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

[return 80]

(Yesterday, 03:08 PM)peter Wrote: RETURN 80

Many thanks for the additional information (referring to posts 2,794, 2,795 and, in particular, 2,797 and 2,798). Those interested in the evolution of tigers in northeastern Asia no doubt found their way. If you have time, it would be appreciated if you could post a bit more about the two 'waves' from China. During the first wave, it's quite likely tigers encountered cave lions (also referring to Baryshnikov's publication about bones of carnivores found in a number of caves in southeastern Russia). 

In this post, I want to return to a table I posted in the thread 'Amur Tigers' not so long ago. I'm referring to this table: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

You posted additional information about tiger 04, which was poached in Heilongjiang. As a result, we now know it was a young adult male of approximately 170 kg (and not 161,1 kg) ranging between 37-50 months of age. This means I (referring to your post in the thread 'Amur Tigers') can now use it in a table that has information about the skull size of young adult wild male Amur tigers. This table is necessary, because I have some doubts about the age (of the former owner) of some of the skulls used in 'Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between the skulls of tigers from mainland Asia' (Cooper, DM) et al, Royal Society Open Science, 2022).  

The table above has information about 14 tigers. Of these, 10 belong to Panthera tigris altaica. The question is if you know a bit more about skulls 02, 05, 06, 09, 10, 11 and 12. Did the skulls belong to wild Amur tigers? Is there information about the age of the former owners of these skulls? When were they acquired? Using the table, my guess for now is skulls 02, 06, 10 and 11 belonged to adults. With 'adult', to be complete, I mean 5 years (and older) for females and 6 years (and older) for males.

As to the skull of the heaviest Amur tigress on record. 

In an article about the Morden-Graves expedition in the 1929-1930 winter in northeastern Asia, there's a paragraph about the Amur tiger. It has detailed information about the length and weight of 2 males and 1 female. V. Mazak ('Der Tiger', third edition, 1983), after a bit of research, discovered the males were measured in different ways. One of them was measured 'over curves', whereas the other was measured 'between pegs' after he had been skinned (...). There was some confusion about the weight as well. Mazak found that one of the males had been weighed without the skin (...). The female apparently was measured 'between pegs'. The article has information about the skulls of the 2 males, but I didn't see anything about the female. If her skull, as you wrote, really was 286 mm in greatest total length, chances are she was a young adult. My guess is at least one of the males (I'm referring to the male with a skull with a greatest total length of 335 mm) was a young adult as well. Where did you find the information about the skull of the tigress?

Hi peter,

Thanks for you reply.

Yes, these Amur tiger skulls are specimens used in wildlife monographs or tiger research books. Although not every specimen has a record of its original location, it is true that they are wild Amur tigers.

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of age related information about these specimens, and I'm not a zoological researcher at present, so I can't go directly to the Institute of Zoology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to check them personally.

The only individual among these Amur tiger skulls that I can confirm may reach your standard age of 6 years or older is Tiger-06, which is 09725. I have previously posted information about it I also have another skull photo of it. Its premolars have obvious wear, and its upper canine are also partially broken, so there is no doubt that it is an older individual.

*This image is copyright of its original author

In addition, there are two female tiger individuals in this table whose age I can determine. Tiger–12(09412),In the original records, it was defined as juvenile or subadult. Tiger-14(6102),From the photos taken by Ji H. mazák, it is undoubtedly an adult individual.

*This image is copyright of its original author

However, there is a conflict between the records in the table and the information I am aware of. The producer of the table may have simply attributed some of the specimens to males based on their size. I will now share some information that I know.These pieces of information are from<FAUNA SINICA>(Mammalia
Vol.8: Carnivora),<Survey Report on Mammals in Northeast China>,<Tiger Research>and Ji H. mazák's Records

Tiger-02 :There is no sex record or original location record in<FAUNA SINICA>. I guess it's classified as male in the table because of its huge size

Tiger-05(09414):There is no sex record or original location record in<FAUNA SINICA>.But in Ji H. mazák's records, it is an adult female individual. I don't know any evidence that it is male, maybe because of its larger body size record? Based on the collection time of 09725, it is speculated that it should be a specimen before 1957

Tiger-09(SO 460):It is also a specimen from Heilongjiang, and according to relevant records, its collection time was December 1977.However, as far as I know, this male seems to have no body measurement data other than skull measurements.In the<Heilongjiang Province Mammals>(《黑龙江省兽类志》), its body data records are blank.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Tiger-10(09417):It was recorded as an adult male tiger in Northeast China along with 09725(But maybe not over 6 years old, I haven't personally come into contact with this specimen), and the collection time should have been earlier than 09725

Tiger-11(SO 387):The time and location of collection are unknown, and the gender is female.

The heaviest wild female Amur tiger skull record.

In Goodwin's 1933 publication, he reported on three tigers in the Ussuri region, whose skin and skeleton are now preserved in AMNH.Mazák published his correspondence with Goodwin in his 1967 publication (p.522), I also have the book <Der Tiger>(third edition), which explains that the weight reported by Goodwin in 1933 was the weight after peeling the skin(p.188).

So, by combining their data, we can also obtain relevant catalog numbers and corresponding individual data:

AMNH85396 [9ft 7in total body length(after skin,between pegs),200kg(after skin),217.5kg(total weight),335mmGSL,237mmZB)]

AMNH85404 [10ft total length over curves,230kg(after skin),249.1kg(total weight),345mmGSL,237mmZB]

And the 167kg Ussuri female tiger is also recorded in the AMNH archive, with the catalog number AMNH85405.

In Adam Hartstone Rose et al.'s research(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113437) on the skull morphology of captive and wild lions and tigers, they used and measured many AMNH lion and tiger skulls, including this 167kg female tiger AMNH85405.They provided all the measurement values in the supplementary materials of the paper.

*This image is copyright of its original author

I think their measurements are quite accurate, such as AMNH45519 and AMNH44520, two South China tigers of different sex,Their results are 313.8mmGSL × 210.5mmZB and 271.2mmGSL × 118.7mmZB.This is very similar to Allen's measurement results for these two specimens.In addition, their AMNH85396 is almost identical to Goodwin's measurement results.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Therefore, I can assume that their measurement results are accurate. The GSL of AMNH85405 is only 286mm, less than 290mm, which is lower than the average size

In addition, according to records from the AMNH database, the largest wild tiger skulls they measured for both females and males were Bengal tigers.AMNH 54460 is a Bengal tiger from Uttar Pradesh, India, The 40.7mm P4 is also the largest extant tiger P4 size record I have ever seen. AMNH54458 is a female Bengal tiger from Nepal,its skull size is extremely large, even comparable to the male Amur tiger AMNH85396 Reply