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

[Pckts]

Waveriders wrote:


"You also suggested “If all immature males would have been removed, the average of the remaining 45 would have been over 10 feet.” I have the feeling that doing this a bias for large size would start to be introduced. Remember that we are talking of hunting records where many very large tigers are included. You cannot leave them alone in the sample and then assume the result is an unbiased average of the population unless we have a different understanding of what is the population."

". I have little doubt that every year local shikaris made sure to have available a good stock of large tigers from the area for the Maharajah before the hunting season started."

I have a bit of a disagreement with this, how can you assume that all tigers hunted were of the larger size?
To me it makes no sense, once you have a couple of "hunting seasons" the dominate males would most likely be removed. They are the most bold and their territories must be patrolled making their patterns more predictable. After a few seasons you would essentially remove all the dominate males and no longer have any full grown males to impress others.
Essentially, any area hunted can only provide a small % of large males, after that, you will be hunting females, sub adults and the elderly.



"Our major disagreement is in adjusting the average weights for stomach contents or not and if we do by how much is most sensible. You presented your case and I presented mine. I can say that I was surprised to have vey recently found you to have reverted back over the last couple of months to consider non-adjusted weights as better because they are real scale weights. However I agree with you that adjusting weights when the stomach contents has not been weighed (evidently possible for dead animals only) and estimated only can be subjective. In my opinion it is better do it then not, or at least always specify it and possibly perform an educated guess if the context requires/suggests it. I would not be surprised if, thinking again to the issue, you might go back to your previous conclusions."

Adjusting weight is very subjective, like you said. Even if an animal is baited, how much they fed that day and how that translates to actual body weight % are very unscientific. We take a number (usually between 14kg-30kg) depending on who you want to quote and we deduct this. I think its pretty safe to assume that any animal you catch will have most likely have eaten recently. They usually need to eat daily or every other day so its safe to assume they have some food in their stomach. Unless a noticeable bulge is present or the cat is unusually skinny, its probably safe to assume most cats measured are on fairly even ground.
If our rules dictate that a tiger or lion must have not eaten with in the past 36hours of capture to accept the weight given, it just cuts the sample size down to an unusable mean. So, I am all for using the un-adjusted weights for any cat, over subtracting an inconsistent poundage based on our own interpretations. If one wishes to note that the cat ate very recently or not, that is fine but it shouldn't automatically be used to subtract 30 kgs for every cat weighed or measured.



"The other major disagreement concerns your repeated statements of generalization that the technique used by Hewett (1938) and his assistants for which total lengths of tigers measured over curves were just 2-5 inches longer then if measured in straight line between pegs was “the one” used in North India and your suggestion that is was likely the one used in Nepal too.

In my opinion you are likely incorrect for a number of reasons

[b]2.1     There was not a precise “standard method” in North India[/b]

[b]2.2     I found nowhere that Hewett’s method was the one mostly adopted[/b]

[b]2.3     Hewett (1938) clearly writes that the difference of 2-5 inches occurred WHEN lengths where taken by HIMSELF or UNDER HIS personal observation.[/b]

[b]2.4     Evidence from several well respected and known sportsmen, authorities and hunting companies from North India such as Stockley, Champion, Stampe, Corbett, Barrow, Brown (the latter two ones not sure if exactly from North India) and Raj Singh suggest to me Hewett was in clear minority. These authorities provide actual differences of measurements of tiger lengths taken in both ways or provide nearly equivalent info (Corbett for the Bachelor of Powalgarh)."
[/b]
No where do I see any reason to disagree with the curve v. pegs observation.
There is no precise way to measure any big cat, there are preferred ways of going about it but everybody seems to interpret it a bit differently, but it certainly doesn't mean that one person is measuring their cat in a way that will completely throw off the true length.
There really is only a couple of ways to measure these animals, they are big and cumbersome, not easily moved or measured, thus this is only going to allow for very few measurement options. This is also shown with the similarity in tigers measured in different areas showing similar results.


"[b]Wyndham, you will remember, said the tiger was ten feet between pegs, which would give roughly 10' 6" over curves; and while one shikari said he was 10' 5" over curves, the other said he was 10' 6" or a little more. Shot seven years after these estimates were made, my sister and I measured the tiger as being 10' 7" over curves."[/b]

A tiger can grow quite a bit in 7 years.



"In truth I do believe all those kind of total lengths are virtually impossible for modern wild leopards if accurately taken along/over curves, pretty much as I do believe a 12 foot total length along/over curves and more for a wild tiger lived in historical time is virtually an impossible occurrence."

There are 7 billion people in this world, probably 1% are over 7' and less than that have reached 7.5' or more. Just because these "freak" specimens don't occur in bulk they still occur. A 700lb tiger is certainly not some mythical weight for an animal that averages 470lbs, its very possible and has occurred already. Whether you're willing to accept that or not is a different story.

"Smythies (1942) is a bit more biased for size larger then average then the other ones for North India and Northeastern India. "

I see nothing you posted that would back this claim.


"Remember to what happened to V. Mazak. Personally I would not risk my professional reputation by relying on hunting records of the past. Should at some point come out one or more relevant records are not accurate or fakes  one would loose his face as all his analyses and results would have to be rejected."

There is a difference between "relying" and "stating"
I see no reason why any modern day zoologist wouldn't educate themselves with hunting records and information. In fact, these books and the data accumulated from them are some of the most comprehensive information we have. The requirements of today are not so different from yesterday, the term "peer reviewed" is used now to garner some sort of validity but the fact remains that the records in the past were "peer reviewed" as well. Hunters compared data and its not like you see some numbers that are without some similar instances to back them. If you are trying to account for human error without being on site to confirm said error, its impossible.  But like peter stated many times, when a hunted animals measurements were published, hunters could still compare old records they obtained or books like the ones being discussed can be compared and they all show extreme similarities to tigers measured now.
If anything the hunters are being confirmed now a days. Most quoted averages are fairly normal range, freak specimens seem to fit nicely as well.


"Well, no problem if one considers me as such, but I do not believe to include me in a animal fan-team or in any other fan group is the case. I am definitely not a fan by nature."

The reason one might consider this is due to your history, the scrutiny you put on these measurements would be fine if you put the same scrutiny to lions. From what I see, you never question a lion weight or length, never dive into what should be considered valid and who nor do you ever question the hunters of them.
At least from what I have seen that is.



"However some doubts started to raise in my head as in any circuses or zoos I was visiting when being a young boy any captive animal I met failed to come close in size to any such supposed enormous wild individual. Captive animals unable to grow as large as their wild counterpart was not the convincing explanation I could get to justify my observations. I interviewed my father, talked to friends (who, but a couple of exceptions, knew nearly nothing on animals other then some vague information), read more books, some of which did even actually provide the unrealistic details of head-and-body length of some 2.80 meter or so (the kind of bad info one can still read in a much more modern scientific book on big cats) and slowly I started to understand that something was wrong with the info I had been bringing with me for some years."

Many captive big cats weigh right in the prime range of their wild counterparts. You should know as well as anyone, tigers and lions have a large variation of weights even with in the same territories. You can have coalitions like the Notches where Ron is a smaller lion while Ceasar is a huge lion but they live the same lifestyle, share the same genes but this still occurs. The same happens in captivity, you can go to Noahs ark, the famous sher khan is a small tiger while Doc is the largest tiger they have. The weight difference between the two is 400lbs compared to 560lbs, neither is obese.


"I estimated a Siberian tiger 4 meters long would have been 1.35-1.45 meter at the shoulder and some 1.70-1.80 meter with head fully erected with an head-and-body length of some 2.60-2.70 meter. And I can guarantee you that I made my dreams on that every single night: what monstrous tigers were roaming in Manchuria, I wanted to transform myself in such a hyper-gigantic Manchurian tiger."

But your sources are from where? We have all read the myths of the these super cats, but those same myths exist for lions or other tiger species as well. But we do know in captivity that amurs are quoted by many as being the largest of cats. How many pure bred indian bengals and from where, existed in captivity in those days is up in the air. But I have read numerous trainers now all the way back to the early 1900s say similar things. Since we have no real data on Amurs from before the days of the STP its a much more debatable issue. But I don't think that all these captive giants just popped up, I know that if they were given the space and prey needed to sustain their former sizes, they would again obtain them. That isn't debatable in book, prey and habitat depletion lead to smaller sizes and numbers.





All and all, I enjoy most of your posts, I wish they would occur more here over carnivora, but that is a different issue.
Any way, I look forward to this ongoing discussion between you guys and from the other posters here.
Reply