ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

ABOUT THE SIZE OF ADULT WILD AMURS TIGERS - I

1 - introduction

I've been following the proceedings in the thread 'Amur Tigers' for a while. This post is a response to the discussion about the size of wild Amur tigers in that thread. I'm referring to the discussion between 'Apex Titan', 'GuateGojira' and, right at the end of it, 'Balam'. I decided to move the 'discussion' to this thread, because this thread has more views. Meaning more members and readers will have the opportunity to follow the discussion. 

I wrote 'discussion', because the interaction between Apex and Guate isn't quite up to standard. Meaning one in particular compares the contributions of the other as those of a fanboy, if not a child that just learned to write. I didn't say he considers him a halfwit, but it's close at times. Also meaning one of the vital ingredients of a discussion, mutual respect, is lacking. Not what we want.  

Before we continue, a few words about the one targeted by Guate ('Apex Titan') wouldn't be entirely out of place. Apex, to keep it short, has enemies. Not a few of them consider him an ill-informed youngster involved in serious misinformation. That's still without his alleged 'preference' and his attitude. They don't understand why one of the co-owners of Wildfact decided to offer him the opportunity to post in one of the best-viewed threads.

There are two reasons Apex has enemies. The first is his posts contradict the views of posters interested in bears in particular. The second is his 'attitude'. Meaning he doesn't like beating round the bush and swimming in circles. Also meaning he's quite direct. Do his enemies have a point? 

Informationwise, they don't. The information Apex posts underlines the results of recent research conducted by very competent people working in the Russian Far East. Regarding the way Himalayan black bears, Ussuri brown bears and Amur tigers interact, they concluded male representatives of both bear subspecies only very seldom displace adult Amur tigresses. They never found evidence of a male Amur tiger displaced by a male brown bear. It no doubt happens (referring to an incident witnessed in 1978 that was discussed in a recent post in this thread), but incidents of this nature seem to be few and far between.    

Apex, on top of that, added a confrontation between a male Amur tiger and a male brown bear isn't as one-sided as many assume. Do field biologists agree? Yes. in a period of about 3 decades (1992-2023), they didn't find a male Amur tiger killed by an Ussuri male brown bear. In fact, they didn't find a single tiger killed by a bear (referring to both subspecies). And what about male bears killed by male tigers? 

In 2017, a very large male brown bear that had been following, and robbing, a tigress with cubs ('Rachelle') for a prolonged period of time ('Chlamyda') suddenly disappeared from the radar. Two years after he disappeared, the man who knew him quite intimately, A. Batalov, concluded he was killed and eaten by male tiger 'Ochkarik', the father of the cubs of 'Rachelle'. Five years later, an experienced team found the remains of a male bear killed and partially eaten by male tiger 'Odyr'. I'm not saying those questioning both incidents do not have a case, but the information collected in the period 1992-2023 suggests Apex has a point.      

And what about male Amur tigers and Ussuri male brown bears? Do they agree? Everything we know, strongly suggests they try to avoid a serious encounter. For very good reasons: fighting a dangerous opponent, like Vaillant said, hurts. Furthermore, it's risky. 

And what about the alleged 'attitude' of Apex. When he joined Wildfact, we had a sitdown. Meaning he knew the invitation to post in the tiger extinction thread was a result of what I had seen in 'Carnivora', where he posted interesting information based on reliable sources. He also knew we don't like animosity over here. Did he deliver in both departments? The answer is affirmative. 

As to the one who invited Apex to post in the tiger extinction thread. Not a few of those complaining about Apex seem to forget Wildfact wasn't created to select those that excel in the department of being nice. The forum, as announced at the top of the home page, is about those making their home in the natural world. We prefer information collected and discussed by field biologists in peer-reviewed documents, but information collected by those who live close to wild tigers and those who, many moons ago, hunted them will also be discussed. Same for those who worked with them (referring to trainers). 

Meaning this forum really is about good information and not something else. In order to get there and enable all members to participate, rules of conduct were invented. Over here, they really count. If there's one thing our mods don't like, it's a lack of respect. In order to prevent problems in that department, mods not only read words. They also have a nose for what's not said, but suggested. All this to support those prepared and willing to act in the spirit of the law, I mean rule, and to get to productive discussions.

And this was the last word about 'controversial' posters, discussions, insults and all the rest of it. Every member posting in the tiger extinction thread was invited by the one who started the thread. The reason they were invited is quality. Meaning they're able in the department of what we consider to be good information. Also meaning they, qualitywise, should be able to discuss information in a respectful way.         
  
2 - Before starting the discussing  

2a - The opinions of Apex, Guate and Balam 

Apex, to keep it short, thinks adult wild Amur tigers (referring to recent photographs and information about the 'heel width' of wild Amur tigers) might be a bit bigger than the table published in 2005 suggests. Guate, on the other hand, thinks the table is representative. Balam thinks size and prey density are intertwined, meaning she thinks tigers living in a region with long and harsh winters and few large prey animals are unlikely to reach the dimensions of their relatives living in the prey rich alluvial flood plains in southern Asia (and northeastern India in particular). 

As to total length and weight at the level of averages. Guate thinks Amur and Indian tigers roughly compare, whereas Balam suggests it's likely Indian tigers, for the reasons stated above, are a bit bigger (heavier).        

2b - The difference between young and mature adults 

Before we start the discussion, it's imperative that all involved agree to distinguish between age groups. The reason is there are significant differences between young and mature adults. Wild male Ussuri brown bears are considered adult when they reach 9 years of age. Even after they reach that age, they continue to develop. Wild male Amur tigers are considered adult when they reach 6 years of age. Like male brown bears, they continue to develop after reaching that age.   

If you want to know a bit more about the morphological differences between young and mature adults (referring to Amur tigers), my advice is to to go back a few pages. I posted quite extensively about a few recent articles I read. 

Captive Amur tigers, to keep it short, reach adult size at a younger age than their wild relatives. Not seldom, they're even a bit heavier than mature adults. During the transition to adulthood, however, they lose body mass. Fat is replaced by muscles and their skulls (referring to the skulls I measured) continue to develop as well. They 'restart' growth between 5 (females) and 6 (males) years of age. It's not known if they continue growing until their death, because the samples didn't have tigers of 10 years and older.  

Although wild tigers seem to need more time to develop, recent information about the relation between age and size in wild tigers collected by biologists working the Russian Far East, Nepal and India more or less confirms the conclusions about the relation between age and size in captive Amur tigers: both males and females continue to grow when they reach adulthood.     

Hunting records (referring to what used to be British India in particular) suggest most exceptional tigers shot a century ago were quite old. Experienced hunters, for this reason, mainly targeted old males.     

2c - The table published in 2005

As far as I know, there's only one table about the size of wild Amur tigers. It was published in a document released in 2005. The document is in Russian, but the table made it to most forums anyhow. The table was extensively discussed. Same for this forum (see the posts and tables about the size of wild Amur tigers in this thread). 

Apex has a few doubts about the table published in 2005. One reason is the tigers were captured in one reserve only. Another is young adult males were included. This still is without the remarks in 'The snare for tiger', 2012). This paper is important, because it, most probably, has information about some of the tigers in the table. Apex, referring to photographs and the 'heel width' of some males, thinks Khabarovsk tigers could be a bit larger than those that made it to the table.   

Guate said the table is reliable. He added photographs are unreliable. Same for information about the 'heel width' of wild tigers. The main reason wild Amur tigers are not as heavy many assumed is the conditions deteriorated between 1960-2005. 

Guate and Balam refer to recent peer-reviewed publications. Meaning they consider the case closed. 

2d - Recent information  

The question is if Guate and Balam have a point. In order to get to a reliable answer, good information is needed. Guate thinks it's there, but others have a few doubts. While it's true quite a few wild Amur tigers have been captured, measured and weighed in (the eastern and southern districts of) Primorye, there's no information about the size of tigers in Khabarovsk and northeastern China. At least, not in peer-reviewed documents. 

Feng Limin, in a recent video, said tigers have been weighed in northeastern China. The young adult male captured after he attacked a car a few years ago was 225 kg. At least two other males, reached or exceeded 250 kg. A century ago, hunters agreed tigers in Manchuria were larger than those in Korea and in what used to be the Sowjet-Union. If the information about the three males weighed in northeastern China is correct, it would mean northeastern China, like a century ago, still produces large tigers.   

Guate has very good reasons to be wary, but his opinion has to be weighed against the opinion of those who had the opportunity to see wild tigers in Primorye, Khabarovsk anbd northeastern China. Remember we're talking about opinions, because the data needed to get to a conclusion aren't there.        
  
It isn't superfluous to repeat reliable information about the length and weight of wild adult tigers today, both in India and in the Russian Far East, is limited. Meaning both Apex and Guate could have a point. We just don't know. 

So how get to a conclusion about the size of adult wild Amur tigers? 

2e - Proposals 

The first proposal, apart from the remarks about interacting and rules of conduct, is to forget about being right or wrong. It's not important and inproductive.  

The second proposal, for the moment, is to sideline, otherwise interesting, articles about the relation between the size of carnivores and prey density in general. What is needed to get to a conclusion is specific information about the size of adult wild Amur tigers. 

The third proposal is to discuss 'The snare for tiger' (2012). The reason is it has specific information about some of the tigers that made it to the table published in 2005. That and the effect the capture had on their health (referring to their teeth in particular). It also has a few, indirect but important, remarks about two Amur tigresses allegedly 'killed' by bears some years ago.   

The fourth proposal is to discuss the table published in 2005 I referred to above. The question is if it is really representative of all (adult) Amur tigers, including those in Khabarovsk and northeastern China.

The fifth proposal is to go over the arguments Guate used to dismiss information about the 'heel width' of wild Amur tigers.  

The sixth proposal is to reconsider information published in other papers, articles and books. I'm thinking of V. Mazak in particular, as he's one of the very few who measured a number of skulls of wild (and captive) Amur tigers (referring to 'Der Tiger' and 'Notes on Siberian long-haired tiger'). There's, however, more good information we can use. 

The seventh proposal is to consider reliable information about the size of captive (Amur and Indian) tigers. The assumption is there's a direct relation between captive and wild relatives of a specific subspecies.  

The eighth proposal is to get to an overview (referring to skull size, actual standing height at the shoulder, total length, body dimensions and weight). 

I'll leave the first two proposals for what they are and wonder if one of those interested in the discussion is prepared to go over 'The snare for tiger' (third proposal) and the table published in 2005 (fourth proposal) one more time. If so, it would be much appreciated if the findings could be discussed in a post. 

My intention is to get to a table with information that was published in different articles and books in the recent past. Information about the skull size, actual standing height at the shoulder, total length, body dimensions and weight of captive (and wild) Indian and Amur tigers. Will take some time. 

I hope Guate and Apex will be able to overcome their problem. What we need to answer the question is good information. Not something else. Reply