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)
|
  (03-07-2015, 09:50 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Great stuff, interesting that the tail is shorter when the body is longer. But my guess would be, longer orr "larger" cats go after larger prey. So while a tail is great for being a rutter and helping balance a big cat when in hot pursuit, larger prey aren't going to be "fast" so much as dangerous. So size is more important at that stage than high speed pursuit. Just a theory 
THE SIZE OF BIG CATS
1 - How to express size There are many ways to describe the size of big cats. Bengt Berg ('Tiger und Mensch', Berlin, 1934 - I have the Dutch translation published in 1943) thought size should be expressed in skull dimensions and weight, but in the days of the British Raj the size of big cats in India was expressed in feet and inches. In the early days, hunters produced tigers of 11, 12 and even 13 feet at regular intervals. No questions were ever asked. When hunting became more popular and hunters reported on the size of the big cat(s) they had shot in magazins, measurements were taken more seriously and debates erupted on the methods used to measure a big cat. In those days, two methods were used. Most hunters measured big cats 'over curves'. In order to measure a big cat in this way, a flexible tape was used. The tape was pressed to the body and followed all curves of the body between the tip of the nose and the end of the tail. Others measured big cats 'between pegs'. In order to measure a big cat in this way, markers were placed at the tip of the nose and the tip of the tail. After the markers had been placed, the cat was removed and the distance between both markers was measured in a straight line with a steel tape. The first method, because the curves of the body were included in the measurement, produced more impressive results than the second method. Most hunters measured big cats in this way. The problem with this method was it produced different results when a cat was measured by different people. The differences often were considerable. For this reason, the method was considered unreliable. The second method was often used by Forest Officers, biologists and zoologists. They preferred this method, because the result, in their opinion, reflected the actual length of a big cat. There was another advantage. If a big cat was measured in this way by different people, the differences usually were well within an inch. In spite of the advantages of this method, the debate on methods never was concluded. I could post a few scans of the debates I read, but I opted for Sterndale's summary (1888). The reason is he needed little room to explain why a measurement taken over curves was unreliable. Another reason is he offered an alternative:  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - The result of the debate on methods The outcome of the debate on methods was unsatisfactory in that hunters never adopted a uniform method. There were, however, some positive effects. One was that the second method ('between pegs'), considered more reliable, was more often used. Two was that those who continued to measure big cats 'over curves' paid more attention to accuracy. As a direct result, the number of 11-footers quickly dropped. And the 12-footers disappeared completely. In India, that is. The method selected to measure big cats not only was a result of the debate on methods. Local habits also were important. In northern India and Nepal, hunters continued to measure tigers 'over curves'. Measuring usually took a lot of time, as it was considered very important. Most hunters who measured tigers 'over curves' in northern India used steel tapes after the debate on methods. They also often measured tigers 'between pegs'. Most hunters agreed the difference between both methods were 2-5 inches in adult tigers (both sexes). In north-east India, hunters also continued to measure big cats 'over curves'. The habit never changed, although the Maharajah of Cooch Behar adopted the second method for a while. As he also continued to measure big cats 'over curves', we know the average difference between both methods in that part of India was 5,45 inches in adult male tigers. In one large male, the difference was 7 inches. In Central India, tigers had always been measured 'between pegs'. When a Forest Officer or hunter used to measure big cats 'over curves' in, say, northern India moved to the Central Provinces, he had to adopt the second method. And the other way round. In southern India, there was no preference, although I noticed most hunters measured big cats 'between pegs'. The situation described above didn't really change after World War Two. 3 - After Independence When it became clear that tigers in India had all but disappeared in the late sixties of the last century, hunting was banned and tigers were protected. It was a very close call for some decades, but tigers eventually recovered to an extent. Hunting now is a thing of the past. Most tigers live in reserves and they do quite well. In order to find out more about their habits and needs, it was decided to study tigers in different parts of India and Nepal. In some Indian reserves, tigers were darted, measured and weighed by Indian biologists. In Nepal, American biologists darted, measured and weighed tigers. Some of us read the articles and books they produced. Those interested in size and weight noticed a few problems. On animal forums, debates erupted. They often compared to the debates a century ago described above. When the debates didn't produce the results that were expected, biologists were contacted. It was then that those with questions discovered they would not be answered in a satisfactory way. The main reason was confusion about the methods used. Another was inadequate scales and different people publishing different things about the same tiger. 4 - Methods today - Nepal The tigers darted, measured and weighed in Nepal were large animals. The tiger who got most attention was the Sauraha tiger. He was darted, measured and weighed more than once and kept on growing when he was an adult. The final result was 10.2 and 261 kg. Or thereabout. Thereabout? He was measured and weighed by a biologist, wasn't he? Well, yes and no. I mean, he was measured, but I don't know who measured the tiger. I'm also not sure about the weight, as he bottomed a 500-pound scale when he was weighed the first time. Some years later, when he was darted again, he had grown in both length and bulk. He then apparently bottomed a 600-pound scale. The weight often used (261 kg.) apparently was a result of a regression equation based on chest girth. As for the measurement. Sunquist wrote he was 10.2. That's true, another who was there later wrote: 10.2 'over curves':  *This image is copyright of its original author This scan says the tiger wasn't measured by Sunquist, but someone else. He apparently measured the tiger 'over curves' and not 'between pegs'. Not true, Sunquist said when he was contacted. The tiger was measured in a straight line. But he added a few remarks on curves and straight lines that left room for some doubt. WaveRiders, correctly, pointed to the problems described. After everything I read, I concluded the tiger was a large male. A bit longer than the captive Amur tiger I measured, but more robust. My guess was he really was 10.2 in a straight line and very close to or just over 600 pounds just before he, accidentally, drowned, but I have to admit I'm not sure. The reason is the confusion described above. I will use the tiger for the table, but it is a fact they should have delivered a bit more. 5 - Methods today - India Ullas Karanth is one of the leading tiger authorities today. His dedication and expertise are beyond doubt and I think he's one of the men who made a real difference. Some years ago, I bought a book he wrote ('Tigers', London, 2001). I know the book wasn't intended for his peers, but the information on size is quite confusing:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author It is about the parts in green and red. After referring to the old debates on methods, 11-inch tapes and ridiculing all records of large tigers in the past, he introduced Pocock as the one who made a difference. But Pocock, in his 1929-article on tigers, was as inaccurate as they come. So much so, he was lectured in a letter published in the JBNHS (...). It is true he quickly learned, but I wouldn't consider him an authority on methods, size and big cats. The one who lectured him was, but he, of course, was dismissed because he was a hunter. After discussing Pocock, Ullas Karanth said most zoologists now measure tigers 'over curves'. This method, however, is unreliable. A big cat should be measured 'between pegs', as this reflects the actual length of the animal. Ullas Karanth, therefore, is turning the world upside down. Just imagine what would happen if we started measuring humans 'over curves'. A man of 5.10 'over curves' in India would turn out to be 5.5 'between pegs' in, say, Australia. You're not the one in your passport, they would say. Then the remark on Heptner & Sludskij and the 13-footers in Russia. The table he refers to is flawed and I don't mean meaby. It has so many mistakes, I wouldn't know where to start. Their book is one of the best I read, but they had about as much knowledge of methods as many of their peers. So what to make of his remark that tigers in Russia and India are similar in size? I really wouldn't know. It would, regarding length, depend on the method used and my guess is tigers in Russia were measured 'between pegs', whereas those in India, judging from the description Ullas Karanth gave (see above), were measured 'over curves'. But Guate, who apparently contacted Ullas Karanth, said he measured the tigers he darted 'between pegs'. In weight, they most certainly were not 'similar'. Indian tigers, even after adjustment later on, were and still are heavier. Same for Nepal tigers. 6 - Methods today - Russia The WCS-table on the dimensions of today's wild Amur tigers (Kerley et al) is reliable in that they, according to the information in the Appendix, apparently were measured 'between pegs":  *This image is copyright of its original author The result of their table, in spite of the good start, nevertheless is unreliable. The reason is they didn't distinguish between adoslescents (2-3), young adults (4-6) and adults (7 years and over). They just moved all tigers in one table. Then conclusions were drawn. Most of these, for the reason mentioned, are incorrect. Adult male Amur tigers of 7 years and over are not 294 cm. in total length and 176 kg. in weight. When I did a calculation based on skull measurements a long time ago, I got the same result regarding length: 9.9 for adult males. I could have been wrong. If so, adult male Amur tigers of 7 years and over would not be shorter, but longer. As for weight. Many mature males have not been measured and weighed. Those I saw (videos and photographs) were large and quite robust animals. I'm not saying today's wild male Amur tigers are well over 430 pounds, but I think they are much closer to the historic average than many assume. 7 - Conclusions WaveRiders, responding to a post that had quite a few critical remarks directed at the scientific community, concluded most remarks were unfounded, if not a result of plain bias. The facts, however, point towards something very different. The information posted, only a fraction of what I have regarding misinformation, proves without a shadow of doubt that some biologists and zoologists do not seem that informed on the debates on methods I referred to. It's also quite clear some of them do not know how to measure a big cat in the correct way. And if they did, they managed to pollute the tables by not distinguishing between age groups. Those who avoided these problems often struggled with an 'overused' database. The result of all assessments on size, to put it mildly, is a mixed bag, if not complete confusion. In spite of all that, some biologists do not mind dismissingh records of the past because rumour has it one or two shikari's might have used 11-inch tapes to please the hunters who employed them. I agree cheating can never be excluded, but even if it happened one can't use it to dismiss all old records out of hand. This, I think, would compare to 'seen one tree, seen 'm all'. A bit over the top, I concluded. Today's biologists are not that interested in size and methods. Although they often complain about the limited database, not one, apart from J.H. Mazak, even attempted to change the situation. Many skulls have not been measured and they probably never will be. The only attempt to evaluate historic records I know of (Slaught et al) has many flaws and inconsistencies. All in all, the situation is far from satisfactory. The lack of data probably has a profound effect on knowledge. At times, statements on size and historic records are close to misinformation. 8 - But Today's biologists no doubt give it everything they have. It is about protecting a species walking the edge and there's no question they succeeded. Quite an achievement. I was thinking of a fitting reward. My guess is Mr. Nobel would have been impressed by Jackson, Rabinowitz, Ullas Karanth, Miquelle, Goodrich and many, many others. We also would have to include those who wrote about the plight of tigers in the days many thought of hunting. Arseniev, Kaplanov, Yudakov, Nikolaev, Pikunov, Heptner, Sludskij, but I wouldn't want to forget about Corbett. There's no question that energy invested in expanding the database on things that do not really matter, like dimensions, isn't going to help wild tigers. Expanding knowledge on habits, more and larger reserves, corridors, training, education, fighting poachers and informing those involved in decisions is going to make a difference. They, therefore, made the correct decision. Thanks to them, we still have wild tigers. I can, to wind it up, understand the attitude towards 12-footers. Everyone interested in big cats knows that only very few wild tigers exceed 10 feet when measured 'between pegs'. They also know the size of tigers probably didn't change dramatically in a few centuries only, meaning 10-footers in the 18th century, in relatives, probably were as scarce as they are today. There is, in spite of that, no need to dismiss all records about very large animals in the days they still inhabited most of Asia out of hand, just because those involved in dismissing didn't measure tigers of exceptional size themselves. Those who reported on exceptional individuals a long time ago often were as experienced as they come and they too didn't believe in fairy tales. They shot very large individuals, because they lived in a different time and because they knew how to get to these giants. Ony those with a lot of experience and knowledge were able to do that. I take them very seriously. We also have to remember that individual variation in big cats is significant. Some captive male tigers are very close to 11 feet in a straight line. I saw at least two. And then there is George Jankowski. He hunted all his life and I take him seriously. Jankowski was very distrustful of reports on giant tigers in Russia. In spite of that, he measured males well exceeding 12 feet 'over curves' more than once. And what about his sons and their giant tiger shot in Manchuria in 1943? He was 11.6 'over curves'. The photograph they produced showed a very large animal, but he wasn't even considered by Slaught. Dismissed out of hand, I concluded. Let's proceed to Baikov. He too isn't taken seriously. Slaught, for some reason, didn't buy his reports on 13-footers exceeding 700 pounds, but the 560-pound male shot near the Korean border still tops the list of accepted records. That tiger, although long, wasn't even close to some of the tigers I saw. I could continue for some time, but I'll leave it at that. The message is many assessments of reports on large tigers, for good reasons, are far from convincing. We could approach the problem on size in another way. A century and a half ago, large animals were seen and shot in the Sunderbans every now and then. Sunderban tigers are directly related to tigers in Central India. Central India tigers still are large animals. Sunderban tigers, however, are now smaller than anywhere else (...). If isolation, stress and a depleted prey base are able to tranform large tigers into miniature tigers in a century only, then why dismiss reports of naturalists and hunters on extra-large tigers out of hand? Tigers living in good conditions in the days Asia still had 100.000 tigers? The question, therefore, is if wild big cats can increase or decrease in size in a relatively short period of time. The answer to the question is yes. For proof, go to the Sunderbans first. If you see a male tiger exceeding 270 pounds, you would be the first. Than visit Central India, where adult males often exceed 500 in their prime. What more do you need to get to the correct conclusion? 
Wonderful write up, as always. To be frank, at this point, morphological studies of tigers is probably over, especially with the current approach on interference. What is weighed is for whatever reason not released.
Though, Peter, regarding the tables you mentioned. I would be interested in a write up discussing the errors you have found. Do you have the Heptner table? All that would be interesting to see, considering somehow they found a way to measure a tiger to 390 cm, a number which would likely only be produced by many flaws. (03-08-2015, 11:27 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Wonderful write up, as always. To be frank, at this point, morphological studies of tigers is probably over, especially with the current approach on interference. What is weighed is for whatever reason not released. I know about the policy in India. Saw it coming a long time ago. For this reason, I decided to record all data I found many years ago. I now have so many entries that I'm, sizewise, able to distinguish between regions. Everything I found was more or less confirmed by Sunquist and Ullas Karanth. Their findings, if anything, point towards slightly larger tigers today (averages). This also means the old boys often were as accurate as they come. The dismissals of old records and the excuses used (referring to 11-inch tapes), to put it mildly, really are unfounded. Based on what I read and found myself, my conclusion would be that old records often are more reliable. As for errors in articles and books written by biologists. In the thread with this name in AVA, there was an extensive debate about Heptner & Sludskij. My advice is to go there and read as much as you can. One day, everything will be deleted. It would be a great pity, as the thread has lots of good information. It already has well over 400,000 views. Regarding Heptner and Sludskij. I have the table, as I bought the German translation of their book a long time ago in what was then East-Berlin. The book is great, but the table has so many flaws I wouldn't know where to start. The problems with many tables is that nearly all have a mix of reliable and unreliable data. When you have, finally, found the reliable parts and start reading more, you will discover more flaws. Going through the info in this way, you will conclude that that it will take a lot of time to get to a result that could be considered 'reliable' to an extent. It really is a mess. I've now finished with Sumatran and Javan tigers. All in all, I've about 200 entries I consider reliable. Skulls, weights, body dimensions, measurements, status (wild or captive) and age-groups. It took me some decades to get to that number and I needed many months to find out more about the details when I started on the tables. The next step is India. I will distinguish between region, method used and reliability. My guess is it will take about a year. As for the collection of data. I think you really have no option but to start a database yourself. In order to get to the number of entries needed, you have to read. For years. I would recommend old books, as they are much more informative than anything written today. I would advice to post your results every now and then, as it could result in useful additions from others interested in measurements. Bury your illusions right away. Be prepared to accept that a lot of what you consider 'reliable' really isn't. If you want to, I will post scans of the old debates on size and a few tables every now and then. I will post some of my tables when I'm nearly done with the book I want to write. Reasons clear, I assume. Some general remarks on size to finish with. Although ten feet straight was exceptional two centuries ago as well, longer animals were there no doubt. I agree with Dunbar Brander, who thought 11 feet straight would be just about the limit. My guess is animals exceeding ten feet straight were not limited to Manchuria, Russia and India. There's plenty of evidence of exceptional animals in other parts of Asia. The difference with India and Russia was and is tigers do it more often in those regions. When we talk subspecies and size, it comes down to averages. There's no question the generally accepted statements are correct, but the tendency to dismiss old records of exceptional tigers is incorrect. It also has resulted in loss of information. Sumatran tigers is a good example. In many books, you will find that males usually range between 100-140 kg. But tiger 'Slamet' was 148,2 and 150 kg. (I think both records relate to him). When Indonesia was occupied by the Dutch, tigers were considered a plague for a long time. In relatives, Sumatran trigers were much more dangerous than Indian tigers. Some hunters pledged to shoot as many as possible. The magical number was 100 and there's no question some reached that number. A man called Pieters, quoted by Hoogerwerf, shot at least 100 wild Sumatran tigers. Of those, 7 reached 9 feet and over, probably measured 'over curves'. One male measured in this way was 10.2. He was 185 kg. There were more hunters who reached 100 tigers. Some of these also were quite exceptional in size. Same remarks for Java. The often quoted male shot by De Kanter, at 142 kg. (and not 140), wasn't exceptional. Same for his skull. Based on what I read, I would get to 'good average'. But what about the owner of the 349,00 mm. skull Hoogerwerf found? I measured more skulls well exceeding 335,00 mm. Some of these were longer and heavier than skulls of adult male Amur tigers. Remember the 480-pound male shot near Chabarowsk? The greatest length of his skull was 335 mm. only. The skull of the other, at 550 pounds, was 345,00 mm. Some skulls of male Java tigers were as long or longer. And they were massive as well, approaching 2 kg. in weight. The 349,00 mm. skull would have exceeded 2 kg. if he would have had a mandibula. It isn't easy to get to good assessments, because large mammals often show a considerable amount of variation. My guess is most of the statements on the size and range of subspecies are incorrect. The reason is lack of data. 
Great post Peter, this is the reason why this forum was created. This large writes needs large replies, so here is my proposal:
1. Old days: The debates about the correct way to measure tigers are well known by any of us, and like you described, the results were not satisfactory, as people keep using they own “methods” independently of the conclusions of experts like Sterndale (1884). One example is Dunbar Brander, which despite the fact of measuring his tigers “between pegs”, he made the great mistake of taking only the Total length, which from the point of view of Sterndale (and my own too) is a biased measurement that don’t represent the real size of an animal, especially on cats, specially by the great variation on the tail length in many specimens. Mazák (1981) stated that the tale of the tigers is slightly less than 1/3 of the total length, however we don’t know where he get this conclusion (probably Pocock (1929)), so we most believe this as a matter of “faith”. There are few measurements of tigers, in the old days, that we can consider reliable and those that they are, lack of accuracy in some points, like Hewett and Brander which did not measured the tail of the animals (and other measurements) and produced incomplete results. In this case, I think that only the records of the Maharaha of Cooch Behar fill all the “scientific” parameters for a morphometric study. Sadly, even when in the 19 and 20 century, he was quoted as the best source for tiger size, by many hunters and Zoologist, his reputation fall in an abysm since Schaller (1967) stated that his records were biased toward the largest specimens. What a huge mistake!!! Schaller only take in count the last tables of the book, which in fact only mentioned the largest specimens, but he omitted all the other records inside the book, which reported the smaller ones and allowed to create the best comparison in the old literature. At this moment, only the study of Kerley et al. (2005), on the Amur tigers, can be compared with the great records of the Maharaja. In regards of the old records, few of them are correct, there are others that are “over curves” but still reliable for comparison, but most of the records don’t even mention which method was used, which create more confusion. To that, we most add the fact that only “total length” was reported which add nothing to the idea of the real size of the beast. Sadly, people like Dr Karanth and Dr Yamaguchi just decided to close they eyes and label all the old records as “unreliable”, which is an incorrect decision. 2. Nepal tigers: The “official” source on the size of the Nepalese tigers, from modern studies, is the document of Dr Sunquist of 1981, published by the Smithsonian institute, but sadly, the method of measurement is not stated. Now, we have this document which according with Waverider was a thesis from Tamang, where it mentions all the other measurements. I asked to Dr Sunquist where is this data published and he told me that he doesn’t know, but that the measurements were correct and that I could quote them. Latter, in other conversations, already showed by me, Dr Sunquist stated that those tigers were measured in straight line, not over the curves, and this answer was stated to three different people, including me. @WaveRiders, in his hypocrite attitude decided to dismiss all the personal communications without any reason and in a coward move, he only said that he will not contact Dr Sunquist because he simply don’t want to. Dr Sunquist is a great person and NEVER left a question without an answer, Bold Champ and I literally “flooded” him with questions and he always answer it without any complain, even at this day! There is no reason to not ask him about this, so I think that Waveriders decision is more related with “pride” than with “science”. I have no reason to doubt about Dr Melvin Sunquist and I believe in him, so I am sure that the animals were measured in straight line like he says. Interestingly, in the book “Big Game Shooting” of Phillipps-Wolley (1894) present a list of 4 tigers measured in Nepal “between pegs” and the largest was of 10 ft 2 inches (Sir. E. Durand, Bart.). Interestingly this is the same length reported by the Sauraha male (310 cm) and if we correct the length of the largest male hunted by the Maharaha of Nepal reported by E. A. Smythies (10 ft 9 inches over curves – 328 cm), we get about 311 – 314 cm, which is the same than the previous males. I think that about 310 cm is the record from Nepal (between pegs-straight line). On the weight issue, there are many factors like the capture system (baiting) and the problem with the capacity (only with the largest males, of course). However, we have found that the food intake can be corrected and the final figure of the male Sauraha (261 kg) although a result of an equation, seems to fit in all our corrections made to the real last weight (bottomed a scale of 600 lb). I think we are not going to found any 100% satisfactory answer in ANY field, as even people working in the same project will give you different points of view and approaches. Besides, this is not the first time that this happen: Remember the problem with the two large Amur tigers that presented different weights (Morden 1930 – 480 and 550 lb; Goodwin 1933 – 440 and 506 lb), the issue was finally resolved with a “personal communication” between Mazák and one of them (the same that I have do with Dr Sunquist). So, the point is why we most dismiss the personal communications, when they have been used previously to solve this type of problems? 3. Dr Karanth: Like you described above, his is one of the greatest scientists and a real expert on tigers. However, in this particular issue (size), he seems confused but I think where the problem is. Dr Karanth is one of those that think that all the “old” records are unreliable and that should be dismissed. In the same token, he probably don’t want to be confused with those methods and taking in count that the method used by the “hunters” in the Karnataka region was the one “between pegs”, he surely will dismiss them. Now, is very easy to confuse the method “over curves” and “straight line”, after all, both methods use a tape stretched along the back and between the contours of the spine. The only difference is that while the “over curves” method follow all the curves, the straight line method stretch the tape and avoid those curves, sadly Karanth (2003) simply don’t clarify this issue. These few images show how tigers are measured by modern experts:  *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  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Not perfect but suggestive, and as we can see, they stretch the tape over the animal, in a straight form that avoids the natural curvatures of the body. I think Dr Karanth have done the same and if we take the words of Dr Sunquist, at least the two first animals captured in Nagarahole were surely measured in this way, as Dr Sunquist was present. Sadly, in the case of the other two tigers, I can’t provide a clear conclusion, as at difference of Dr Sunquist, Dr Karanth don’t answer emails about the size of tigers. He have answer me everything about tiger ecology, prey specialization and methods of count tigers, but when I ask him about size, silence is the only result. 4. From Russia, with love: I think that all of us are agree that the records from the Amur tiger are the only modern study of the morphology of the tiger and a real treasure for animal lovers. However, like you have say, there is the problem of the age of the specimens. Kerley et al. (2005) states that an “adult” animal is the one able to reproduce, so in this way they classify all animals over 36 months old (3 years) as adults, and this is the same method that I have used in my tables. However, other studies on great cats used more accurate separations like those of Schaller and Smuts with the lions and Bailey with South African leopards, which separate them in more ages. Like you say, the results present underestimations on size, but if we separate them in ages using the tables of Kerley et al. (2005) we can guess the differences. The problem is that the figures are “averages” of several measurements and only few of those are published as single figures. The example of the male “Dale” show us how many variations on weight can occur in the life of the tigers, but the logic will dictate that the tiger only grow, don’t shrink, with the age. The mayor problem with the figures of the Amur tigers is not the size, but the weight. The fact of including sick and emaciated specimens was a real mistake as the resulted figure was of only 176 kg. However when I discarded those weights and including the new records from the southern area of the Russian Far East, the new average is of 190 kg and probably more now. Surely, there is no doubt that the Amur tigers are the longest wild cats at this day, although the Bengal tigers are definitely the heaviest ones (more robust in the girth departments). Other thing, they are the only ones that clearly state the method of measurement (straight line with the tail apart), which add credibility and accuracy. If someone would do this with the records of Nepal and India, all confusions will probably end (or not?). Conclusion: Definitely, modern scientists are more concerned in saving tiger than measuring them, and that is the correct thing to do now. However, when those few animals that are captured for radiocollar studies are measured, they should use standard methods and report the results as the scientists currently do with the African lions and other great cats. Why Indian Scientists and Biologist don’t report they results? This always scape from my logic. Other thing, the studies on skulls should use those housed in the native museums as they could house more impressive specimens. The large Nepalese skull reported by Dr McDougal is in Nepal and the large skull measured by Sterndale is in Calcutta India. Shrink on modern tigers is also a real situation, and this is very clear in the Sundarbans and probably also in Malaysia (although in this last place, I am not quite sure). However, contrary to our previous believes, I think that Russian tigers have not changed its size as the modern and old records, on body size, match perfectly. The only thing that have changed is the weight and robustness, but with modern tigers reaching up to 212 kg in the new reserves, I think that we will start to read of large males in Russia very soon (I hope).  (03-08-2015, 11:09 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I have not Sunquist's Wild Cats of the World book at hand right now but I do recall by memory that Tamang thesis is also cited among the references. In any case it is bizarre that Sunquist confirmed the data but not the source of a student he has been a supervisor in his PhD thesis. I have now read GuateGojira post and once again he confirmed me his attitude to offend people with no reason demonstrating once again what kind of man he is, how good as a Moderator he is and how AVA collapsed after he started to be around for a few years despite it had happily survived for a decade or so without him. He can only offend in a forum because he has no scientific arguments and only bizarre interpretations. I should not even bother in my position to consider an adult man with such an avatar, but he offends and I am a bit hot blooded. I therefore invite @sanjay and @peter to contact him before things will start to escalate and I guarantee that if he will offend again things will escalate. I received an e-mail on 1[sup]st[/sup] March from a high level source some of you continuously mention. I decided not to post it as I do not like the idea to post private e-mail contents in a forum as I never did. I also have friends who know this high level source and I do not want to appear the kind of amateur asking a question and then post the answer in a forum as in life I am a high level and well respected professional. I will have to ask apologies to this high level source and I hope he will understand why I will do it. I also did not want to give the feeling I am always counter-swimming the stream of this community and I finally thought there is no way to discuss seriously and constructively why is this the reality and not the bizarre interpretation of another person mind of the kind of Karanth provided by GuateGojira. Now I made the decision to post the e-mail contents. WaveRiders
Peter
As far as I can recall I wrote I noticed lion skulls from Botswana tend to be slightly shorter, wider and more massive then those from Kruger and I did not compare lions from Zimbabwe and East Africa to Kruger lions.  (03-09-2015, 01:29 AM)'WaveRiders' Wrote: You are confident. But are you confident enough to tell us your name? If you want to be taken seriously (and not to look like some ridiculous blabber), you must be ready to back up your claims by some evidence.
You are right. This time I pissed out of my basin but I have not been the only quoting his own personal life.. My name is irrelevant and my friends do not need to get involved. I earn my bred and butter with a pretty much good job requesting a high level education and expertise as you may also be doing. That is it.
WaveRiders\ dateline='\'1425847080' Wrote: Peter REGARDING YOUR POST You are right. You compared Botswana lion skulls with Kruger lion skulls. I used your remark and changed Botswana for Zimbabwe and East Africa. It wasn't a result of a slop, but an attempt to widen the scope for a slightly different purpose. I assumed the intention would be clear, but I apparently didn't succeed. As you insist on a correction, an apology is coming your way. What was intended when I used your remark on Kruger and Botswana lion skulls? Amur tigers and Kruger lions compare to an extent. Both inhabit remote regions and both, at the level of averages, seem to be a bit longer and taller than most others of their species. They also have slightly longer skulls. In (relative) robustness, however, they seem to lack a bit. Both Zimbabwe lions and East African lions could be absolutely or relatively more massive than Kruger lions. Same for Indian tigers compared to those in Russia. For some reason, lions and tigers inhabiting remote regions seem to have offered robustness for length. In another post (the one on the scientific community, I mean), Kruger lion skulls also featured. That post, to use your words, had some 'allegations' regarding a number of tables and biologists. You responded, but I didn't react so far. Maybe you mixed both posts in which Kruger lions featured? Anyhow. I hope all problems are now solved. ABOUT THE FORUM As for the unfriendly atmosphere between you and Guate. I assume the residues of arsenic I noticed in your post (see the quote above) were a result of it. Perhaps you blame Sanjay and yours truly for not interfering and perhaps you, like Guate, are unable to control those emotions known to appear just before the large guns are cleaned for use. I will address the problems out in the open, but you have to realize action and reaction usually are closely related. Here's what I have to say on our forum and the things I saw. The forum first. On a forum, members communicate about things they are interested in. Our forum is about animals in general and terrestrial predators in particular. Before joining the forum, potential members have to read the rules. The rules are very simple in that our forum is about respect. Respect for the rules of engagement, respect for information and, last but not least, respect for members. On this forum, members communicate on equal terms. The forum is our way to contribute to a world quickly disappearing in front of our eyes. Every forum has different types of posters. Some post videos and news reports, whereas others post on rescue centres and zoos. Most animal forums also have a few members interested in research. They often concentrate on issues not addressed by biologists. One of the 'hot' issues is size. Some members are so interested, they decided to collect data themselves. A few of these post the results of their quest. Although it may seem different to some, it isn't about 12-footers in the end. It's about exploring a lost world. It's also about interesting and original long posts without copyright and that sort of thing. The reason is posts of this nature are interesting for search machines like Baidu and Google. We need the airplay, because it will attract new members and new readers. It will also enhance the number of views. Forums attracting readers are interesting for those who want to sell their products at some stage. We need the money to maintain the forum and pay the bills. Although it is a business like most others, a forum like this one really is about things often disregarded in today's world. Passion and the quest for good information are way more important than anything else. Some of us, as you probably noticed, are involved in the long post department. In most long posts, general remarks often dominate. Specifics do not always count and mistakes will not be held against you. The reason is it is about the atmosphere that is intended. Atmosphere and opinion usually are closely related and people know. If a long post, however, is about specifics and contains remarks directed at members who take pride in their work, problems can be expected, especially when the facts needed to support the remarks made have been exchanged for something that could be mistaken for elusiveness or arrogance. This message was conveyed to you more than once and in a friendly way. For some reason, it had no effect. I can understand why one would want to refrain from sources, but you have to admit it could result in distrust, a lack of understanding, inequal terms and an unfriendly atmosphere. If that happens, those involved in the scrap bound to follow can't be accused of a bad attitude. The one at the receiving end, I think, can't expect the owner(s) or moderators of a forum to support a member who, in spite of his obvious qualities, refuses to give up his rifle. On a forum, members communicate on equal terms. Out in the open, at all times. No snipers allowed. Your posts are interesting and it is clear you invested time in things we are interested in. Knowledge is an assett, but you have to be prepared to share to an extent. If all members are prepared to share information, a productive debate will be the usual result. If you, however, want to participate from a hide saying you lost your clothes, chances are those dressed for the event because it was a condition to participate in the first place will close the door sooner or later. If I agree to join a band to play guitar while fully clothed, they will get clothes and a guitar. If I sell my guitar just before the gig and turn up without clothes and a bass, the agreements made were ignored. The first one telling me about it would be the one playing bass. Same with shopping. If I need a corkscrew, I won't visit a butcher. Reputations also don't count. If I enter a shop without money and demand a loaf of bread because my name is Peter, the one posting on a forum, chances are I'll leave with a bucket round my neck. If you join a community, rules have to be respected. If you demand a special seat for some reason, members will protest. So far, I've supported you. I don't need to see your data, because everything needed to get to statements is there. But others might have a different opinion, especially those you addressed. You can't blame them for responding when pride is at stake, as you admitted yourself. If you are able to see through the somewhat stinging remarks words in Guate's last post, you will probably conclude the message conveyed is similar to the one in this post. I propose to read this post again and let the message sink in. I you agree, than act accordingly. Remember the forum isn't about us, but about animals. The aim is to learn a bit about their world and offer them a voice.
GUATE
You know I like and respect you. I will also defend you at all times. In spite of all that, rules are essential for a forum. In your last post, you crossed a line. As a mod, you are expected to set an example. Regarding WaveRiders. I agree with the remarks on the way he posts. My take is the reluctance to communicate about his sources will result in problems sooner or later. Action and reaction. He has to understand others will not accept him sitting in a room with a view. Problems are not solved with emotions and large shells, but words. The right words. Words are way more effective than shells. We don't need a war. There are plenty of people involved in intolerance and destruction. They don't care about anything. We want to solve problems in a different way. I'm sure you are as capable as anyone else. (03-09-2015, 01:29 AM)'WaveRiders' Wrote:I have not "insulted" you, but just like you call me "fanatic" in a "direct" post without any reason, just because I asked opinions about a single picture, well now I named you hypocrite, I treat you just like you treat me. There is no shame in defend my self, and if you want, I can quote the post when you began to attack me, so I answered to you in your own way.(03-08-2015, 11:09 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: However, at difference than you, I don't trow the stone and hide the hand. I accept what I do, but you simply hit someone in the face and latter run away. On the AVA issue, that place was already in chaos when I arrived, but blaming me of the collapse of the place is silly, but if came from you, it is just funny. You say that you have credentials? Prove it! You say that you have evidence? Show it! That is all I asked since the beginning. If you are angry, then I have hit the nail in your pride, which is good. If you want to prove someone wrong, show evidence and support, don't attack it and treat them like garbage. Now that you have show "some" character, I want to see the so long awaited "evidence" and then you will prove you right (or wrong). Your turn.... |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 98 Guest(s) |