Sumatran skulls (more so in male than in female skulls). If we add everything else I know, my guess is Java tigers were different and a bit larger. BALI Bali tiger skulls are not as vaulted (profile) as those of Java, but they are more vaulted than most Sumatran skulls. Some skulls of Sumatran females are smaller than an average female Bali skull. Again, Bali skulls seem heavier at similar size. Compared to Sumatra tigers, the upper canines of Bali tigers (as well as Java tigers) are a bit shorter. The photograph of the male Bali tiger shot in 1916 you posted was special. Many thanks. Before we start speculating, we have to remember the tiger was positioned in a way that made him look a bit larger than he was. Compared to the British hunters, he wasn't special. Not even close to 6 feet in head and body, I think. However. I do think that Bali tigers could have been a bit heavier than Mazak thought. The reason isn't length or bulk, but density. You might see a bit of what I mean in the muscles of the fore-arms and hindlegs in the photographs we have. They do not seem larger, but different. Remember density isn't expressed in size. Just an idea, but that's what I thought every time I saw a photograph of a Java or a Bali tiger. Different breed. More archaic. I tend to agree with the ideas of J.H. Mazak regarding Java and Bali tigers. I also agree more and more with his notions on Sumatra and mainland tigers: also different.
Thanks for your post Peter, and is really interesting to know about your new data.
On the Bali tiger in the picture, in fact, he doesn't look over 6 ft in head-body, that is sure. However, Mazák (1981) and every single document and webpage after him, states that Bali tigers "only" measure up to 230 cm in total length, which means about 150 cm in head-body, and this seems not to be the case. The Gondol tiger was of 174 cm in head-body, and even if we believe that it was not measured between pegs, the head-body in straight line should be no less than 160 cm, which is comparable to large jaguars and tigress from Bengal and Amur. The new Balinese tiger seems heavier than the Gondol one, although about the same size. I think that a size of c.170 cm in head-body, just like the largest Pantanal jaguars, is a good estimation. The problem with this is that this is the same size estimated for the Javanese tigers and slightly larger than the largest Sumatran tigers reliably recorded, so old conception of V. Mazák would be incorrect, and with him, all the books and webpages that have only copy-paste his data. However, with a skull of up to 348 mm in record, I think that probably the Javanese tiger was up to 180 or even 190 cm in head-body, which will make it of the same size (not weight, yet) that the South China tigers (largest skull of 346 mm). But I am speculating now. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img] Using 16 specimens, I calculated a ratio of 5.4 for head-body length and greatest skull length. This will suggest a head-body of c.188 cm for the largest Javanese tiger (348 mm) and of c.168 cm for the Gondol tiger (312 mm). However, the samples of Peter are larger and could produce a different or maybe an equal ratio.
What would contribute to Java tigers skulls being more dense than Sumatran?
Is they prey very different from each area the cats would live?
Well, there are some difference between the Sumatran and the Javanese prey species.
In Sumatra, most of the prey is small <50 kg, and the only large prey available like Sambar and tapir, live in very low densities, caused by the human intervention trough hunting and forest destruction. Java had a relative larger prey base, there is also pig and deer, but it also have the huge Banteng and there are several cases of tigers directly hunting this large bovid. The problem was when humans destroyed the habitat and the impact was stronger than that in Sumatra. Some scientists think that is was the depletion of the prey, and not only the hunt, which killed the Javanese tigers. Finally, and to don't going to deep, the Javanese tiger had a larger prey array in comparison with the Sumatran tigers. Probably this influenced in the form and size of this two tiger groups. 
well, I don't recall the exact source of the below article, but I found it somewhere on internet and thought to post here becasue it seems to interesting
GENETIC ANCESTRY OF THE EXTINCT JAVAN AND BALI TIGERS - CONCLUSIONS 1 - CONCLUSIONS A few weeks ago, I posted a summary of a new and very interesting article on the evolution of tigers ('Genetic Ancestry of the Extinct Javan and Bali Tiger', Xue et al, 2015). The most important conclusions were: 1a - Earliest fossils and common ancestor 01 - The earliest tiger fossils found in China and Java date back to the early Pleistocene (2 million years ago). 02 - Molecular genetic imputation traces all living tigers back to a common ancestor as recent as 72 000 - 108 000 years ago. 03 - The Toba eruption in Sumatra 73 500 years ago may have contributed to the recent coalescence for modern tigers. 1b - Current tiger taxonomy 04 - Current tiger taxonomy recognizes 6 living subspecies. 05 - Mainland Asia tigers parse into 5 distinct groups (P.t. tigris, P.t. altaica, P.t. amoyensis, P.t. corbetti and P.t. jacksoni). 06 - P.t. tigris is genetically distinct from the other mainland subspecies, corresponding to an early divergance. 1c - Sunda tigers 07 - Bali, Java and Sumatra tigers (P.t. balica, P.t. sondaica and P.t. sumatrae) derived from a common matrilineal genetic lineage. 08 - All 3 Sunda tiger subspecies are genetically closer to each other than to mainland Asia tiger subspecies. 09 - All 3 Sunda tiger subspecies are distinctly different from each other, indicating a restriction or lack of matrilineal gene flow among the three islands. 10 - The modern, now extinct, Javan tiger is not an autochthoneous descendant of a historic tiger population. 1d - Modern tiger evolution 11 - There once was a widespread tiger population from China (P.t. amoyensis) to the Sunda Shelf (P.t. balica, P.t. sondaica and P.t. sumatrae) that became isolated as a result of rising sea levels during interglacial periods. 12 - A second wave of expansion and divergence (P.t. tigris, P.t. corbetti, P.t. altaica, P.t. virgata and P.t. jacksoni) replaced much of the range of P.t. amoyensis and evolved into modern population in Indochina, the Indian Subcontinent, the Caucasus and the Russian Far East, where tigers fossils are only found from the Holocene. 2 - QUESTIONS The article is one of the best on tiger evolution I read. It answers a number of questions at a high level of abstraction in that it is now more or less clear in what period tigers and subspecies evolved. The origin of tigers can be traced back to southern China about 2 million years ago, maybe a few hundred thousand years earlier. From China, they first spread south to the Sunda Shelf. This would make sense, as a large part of central and northern Asia was still covered with ice in the Pleistocene. At the end of the Pleistocene, maybe as a result of the Toba eruption, tigers probably became extinct in the Sunda Shelf. Some time later, a second wave followed. Tigers again spread south to the Sunda Shelf. When most of the Shelf was inundated, Sunda tigers became extinct in Palawan and Borneo, but they managed to survive on Bali, Java and Sumatra. It is likely tigers reached Sumatra later, because Sumatran tigers are different from Bali and Java tigers. Many thousands of years later, just before the Holocene, tigers spread west from China to the Indian Subcontinent. Some time later, about 2 000 years, they colonized other parts of Asia. As a result of human expansion, they became extinct in most parts of mainland Asia. This happened between 1850-1980. Although the major developments are clear, some questions were not answered: 13 - Why are Sumatran tigers different from Bali and Javan tigers if all 3 inhabited a similar region? It has been confirmed that Sunda tigers became isolated from mainland Asia tigers when the Sunda Shelf was inundated. This probably happened when the ice melted at the end of the Pleistocene or the beginning of the Holocene, well after the second wave had reached the Sunda Shelf. As Bali, Javan and Sumatran tigers also are distinctly different from each other, it is likely they became isolated when the sea level rose further. One would tend to think this probably happened in the last 10 000 years, but there's reason for doubt as Sumatran tigers are quite different from Bali and Javan tigers, This, in my opinion, points towards an earlier divergence. Unresolved, I'd say. 14 - Did tigers cross the western part of the Himalayas to reach the Caspian region, did they travel west from China or were both routes used? If both routes were used, which was used first? Mainland Asia tigers evolved into 5 distinct subspecies in the last 12 000 years or so. Indian tigers are different from the 4 other mainland subspecies, because they diverged a bit earlier. If we assume those close to China (P.t. corbetti and P.t. jacksoni) evolved before the others (P.t. altaica and P.t. virgata), the question is which of the two most remote regions (the Caspian region and northeast China) was colonized first. Although some researchers think it was the Caspian region, there's reason for doubt. One reason is tigers apparently reached Japan well before the Holocene started, which points towards an early wave directed to the north. Another is northeast China is closer to southern China than the Caspian region. It's also easier to reach that region. I know Amur and Caspian tigers are one and the same, but genetic similarity doesn't answer the questions on both. J.F. Brandt (1856) wrote Amur tigers traveling west were seen well west of Lake Baikal, but he also said Caspian tigers, following a more southerly route, were seen traveling east. Those in the southern part of the route were reddish in colour as well as a bit smaller than those following a different route. Based on what I read, I'd say it is more than likely Caspian tigers expanded to the east and Amur tigers expanded to the west at about the same time. Apparently, they sometimes met and bred, especially in the northern part of the Trans-Baikal route close to the origin of rivers flowing north. As a result of the harsh climate and the lack of prey animals in winter, many of these tigers would have been wanderers by nature. Brandt wrote some followed wild boars and reindeer. In this way, they reached regions where tigers were never seen before. This happened in the 18th and 19th century. The question on how tigers reached the Caspian region is difficult to answer. Did they cross the Indus from western India and travel north and west, did they cross the western part of the Himalayas from northwest India or did China tigers travel west? Not one option can be excluded, I think. There are persistent rumours about tigers inhabiting remote and elevated regions in Afghanistan. It is also known they are able to breed at an altitude of 10 000 - 12 000 feet in Bhutan. If tigers are able to survive and breed at that altitude, one can't exclude wanderers from Kumaon and Nepal following corridors to the north. My guess is tigers also crossed the Indus River. Finally, there is no question tigers crossed the region between the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal in both directions. Although genetically almost similar, Caspian and Amur tigers also are quite different. Caspian tigers, more than other subspecies, have quite short snouts. This was so clear, it was noticed in living animals. The Caspian tigers in the Berlin Zoo were described as short-faced tigers. In Amur tigers, however, the snout is longer and straighter than in other subspecies. Same (straighter) for the sagittal crest. Many Caspian tiger skulls have a very vaulted profile. Not so in the Amur skulls I saw. If I was asked to get to a conclusion based on the drawings I saw and skulls I measured, my guess for now would be Caspian tigers, although distinct, are closer to Indian tigers than to Amur tigers. 15 - In what way are Malayan tigers (P.t. jacksoni) different from P.t. corbetti and P.t. amoyensis? This question will be addressed in the next post. For now, I can say P.t. jacksoni is an enigma to me. Apart from size, I wonder in what respects they are different from P.t. corbetti and P.t. sumatrae. 16 - What is the reason that subspecies, without losing specific characters, change in size almost overnight (a century or less)? In what way does size affect the unique characters? This question, as far as I know, was never addressed. A pity, as it is known that tigers in some regions in mainland Asia are quite a bit larger or smaller than those in nearby regions. I also noticed they quickly changed in size in some regions in a century only. Genetically, Sunderban tigers and Central India tigers are one and the same. I read descriptions of Sunderban tigers in different books. Although a bit smaller than their relatives in Central India, large animals were not unknown. In the last 50 years or so, Sunderban tigers suddenly changed. Many of the animals darted and weighed were unhealthy and they were even smaller than many Sumatran tigers. The change in size is so outspoken, that some biologists thought they had developed into a distinct subspecies. My guess is the change is a result of a loss of size foremost, but I wouldn't be surprised to find they developed unique characters in the last century. When Vietnam was French Indochina, it was promoted as a paradise for hunters in the USA. Many hunters came over and tried their luck in the first decades of the last century. Most visited Annam on the east coast. To their surprise, tigers easily surpassing your average Indian tiger in all respects were not uncommon. Although their reports were dismissed as easily as reports on large Indian tigers, it is an undisputed fact skulls exceeding 15 inches found their way to Rowland Ward every now and then. Pocock mentioned one in his article on tigers that was published in the JBNHS (1929). It isn't easy to find your way in records, but I think there's no question Annam and Laos produced male tigers well exceeded 9 feet straight and 400 pounds on a regular basis. In books in which exceptional animals featured, I also read tigers in other parts of French Indochina were quite small. I do not doubt some tigers exceeded 11 feet 'over curves' in Annam. At least one of them was 260 kg. (Bazé). This animal only hunted very large herbivores. A German hunter shot a 298 cm. male estimated at about 240 kg. in the west of what was then South-Vietnam in the early sixties of the last century. Some of the photographs I saw pointed towards tigers that definitely compared to an average male Indian tiger. But less than 100 miles away, a male tiger only very seldom exceeded 9 feet and 350 pounds. Tigers often swimming to the numerous islands in the Mekong were described as 'water tigers'. Many of them were stocky, but short. 17 - What was the function of the Isthmus of Kra? The more I read, the more I'm convinced this part of Asia could have been a kind of bridge between mainland Asia tigers and those in Malaysia. In the days of unrestricted gene flow, tigers in Malaysia, although smaller than those in India, exceeded 9 feet straight on a regular basis. There's plenty of indisputable evidence. Today, as a result of restricted access and the downfall of tigers in general, large tigers are unheard of. In the extreme south of Malaysia (Johore and Terengganu), tigers seem to compare to Sumatran tigers. If they reach the size of an average Sumatran tiger at all. One wonders why tigers living in isolated regions suddenly lose size overnight (less than a century). An issue neglected by many, so it seems.
Body size of the Island tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica) - preliminary:
As part of my project of scaling all the subspecies/populations of the great cats, tigers are fundamental in this goal. However, I have found a reef that is impossible to avoid: the data of island tigers is ridiculous scanty! In fact, I have found that: 1. The ranges for the Sumatran tigers stated by Mazák (1981) are estimations, obtained from the reported specimens of Sody and some skins measurements, mostly for the females. I had not foudn where he get the weights that he reported, but the figures from wild specimens captured in modern days fit very well. 2. For Javanese tigers, he only accepted one total length (248 cm) and discarded the large male of Sody (270 cm, Skull of 331 in GSL), but a comparison between skull length and body size with other tiger specimens measured "between pegs" shows that the size of this male is plausible and fit very well with the values of the other males (ratio of 5.44, for a mean of 5.40 overall). Only one weight is know (142 kg, male), all others are estimations. 3. There are no reliable measurements or weights of Bali tigers available, just one female measured but Mazák believed that, based on its skull size, the reported measurements were taken "over curves" or from a skin. There is a "new" size from a large specimen of Gondol and the few pictures of relative large males, show that this population was as large as the Sumatran tigers. The estimations from Mazák, specially for males, are certainly underestimations. Based on this, I decided the make an unique (and probably very controversial) comparative image, which will summarize all the Island tigers data like a "single subspecies", following the last studies of 2015. Of course, the data on skulls will be the main focus, but I will post also the few body sizes reported and adjusted like Mazák done in its moment. @peter, I need your help. As you have the book of Mazák "Der Tiger", I will like to know if is possible to you to post the average figures of the skull size of the Sumatran, Javan and Bali tigers (males and females, with ranges and sample size) that he measured. I know that J. H. Mazák had published his own data in 2006, but I will like to see that one of V. Mazák too. In advance, thanks for any help.  *This image is copyright of its original author Source (p. 246 and onward) Now, I'm assuming that those absurdly long tigers were measured over curves based on the numbers themselves and the mass associated. I also noted that the author asserts that the Bali and Javan tiger may be of the same stature, as @GuateGojira theorized. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |