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

[peter]

(08-07-2024, 05:50 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: @peter 

Regarding my remarks about the skull sizes, to me, the skulls of wild male Amur tigers look (on average) slightly more wider and vaulted than Bengal tiger skulls. This is the impression I get when I see videos and pictures of fully-grown mature males of both subspecies. Although I have seen numerous Bengal tigers with truly massive skulls/heads that rival any huge male Amur tiger's skull. I also noticed that Amur tigers have slightly larger and more arched canines than Bengal tigers. This may be due to the types of prey they hunt.

I agree there's not enough info on Bengal tigers to get to a conclusion, but I assume Amur tigers would have slightly larger paws (like snow shoes) because of the terrain (deep & heavy snow) they live in and traverse through. Larger paws would be suited more for the frozen, snow covered forests of the taiga. I don't think Bengal tigers would need as large paws due to living in a more tropical climate and habitat. But then again, maybe they do, because of the much larger prey animals they hunt (gaur, wild buffalo, rhino, etc) than Amur tigers. Who knows. 

But what we do know, is that the true average sizes/weights of modern Amur tigers remains a mystery. And I highly doubt we'll ever know. Those days of biologists actively trying to capture, measure and weigh wild adult male tigers are long gone.

APEX

I edited my previous long post, especially the paragraphs about skulls. The reason is I recently digested the information in an interesting paper ('Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between the skulls of tigers from mainland Asia', Cooper DM et al, Royal Society Open Science, 2022). As a result of what I read, I decided to go over all info I collected over the years. It resulted in quite a number of tables. They'll be posted later.  

Greatest skull length of adult male Indian and Amur tigers

The authors of the paper mentioned above used 172 skulls located in 14 natural history museums and institutions. The details about the skulls are in the dataset. The conclusion, to keep it short, is skulls of wild male Indian tigers are slightly longer (average 348-349 mm) than skulls of wild male Amur tigers (average 345-346 mm). 

I do not doubt the information the authors used, but added information published in other books, papers and articles. The conclusion is skulls of adult wild male Amur tigers are longer than skulls of adult wild male Indian tigers (...).  

The question is why both averages differed. One reason could be the size of the samples. The Indian tiger sample is larger than the Amur tiger sample (referring to the paper). Another reason is my sample (referring to skulls of Amur tigers) was smaller than the sample used for the paper. And then there's Pocock. More than once (referring to letters published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society), he asked hunters in what used to be British India to send skulls to the British Museum. His appeal resulted in dozens of skulls. Not a few hunters, perhaps driven by a wee bit of pride, sent impressive skulls. Most skulls ranged between 338-378 mm in greatest total length.  

The British Museum doesn't have skulls exceeding 378,5 mm in greatest total length. This although not a few hunters wrote (referring to books and letters published in the Bombay Natural History Society) they had shot male tigers with skulls of, or over, 15 inches in greatest total length. My guess is most experienced hunters (like the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and a number of his guests) kept exceptional skulls for their own collection, although some large skulls might have been bought by collectors. Same, I think, for large skulls of wild male Amur tigers. 

The difference between the British and the Russians is the Russians never had a curator, an assistent-curator or a zoologist like Pocock. As a result, only few natural history museums and institutions in the Russian Federation have skulls of wild male Amur tigers exceeding 360 mm in greatest total length. If you want to see larger skulls, you have to visit natural history museums in the USA and, until recently, Germany. I added 'until recently', because the large skulls of wild male Amur tigers V. Mazak measured (in Berlin) are gone (...). 

Do skulls of adult wild male Amur tigers, as Mazak (1983) wrote, really average about 360 mm in greatest total length? The information I have suggests he was right. The average I got to (referring to skulls of adult captive male Amur tigers only) was about 359 mm. That's without the skull of the famous Duisburg Zoo tiger, the skull of the 4-year old male tiger shot in the Köln Zoo in 2012 and the photograph of an exceptional skull V. Mazak discussed in his book published in 1983. As far as I know, these skulls were never measured by a biologist or zoologist.

The average I got to, as was stated above, is the average of adult captive male Amur tigers. The average of adult wild male Amur tigers is a bit higher (360-361 mm). In general, it seems quite safe to state there's no difference between captive and wild male Amur tigers in this respect.   

Paws 

It could be wild male Amur tigers have larger paws than adult male tigers living in other regions because of the conditions they face, but I'm not sure. I read a book written by a hunter a long time ago. The largest male he saw, although big in all departments, left prints no larger than the prints of a large male leopard (...). Typical for most tigers living in elevated districts (like the Siwaliks), he thought. 

In less elevated regions, tigers can have very large paws. This photograph was posted by Copters some years ago. It shows the prints of what must have been a very large male tiger (Rajaji, northern India):

*This image is copyright of its original author

The only Indian tiger I saw

I visited many zoos and private facilities over the years. The only 'true Indian' male tiger I saw lived in a Dutch facility for some time about 20 odd years ago. He was sent to the facility when his trainer fell ill. Compared to the captive Amur tigers in the facility, he was very different. The ground colour was deep orange and his stripes were long, wide and very black. In length, he compared to the Amur tigers. In weight, he almost compared. The main difference, apart from the differences in colour and the size and width of the stripes, was in the way both were built. 

Captive male Amur tigers are either massive all the way or long, lithe and tall. The alleged 'Indian' tiger (I thought he could have belonged to Panthera tigris corbetti) was somewhere in-between. He was more active, more athletic, more alert and more tense. The 'Indian' didn't like tigers one bit, his trainer said. His best friend was a male lion found at a young age somewhere in wild Africa. He was sold to a man involved in training big cats. In spite of his advice to leave the lion out of a show, he was sold to a trainer who used him for a show. The lion didn't like lions one bit (...). If there would have been a checklist for psychopaths, the trainer told me, he would have topped it with one paw. These two, natural enemies according to all involved in big cats, only accepted each other.  

Captive male lions and tigers

Captive adult male African lions (referring to the opinion of trainers and my observations) often are strong-willed, a bit mono in most departments and quite emotional, if not aggressive. They seem to live in the moment all the time. A result of the way they live, most trainers thought. Captive adult male tigers, apart from a few exceptions, often are their counterparts. In a group, they keep a low profile and try to stay out of trouble (referring to ranking fights and the occasional free for all). In a mixed act, adult male tigers often are loners. They seem to keep records of everything of interest and often have a hidden, somewhat dark, agenda (referring to other big cats in the act).  

In a mixed act, male lions, large or small, no matter what, eat first. Or else. Same for the mating game. If a mixed act has more than one adult male lion and a few adult male tigers, trouble is to be expected. The trainer I talked to knew all about it. Lions win nearly all encounters at the level of groups, because they know about cooperation. In a one-on-one, however, anything is possible. Like the director of the facility, the trainer of the 'Indian' tiger thought Sumatrans were the most able in a competitive climate. Captive male Amur tigers often use their size to convince opponents, Indian tigers and tigers from southeast Asia are a bit more cagy and Sumatrans go for it no matter what. All this according to those who had the opportunity to work with captive big cats (trainers) or watch them (directors of facilities). 

Like many posters, trainers like generalisations. The difference with posters is they know reality is a very mixed bag at best. There are countless exceptions and surprises to the general rule. The outcome of confrontations depends on the individual and on circumstances, they say. These observations are of interest, because trainers really know the animals they work with. They have to. I could write a book about the interviews and the things I heard and saw. I could also tell you anything is possible in most mammals, because every adult is an individual. 

Knowledge

Back to your post. The question was what we really know? My guess is it's, like in most humans, close to zilch at the level of individuals. My guess is most wildlife biologists would disagree. The reason is they collect information at the level of species. Their efforts resulted in knowledge, understanding, protection and, in the end, more tigers. This in a few decades only. Quite something, I think. What I'm saying is knowledge is related to the level of observation. The further away you are, the better the chance to discover a few patterns.    

Posters operate at the level of individuals. Most of them are very competent in the department of selection, meaning they create a lot of room to produce statements with a somewhat speculative character.  

Interactions between male Amur tigers and male Ussuri brown bears

The bottom line of most of your posts, I think, is interactions between wild male Amur tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears could be more complicated than many assume. As far as I know, most posters think a large adult male Ussuri brown bear will prevail in a fight with a large male Amur tiger most of the time. The reason, they think, is adult male brown bears are larger, bigger and more durable. They're right in the size department. At the level of averages, wild male Ussuri brown bears top wild male Amur tigers in most respects. That, however, doesn't mean every adult male brown bear is willing, or able to, use this advantage to challenge every adult male tiger on every occasion. Posters interested in bears often assume every adult male tiger will make a hasty retreat when an adult male Ussuri brown bear approaches his kill. Experienced biologists who know about both species and interactions, however, concluded adult male brown bears avoid kills of adult male tigers. Every now and then, they (also referring to large male Himalayan black bears) appropiate the kill of a tigress, but there's no evidence of male brown bears appropiating kills of male tigers. Remember we're talking about observations of experienced rangers and biologists and large samples. 

Meaning interactions between both species apparently are not a result of size only. Also meaning we're missing something. So what do we know?

It's known Amur tigers of all sizes hunt Himalayan black bears. It's also known Amur tigers at times hunt (immature and female) brown bears. That, however, doesn't mean all wild Amur tigers hunt brown bears when the opportunity is presented. It depends on the individuals involved. 

Finally, it's known some immature and young adult tigers hunt bears. Not a few of them develop into accomplished bear hunters targeting even adult female brown bears. These 'specialists', however, are very different from an average tiger. 

About male Amur tiger 'Odyr' and the adult male brown Ussuri bear he killed in November 2022

Most posters, as was stated above, assume adult male Ussuri brown bears are out of the predatory reach of adult male Amur tigers, but there's some doubt about this assumption. One reason is individual variation is pronounced in both species (also referring to the information of Victor Lukarevsky). Sizewise, there's quite a bit of overlap between adult males of both species. It could be, as some experienced tiger biologists think (referring to the interviews with Russian biologists you posted), an adult wild male Amur tiger has the best chance in a fight with an adult wild male Ussuri brown bear. If true, the first question, of course, is why biologists do not find more adult male brown bears killed by tigers. Hunting large brown bears would make sense for a tiger, as hunting in a region with a harsh climate like the Russian Far East takes a lot of energy. Research, however, says adult male Amur tigers do not hunt adult male brown bears. The incidents discussed in this thread some time ago (referring to 'Chlamyda' and the male brown bear killed by 'Odyr') are quite the exception. The only conclusion explaining the information available is adult males of both species avoid a direct confrontation.      

The information you found answers one question in that a serious fight between adult males of both species apparently isn't as one-sided as many of those interested in interactions between wild Ussuri brown bears and Amur tigers assume. There's no question 'Odyr' killed an adult (callus width of the front paw 18 cm) male brown bear in what seems to have been an open fight. I'm referring to the articles about this incident and this video recently posted at YouTube: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itHpO99c-1c

There are, to be complete, some doubt about the age of the male brown bear killed by 'Odyr'. I'm referring to analleged 'email' of a Russian researcher who was contacted by a poster interested in bears not so long ago. The researcher, allegedly, said the brown bear was a 3-year old male (...). The email, posted in a bear forum and used by members of other forums, was used by those interested in bears to reject the report about the incident. 

The alleged email has to be weighed against the original report. The information provided by those who found the bear, in my opinion, leaves no doubt as to the age of the bear. Furthermore, one has to remember that the one who first reported about the incident, Yuri Kya, knows about Ussuri brown bears and how to measure the callus of the front paw. Is it likely a staff member of the organisation employing Yuri Kya will contradict a senior, very experienced, man like Yuri Kya? A man who saw the location where the bear and the tiger fought for some time? 

About Yuri Kya 

Here's a photograph posted quite some years ago. It shows Yuri Kya holding the head of what seems to be a male Ussuri brown bear being weighed:

*This image is copyright of its original author

For confirmation of the identity of the man in the photograph, play the video I posted (referring to this post). At 01:59, you can see the Yuri Kya of today. The video is short, to the point and informative. 

Yuri Kya is Chief Engineer for Forest Protection and Forestry Activities at the Bolshekhekhtsirsky Reserve of the Federal State Budgetary Institution Reserved Amur Region. To say he's an authority on the flora and fauna in the Russian Far East would be an understatement. The team he leads (the video has a photograph of all members of the team) has been patrolling the forest for many years. All members have initimate knowledge of the (character, habits and whereabouts of the) animals living in the forest. 

When you watch the video again, try to find the photograph of Yuri Kya close to the statue of the one who inspired him. It's Dersu Uzala, the trapper who guided the famous V.K. Arseniev through the forest of the Russian Far East more than a century ago.  

Vladimir Klavdievich Arseniev (1872-1930) " ... undertook twelve major scientific expeditions between 1902 and 1930 in the Siberian Far East, and authored some sixty (!) works on the geography and ethnography of the region ... " (from the cover of 'Dersu the trapper', reprint, 1996). In 1941, 'Dersu The Trapper' was first published. In 1996, a reprint was published in the USA. It's a great book.

People like Arseniev, to put it mildly, heavily relied on the knowledge and the experience of trappers like Dersu Uzala. The Dersu Uzalas of today, like Yuri Kya, still guide explorers and biologists through the forest. Without them, most (Russian biologists are different) biologists would be lost, if not to say they would be forced the reinvent the wheel just about every day.  

The Dersu Uzalas and Yuri Kyas are remnants of a lost world. The knowledge they have is vast. It doesn't compare to anything else and it's very difficult to describe. Vladimir Klavdevich knew. He's one of the few who tried to catch it in words. The book he wrote about the Russian Far East and the knowledge of Dersu is great. The moment you start reading, you enter another world. One we'll never see again.           

About those actively involved in producing misinformation, dismissing and ridiculing a very able and experienced ranger and creating a toxic climate  

Why was the video posted two years after the incident? I don't know, but I do know the video is interesting for those interested in interactions between wild Amur tigers and Ussuri brown bears. It leaves no doubt about the identity of the animals involved, the location of the fight, the date, and the identity and ability of those who found the remains of the bear and inspected the snow-covered ground.  

I'm not sure, but it is possible the one involved in the video might have been aware of the discussions between posters of different forums. If true, the video might have been an attempt to silence those who deliberately discredited the training, ability, knowledge, experience and integrity of the one who found the remains of the bear (Yuri Kya). 

That's still apart of the attempt to discredit the forum where the incident was discussed (Wildfact), the attempt to discredit the (Russian) member who first posted about the incident, and the member who posted more, very reliable, information about interactions between tigers and brown bears in the Russian Far East (referring to 'Apex Titan'). And then there's the deliberate campaign to ridicule and discredit one of the co-owners of that forum (Wildfact). 

We're talking about a forum that had over 100 million views in about a decade. A forum considered as informative and reliable by many. So much so, it's recommended to children interested in the natural world at a number of schools. Apart from that, uite a few biologists and zoologists visit the forum. I know, because they contacted me.   

This, Brobear, means many readers will learn about your deliberate attempts to dismiss good information, your attempts to replace information collected by reliable woodsmen (like Yuri Kya) by crap produced by a member of your community, and your attempts to dismiss, and insult, those you consider 'reponsible' for informing the general public about the way wild male Amur tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears in the Russian Far East interact. Apart from that, you're actively involved in producing misinformation, abusive language and creating a toxic climate.

All this because the information didn't suit your preference?    

You've been warned more than once about the way you operate, Brobear. Insulting one of the administrators and some members of a public forum is one thing, but ridiculing a well-trained, very experienced and respected member of an organisation involved in protecting vulnarable species in a reserve in the Russian Far East (referring to Yuri Kya) is something else. Meaning it's a bloody shame and also meaning there will be a follow-up.   

My first advice is to apologize to those you insulted right away. The second is to get rid of your bloody agenda. You do agendas in the pub. The third is to take biologists who know a lot more than you do serious. The fourth is to quit producing misinformation about wild Amur tigers. Start reading 'peer-reviewed' documents and try to understand what the authors are really saying. In order to get there, buy a book about the advantages of reading first. Last but not least is the advice to follow a course in order to activate the top floor. And when you can't resist the urge to start crapping again, visit a laywer. Whatever you do, remember you're an adult, not a child. This means you're responsible for your actions at all times. You. Not someone else. Your posts say you read every word I post, meaning you now can't say you didn't know.     

If you ignore the advice, action will follow. This means experts will have a good look at the infamous 'email' one of your members produced. Same for the 'response' of the staff member he contacted in Russia. My guess is the organisation involved will be as interested in the proceedings as we are. We'll also contact the firm enabling you to spread deliberate misinformation and post insults time and again. Remember the public opinion about these issues, for very good reasons, has changed considerably, meaning you, and a number of your members, might face problems.   

About tiger 'Ochkarik' and Ussuri brown bear 'Chlamyda'
 
I take Batalov, as experienced as they come, very serious, but I agree with those who wrote his conclusion about 'Chlamyda' and 'Ochkarik' seems to have been a result of deduction and logic. He no doubt had very good reasons to get to his conclusion, but one can't completely exclude the possibility 'Chlamyda', who no doubt 'sensed' he had overplayed his hand with tigress 'Rachel', decided to go undercover for some time. Not easy for a giant bear, but you never know. Adult brown bears are very clever animals. 

My guess (different from being sure) is Batalov could have been right. The reason is adult wild male Amur tigers, as Vaillant (2011) said, often take things personally. The trainers I interviewed told me adult captive male Amur tigers are observative animals with a good memory prepared to wait for the right moment for a long time.  

According to N. Baikov ('Big game hunting in Manchuria', Hutchinson & Co., London, 1936), not murder, but theft was considered as the most serious offence in Manchuria and the Russian Far East a century ago. My guess is it isn't any different different in today's wild Amur tigers. Wild adult male Amur tigers, as Vaillant wrote, invested years to get to a territory. It's very likely most of them consider tresspassing and theft as major offences. 

When tigress 'Rachel' informed 'Ochkarik', the father of her cubs, about the actions of the immense male brown bear, chances are he would have acted. There's no doubt whatsoever that 'Chlamyda' invaded the personal space and integrity of tigress 'Rachel' and tiger 'Ochkarik'. For those who know about tigers, this information is as important as what many posters consider as 'evidence' of what (could have) happened later, if not more so. 

About rare incidents between adult male Amur tigers and adult male Ussuri brown bears 

Apart from the incidents discussed above, there's reliable information about other incidents in V. Mazak's book 'Der Tiger' (1983). Based on this information, one could conclude an adult male Amur tiger is able to kill an adult male Ussuri brown bear in a fight. I'm not referring to an ambush, but to an open fight. I also don't doubt an adult male Ussuri brown bear is able to kill an adult male Amur tiger.   

All in all, I'd say we could conclude an average adult male Amur tiger and an average adult male Ussuri brown bear seem to be on a kind of par. This conclusion, of course, is without exceptions. Meaning you never know. Reply