The Java Tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica)

[peter]

(09-26-2015, 04:56 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

*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.

Thanks, Tigerluver. I read the book of Hoogerwerf and tried to contact him a year ago, only to find he had already left our planet. A pity. I definitely advice to read his book, Guate. It's online.

As to Java and Bali tiger skulls. The skulls I saw, and I saw quite many, clearly say Java tigers were larger. For now, I'd say the correct order (greatest total length) is P.t. altaica; P.t. tigris; P.t. virgata; P.t. corbetti; P.t. amoyensis; P.t. sondaica; P.t. sumatrae and P.t. balica. Skulls of Indian tigers seem to be more dense than those of other subspecies, although Java skulls also are quite massive. Some of those I weighed, although shorter, were heavier than the Indian skull recently discussed in a new thread.  

I really wonder if virgata was larger than corbetti, as V. Mazak suggested. Southeast Asia is a large place. Although males didn't reach 9 feet straight in most regions, some produced large males. One skull from Annam exceeded 400,00 mm. I remember a poster who saw an exhibition in Paris. He said one of the (stuffed) males was larger and much bigger than an average male Amur tiger. Bazé mentions a male of 260 kg. and 338 cm. 'over curves' and he was the most modest of those I read. Others, also from France, wrote tigers in some parts of French Indochina at times well exceeded 10 feet in total length ('over curves'). American hunters confirmed Vietnam tigers were not smaller than those in India a century ago.     

Biologists will say there is no proof in museum collections. True. I also agree it is about the average size. But there's no doubt there were regional differences. Cochin China tigers were small to average. Same for those in the northeast and extreme south. But those in Annam and Laos were medium-sized to large. In the first decades of the last century, Vietnam was very popular. For American hunters, it was closer, cheaper and easier to reach than India. Many tigers were shot and most skulls were taken home. Some were later sold to collectors.       

The confusion on size probably is a result of limited samples. I also noticed a lack of accuracy. A few years ago, I went over all skulls I had measured. The aim was to see if there were differences between age groups. The answer was affirmative. The differences are quite outspoken. Reply