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)
|
A TIGRESS KILLED BY AN OLD MALE TIGER - A LETTER IN THE JBNHS
a - the letter In the first half of the letter, a short (6.6) and stocky male leopard features. He killed and partly ate a younger male near a kill. It is about the second half of the letter, in which Montresor quoted from a letter sent to him from a shooting camp in May 1904. The party had shot a big, old male tiger who hadn't seen a dentist in a long time. The reason was age: he had hardly anything left to replace. In spite of this problem, he did ok. According to Miquelle, canines are not needed to flourish in wild tigers. On that fateful day in May 1904, the old tiger was shot. He was long (9.8 'between pegs') and very heavy (they needed 12 men to move him). When pictures of the old brute were taken, remains of a young tigress were found not far away. She had evidently been killed by him. Although badly scratched and bitten, he had strangled her and later eaten a part of her. b - courtship in captive and wild big cats Although most are prepared to fight for access to a female in heat, not all male big cats are interested in females. Old males in particular can be dangerous. Those interested seem to need experience. At times, females are killed during courtship. Most females were killed by overenthousiastic young adult males. Males courting a female don't like intruders and can react very aggressively. The aggression at times is directed at females. Experienced females seem to be able to distinguish between dangerous males and others. I've seen tigresses act very aggressively towards some male tigers and not others. Not without reason, I'd say. Captive male jaguars and leopards at times also kill captive females, but captive male lions seem to have a clean sheet. Lionesses seem to prefer an experienced old male over a young adult. There's a famous, and true, story about a group of captive lionesses who chased every male the keepers introduced. After many deceptions, the keepers were desperate. In the end, they send a very old male in. At 17, he was in terrible shape. To the amazement of all, he was accepted. When he walked, the lionesses had to support him. They also chewed his food for him (...). All keepers thought he could perish every day, but the lionesses had been right after all: in the ring, he had no equal. The group of lionesses became a pride and it seems the old man got to twenty. I've notived more than once that captive old male lions are quite popular with lionesses. Not so in tigers. Most old males are unreliable and have a terrible temper. Tigresses seem to know an, for this reason, prefer young adult males over old men. With good reason:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
TIGER FIGHTS INDIA
In this post, a few photographs. Most have been posted before, but not all who visit this forum may have seen them. a - Male tiger This tiger was as robust as they come. The photograph proves tigers found dead in India usually are measured. The question is where the measurements go to:  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Male tiger This photograph is well-known, because the tiger killed, a mature male, featured in a BBC-documentary. His adversary was a young adult, who later became known for both his temper and his size. Based on what I heard in the documentary, they met and fought more than once. After the last fight, the winner went for the cubs. They escaped, but the female was quite badly wounded defending them. The tiger killed was by no means a small one. He was fit and muscular. Watch his fore-arms and the root of the tail:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author c - Male and female No details known, but the photograph is a nice one with a lot of movement. At times, fights between males and females can be serious:  *This image is copyright of its original author d - Male wounded after a fight This male was photographed by Zwanepoel directly after a fight. Barka won the fight, but was so badly wounded (the mandibula was visible and he had numerous other serious injuries) that he had to be stitched up. Without treatment, chances are the infection would have finished him.  *This image is copyright of its original author e - The invincible sunk This is a male tiger known as 'Snarl'. He was long, tall, had a bad disposition and didn't like to be seen. He came out of nowhere and met the male Breeden knew so well. After the fight, he was found close to his stag, but a piece of skin was hanging over his eyes and he moved with great difficulty. He left his territory and was found dead some weeks later. When his adversary had left, Snarl took over. At least one male cub of about eight months of age was killed and largely eaten. Later, he mated with different females. There was tension every time they met. Snarl was photographed many times after his victory. Every time he was, he showed his large canines. The longest they had seen. They thought Snarl would rule for a long time, but one day he met an old male. He proved Snarl wasn't invincible. Breeden didn't know if he was killed or not, but Snarl was never seen again. The old male was at least 550 pounds and the biggest she had seen. This is a picture of Snarl directly after the fight with the stocky male with the stag:  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (01-26-2015, 01:26 PM)'peter' Wrote: Agreed, Guate. The male tiger killed in a fight was a very small male, if it was an adult male at all. I propose to post the article Warsaw posted as well (in the Shaggy God forum).As you can read, I am agree in your analysis, but not with the article of Warsaw. That tiger CAN'T be an adult male, it is just impossible, OR is a dwarf, the first in record, by the way. The lazy tiger was not small, it was just light in weight (there are no measurements from him). The same goes with the captive specimens of less than 150 kg, they are light, but they are not small per se. Did you remember the tiger Maurice? He is the largest tiger measured by scientists in body dimensions, but he only weighed 179 kg, barely 2 kg more than the Nagarahole tigress Sundari of 177 kg. This is not the case with the tiger in the story of Warsaw, that is a small specimen in aaaaaaall departments, size, weight, skull, etc. Compare it with the picture of the female cub Cinderella.
I propose to start with the article Warsaw posted in the Shaggy God forum. It's in Russian, so you have to use the translation machine. The combination between the machine and Russian isn't, ehhh, perfect, but we should get quite close:
http://deita.ru/news/incidents/16.12.201...skiy-tigr/ Let's see where we can get. One is the article says the pad width of both tigers was used to conclude they were males. At least, that's what I read. Does this perhaps mean the genitals of the tiger killed were removed? I don't know. Let's go to the pad width of males and females. Is it true only adult male tigers have a pad width of 9,5 cm. and over in Russia? Not quite. I remember some females with a pad width of 9.5 cm. and one has to assume maybe some tigresses can get over that mark, especially in the southern part of Russia, where tigers seem to be a little larger than in the north. If true, this means one of the tigers (the winner of the fight) could have been a female after all. But if this was to be true, how is it possible that she killed a male tiger? I mean, the dead tiger, with a pad width of 11,0 cm., had to be a male, hadn't it? Well, part of the answer is in the article in that it says the dead tiger had hardly any teeth left. He had to be very old, that is. Furthermore, we know the tiger killed, if it was a male, was an exceptionally small animal. Maybe he was starved as well. Could it, based on the information in the article, have been a fight between a very old and small male and a big female in her prime? Yes. The incident happened in December. This is the time in which Amur tigers mate. Maybe the old male was interested and maybe the female, because of his age, wasn't. Let's suppose it was a fight between a male and a female. It happened before. We also know females are capable of killing an adult male. Finally, we know tigers, females included, eat what they kill. Problem solved. On the other hand. It is just as likely the old male fought a younger male. There's one more option and that is it can't be ruled out both tigers were females. This, I think, would explain the small size of the supposed 'male' better. To conclude with. I agree the tiger killed was a very small animal. The length of the hind legs and the tail suggest a small female. If we add the teeth were nearly gone, we can add it apparently was a very old animal. Perhaps it was a small and very old female after all. The only problem left would be the the pad width. A width of 11,0 cm. is unheard of, even in large females. What to say about that? Well, one thing is they could have made a mistake. If they didn't, we have a problem. I could, perhaps, accept a pad width of 11,0 cm. in a very large female, but we know from the photograph the tiger, male or female, was a small one. Impossible, that is. The best explanation would be a mistake. The article wasn't written by a researcher, but a journalist. Journalists are known for mistakes. Also, the photograph isn't a good one in that it wasn't clear if the animal killed was a male. The article said the tiger was partly eaten, but it didn't say what was eaten and to what extent. There are many questions. For now, I propose to wait for more. They want to locate the winner of the fight to see if he or she was wounded. A wounded tiger, after all, could pose a problem for humans. My guess is there could be another article soon. Maybe the questions we have will be answered then.
Your analysis is very logic Peter, and your conclusion is correct, we need more data.
The article present a very large image of the dead tiger, and you can see that external genitals are absents and the big wound don't reach that area. So, where are the testicles, IF that was a male??? Other thing, on the paw issue, here are the measurements from Kerley et al. (2005):  *This image is copyright of its original author Tigresses had a paw length 11 and 13 cm and a paw wide of 10.5 to 13.5 cm. Check that it is different the paw length itself and that of the heel only. So, if those measurements provided (9.5 and 11 cm) are from the paw overall, the smaller one was definitely not an adult. Check the table again, for comparison. Like I told you, there is something very wrong in the article, and judging by the picture, that seems to be a "small female cub", not an "old adult male". 
Comparing a modern Amur tiger with a Bengal tiger of any time, is like to compare a Football player (the real one, A.K.A. Soccer) and a wrestler, both of the same height.
Both are athletes but the Amur tigers are slim and long, while Bengals are very robust in comparison. Check that males of over 200 kg reach 130 cm in chest girth, while a Bengal of 260 kg have chest girths of 140 cm and more. However, old Amur tigers were larger, which chest of 150 cm, just like the largest Bengal tigers. Interesting, if we use the chest girth-weight equation in Kerley et al. (2005), a chest girth of 140 cm will produce a weight of about 217 kg, and one of 150 cm, a figure of 242 cm. On the Bengal side, the results will be probably 270 and more. This is the equation: y=2.5612x - 141.73 ---- r2=0.9165. "x" is the chest girth of the Amur tigers. At the end, is the same modern known mantra: modern Amur tigers are thinner, but old ones were of the same caliber. 
I've made a chest girth equation for Amurs as well, probably with a similar or same result as Kerley et al. 2005 as there's only one published database. It's strongly negatively allometric, you reach a point where huge girths will not estimate proportionally huge masses. I think the problem lies with the limited data, as I wouldn't expect girth, a dimension unlike length which has more 3 dimensional implications, to be negatively allometric to such an extent, unless the wide specimens are just very short for some odd reason (unlikely).
Some might find this interesting. Here's a Grizzly bear chest girth equation, log transformed:
log(mass)=log(chest girth)*2.5782 - 3.1792 r^2=0.8704 n=20 Punching in 140 cm to the equation gives a mass of 226 kg. A bit heavier than the Amur proportion, but interestingly, the Bengal proportion is much higher. 
Can anyone explain this in layman terms? I do not pretend to have a college education.
1 - THE RELATION BETWEEN CHEST CIRCUMFERENCE AND WEIGHT IN NORTH-INDIAN TIGERS
a - North-east India We know male tigers in the Duars, Cooch Behar and Assam, well over a century ago, averaged 129-130 cm. in chest circumference and 460,68 pounds (208,96 kg.). Empty males averaged 452,61 pounds (205,30 kg.) and gorged males of similar length averaged 512,56 pounds (232,50 kg.). b - North-west India We also know tigers shot in north-west India in roughly the same period averaged 435 pounds (197,32 kg.). Hewett's sample, however, was smallish and included at least two young adult males. Furthermore, most tigers shot were not weighed. Hewett described 12 of them as 'heavy' or 'very heavy'. As there, again, was a strong correlation between total length and weight, I decided to use those that were not measured to get to a new average. I got to 475 pounds. Many years later, this average was confirmed by Sunquist, who got to 221 kg. (488 pounds) for 7 males in Chitwan (Nepal). Nepal tigers are a bit longer, and therefore heavier, than those in north-west India, so 475 pounds could prove to be just about right for north-west India. c - Conclusion About a century ago, male tigers in northern India and Nepal, at 460-475 pounds or even a bit more than that, probably were the heaviest big wild cats. A the weights mentioned, they averaged 129-130 cm. in chest circumference in the north-eastern part of India. 2 - ZIMBABWE LIONS AND COOCH BEHAR TIGERS COMPARED Below is the famous table of Smuts (sorry about the bad quality, but I couldn't find a better version). I propose to compare the heaviest local type (Zimbabwe) with Cooch behar tigers. Zimbabwe males, at 125,9 cm. in chest circumference, averaged 193,3 kg., whereas Cooch Behar male tigers, at 129,5 cm. in chest circumference, averaged 208,96 kg. I know Cooch Behar tigers included 7 gorged individuals, but there's nothing known on the Zimbabwe lions in this respect. As I don't know, I assume both averages can be compared. What do we see? Cooch Behar tigers have 2,86 % larger chests. This difference results in a significant weight difference (8,12 %). When we would construct a figure, the line would show a steep angle upwards. Is this typical? Not quite. Over a certain limit, however, a difference of 1 cm. results in a more than proportial increase in weight. Is the difference in chest circumference in both big cats a result of a difference in total length? According to those who measured lions 'between pegs', South Africa has the longest lions. Stevenson-Hamilton wrote they averaged just under 9 feet in total length straight, but others, including himself (...), thought the average could be just over 9 feet. Let's say they are right. I propose to use 9.1 (276,86 cm.) for adult males. Now let's move to tigers in north-east India. According to the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, 89 males averaged 294,41 cm. 'over curves'. He also measured about 10 males both 'over curves' and 'between pegs'. The difference between both methods was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm.). If we deduct this from 294,41, the result is 280,57 cm. in a straight line. Compared to lions in South Africa, the difference, therefore, is 3,71 cm. or 1,34%. The copnclusion is the difference between both is close to zilch. This means the difference found, most probably, was not a result of longer and 'chestier' tigers. They were a trifle longer and somewhat bigger, but that, I think, couldn't have been the major reason for the difference in weight. The best explanation is that Cooch Behar tigers, at about similar size (roughly), were a bit more robust. Here's the Smuts-table:  *This image is copyright of its original author 3- BROWN BEARS This is the often used appendix on the correlation between chest circumference and weight in McCloud Lake brown bears. It is, or rather will prove to be, quite similar to the figure on big cats. The line shows a steep angle after, say, 200 kg. and 130 cm. in chest circumference. More impressive than Cooch Behar tigers? No. Very similar. The difference is in exceptional animals in that brown bears produce more of them:  *This image is copyright of its original author I now propose to move to Siberian male brown bears. The table below suggests they, chestcircumferencewise, are superior to their McCloud relatives. A circumference of 160 cm. isn't exceptional. A weight of 250 kg. and over, however, is:  *This image is copyright of its original author Why the difference in weight? I don't know, but I could think of two good reasons. One is no dumps in Siberia and two is tougher conditions. This would result in a longer animal (size is necessary to retain heat) using more energy to find less productive food. The large chest could be a result of more need for oxygen, but that seems unlikely as Amur tigers, although longer than all other big cats and also active in nordic long distance walking, have slightly narrower chests than Indian tigers, not known for long walks. 4 - BROWN BEARS AND BIG CATS COMPARED Zimbabwe male lions average 125,9 cm. in chest circumference for 193,3 kg., whereas Cooch Behar and Assam male tigers average 129,5 cm. for 208,96 kg. I don't know about the McCloud male brown bears, but those in northeast Siberia average 144,05 cm. in chest circumference (n=20) for 231,1 kg. (n=10). If we remove the 600 kg. giant (he was estimated), we get to 141,68 cm. for just over 190 kg. (n=19). The conclusion has to be that both tigers and lions produce more kg. per cm. chest circumference compared to brown bears of northeast Siberia, meaning both are more robust. Another myth gone, perhaps? Not quite. In order to find out more, we need to know more on body length. This is impossible with Zimbabwe lions (no details known), but we know Cooch Behar and Assam male tigers averaged 203,01 cm. 'over curves' (n=54) in head and body length, whereas male Siberian brown bears averaged 195,61 cm. 'over contours' (n=23) with the estimated 600-kg. giant and 192,32 cm. without him (n=22). What is 203,01 cm. 'over curves' when measured 'between pegs'? The answer is 203,01 - 13,84 cm = 189,17 cm. How about the bears? This is a table that could shed some light on the matter. It's about the difference between 'length' and 'contour length':  *This image is copyright of its original author The difference between 'length' and 'contour length' in a male brown bear of 5 years and over of 196 cm. is no less than 32,2 cm. The Siberian male brown bears, averaging 195,61 cm. 'over contours' with the 600-kg. giant and 192,32 cm. without him, therefore, had to be 160-164 cm. 'between pegs'. I propose to use 162 cm. for head and body. Now we have 189,17 cm., in head and body length straight, 129,5 cm. for chest circumference and 208,96 kg. for Cooch Behar and Assam tigers on one hand and 162,00 cm. for head and body length straight, 141,68 cm. for chest circumference and 190,11 kg. for northeast Siberian brown bears (without the 600-kg. giant). This means Cooch Behar tigers have an advantage of 16,77% in head and body length, a weight advantage of 9,91% and a deficit of 9,41% in the chest department. This means the correlation between chest circumference and weight in Cooch Behar tigers and northeast Siberian brown bears is different. In absolutes, the bears should pose no problem, but in relatives the situation is quite different. I'll leave that one to Tigerluver. 5 - TIGERS AND BEARS IN THE ARENA The outcome of all calculations above clearly show why it is so difficult to say anything sensible on the outcome of confrontations between male tigers and male brown bears in eastern Russia. Bears are relatively more robust, even when they are smaller, but the difference in absolutes clearly is in favour of the tiger. The case would be clearcut in northeast Siberia, but bears also show much more individual variation than tigers. Every male Amur reading this post and changing his mind about hunting male brown bears would start a risky business. I mean, he could meet a miniture male or his brother, who qualified for the national wrestling team. You just never know. Also remember Ursus arctos lasiotus is a much heavier animal than his relative in northeast Siberia. Although similar in total length (also 196 cm. 'over contours') and chest (just over 140 cm.), they average 270 kg., as opposed to 190,11 kg. for northeast Siberia (...). This time, the difference isn't a result of more dumps and easy food. Male Amur tigers are longer than most male brown bears in eastern Russia and will tower over their opponent in a fight, which is a distinct advantage. They seem to be as strong, more agile, faster and better armed (canines), but one has to remember that engaging a shorter animal with a 42% weight advantage, no neck and a terrible temper will most often result in a drawn-out fight, exhaustion and, for this reason, many breaks in most cases. I think an average male Amur tiger can severely damage an average male brown bear and keep him at bay, but if a bear is able to prevent significant damage, the male tiger, I think, has no option but to call it a day in the end and leave. This is why I am surprised that male tigers are not more often displaced. I have no clue as to why that is. It could be they are not willing to risk life and limb and it could be they know they are vulnarable as a result of violent weight fluctuations as a result of hibernation. At any rate. There is, like the Russians authorities in this matter said, a point where the balance shifts. Most thought it was close to 200 kg., but chances are it will depend on the size of the tiger. No male tiger in his right state of mind would start a fight with a dangerous animal of similar size and weight unless he has no option. For now, I think the limit would range somewhere between 175-225 kg., but the bear killed by a tigress in May 1951 near the Tatibe River (Bromlej) suggests tigers could be able to kill a heavier bear in circumstances that suit them. 6 - THE TATIBE RIVER BROWN BEAR Below is a photograph of a brown bear killed and partly eaten by a tigress in May 1951. Heptner and Sludskij (1980) published a drawing, but V. Mazak (1983) published the photograph he got from Abramov. Mazak wrote it was an adult bear, but there were no details on gender and age in Bromlej's book (the source). The only thing Bromlej wrote was the bear, at about 170 kg., taped 158 cm. Way too short to be an adult, Warsaw tried during the debate we had on AVA, but this argument was invalid as we know (see above) that adult male Ussuri bears average only 160-165 cm. in head and body length (in a straight line). Maybe the bear was measured in a straight line (Bromlej was a biologist and they usually measure animals in a straight line) and maybe the bear, as Warsaw argued, was measured by hunters, who measure bears 'over contours'. One of the question I had was how the bear was measured in the first place. The photograph clearly shows that the fattiest part (around the loins and the lower back) were eaten. This would have to result in a lot of improvisation when measuring the bear, one would think. At about 170 kg. in early May, chances are the bear was well over 200 kg. before hibernation, as it is known brown bears can lose 20-30% of their weight during hibernation. For this reason, I initially concluded the bear probably was a subadult or a young adult male (3-5 years of age or thereabout), but it's also possible the bear was a large female. Adult females average 145 kg., but some are well over 200 kg. (up to 280 kg., according to Kucerenko). The debate was never quite concluded, but maybe that was too much of an ask. Everyone interested should try to get to his own conclusions:  *This image is copyright of its original author Even if it was a male, it wouldn't account for much. The difference between a young adult and a mature male in brown bears often is significant. Big old males, even after death, will not be touched by younger and smaller animals.
Actually, the difference in chest girth between the Cooch Behar tigers and Zimbabwe lions may account for the weight discrepancy via this isometric calculation:
mass tiger = (girth tiger/girth lion)^3 * mass lion = (129.5/125.9)^3 * 193.3 kg mass tiger = 210.4 kg That calculation is roughly equal to the Cooch Behar average of 208.96 kg. The chest girth difference and its affect on mass makes sense, as girth is a factor of robusticity. I'll add on to other points soon.
Amazing write up Peter, thanks for taking the time. I would be very surpirised if a animal being "gorged" would have any outcome on chest girth. I assume a gorged animal drags the stomach down and adds to weight but would have no factor on any muscle girth or mass.
Since we don't know if Zimbabwe Lions were gorged, most likely were since its the easiest way to catch a animal, I doubt it would make any difference regardless. It always bums me out about how many tigers were killed but how few measurements exist, it would be nice to be able to compare more then 10 specimens. But beggers can't be choosers. Also amazing how close they both are relative to body size in chest girth and even compared to the bear. 
Amur tigers from zoo Prague
Mauglis (246 kg, weighted at the age of 12) http://marge.uochb.cas.cz/~fanfrlik/Amur...ylei_.html Assuri (this one is said to be caspian...but I think it´s just a rumour) http://marge.uochb.cas.cz/~fanfrlik/Amur...i____.html Ligar (this on killed a student who jumped into the water - the enclosure was empty, the idiot wanted to show his courage and jumped there, the tiger heard something and came out from internal part of the enclosure, jumped into the water, killed the idiot by a throat bite and pulled him into the ground) http://marge.uochb.cas.cz/~fanfrlik/Amur...Ligar.html Xeron (205 kg - weighted at the age of 14) http://marge.uochb.cas.cz/~fanfrlik/Amur...Xeron.html Baikal (250 kg, zoo Plzen) http://marge.uochb.cas.cz/~fanfrlik/Zoo_..._7094.html |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| Spalea, 65 Guest(s) |