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

[peter]

BETTY

Thanks for the clarification. I assume the measurement was taken 'over curves'. I'll use the information for the table on Panthera tigris amoyensis. It was a male tiger of 192,5 kg. (424 pounds) shot in 1965. In which Province is Changde Hefu? 

a - The Duisburg Zoo tiger

When I posted the table with information about the standing height of captive tigers in European zoos from V. Mazak's book 'Der Tiger', you asked for a bit more on the Duisburg Zoo tiger. This tiger is not in the table, but Mazak was informed about the size of this tiger by the director of the Duisburg Zoo Dr. W. Gewalt in a letter.

I decided to scan the page. It's about the paragraph in red directly below the table:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

It's in German. Here's a translation of the sentence you're interested in:

" ... This animal (Mazak is referring to the male tiger 'Amur' from the Duisburg Zoo), born in the Rotterdam Zoo (in The Netherlands) in 1965 ..., stood 110 cm. at the shoulder at age 5,5 (sic!) (Zoo director Dr. W. Gewalt, in litt. 8.12.1970) ... ". 

In the same sentence, Mazak added that his mother had been captured in the Ussuri regio. Both parents of his father had been captured in the same region as well. As the Duisburg Zoo tiger was born in 1965, it's very likely that his mother had been captured in the late fifties of the last century. 

Here's one more photograph of this exceptional male. The other tiger, by the way, is an adult female (and not a cub):
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

b - The Sungari river tiger

In 1965, at age 5, the Duisburg Zoo tiger was 320 cm. in total length 'between pegs' and estimated at 280-300 kg. 

I've read reports about wild male Amur tigers of similar size, but all of them were dismissed as 'unreliable' by a number of biologists going over all reports about a decade ago. One of the few records considered as 'reliable' was from Baikov. The 560-pound tiger he shot near the Korean border in 1911 still tops the official table. Here he is:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Most of the other records of Baikov, however, were dismissed.

The Jankowski's also hunted Amur tigers. In 1943, they and a Korean professional hunter shot a very large male tiger near the Sungari river in Manchuria. In one of his letters to V. Mazak, W.J. Jankowski, one of the sons of J.M. Jankowski, wrote that this male, at 11.6 in total length (most probably measured 'over curves'), was estimated at " ... not less than 300 kg. ... " ('Der Tiger', pp. 189). A few days before he was shot, the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear, of which they found a leg and the head.

Not so long ago, poster Warsaw (Carnivora Forum) said that a book written by one of the Jankowski's had been published. The Sungari river tiger was mentioned. According to Warsaw, the length mentioned by V. Mazak (11.6 'over curves') was the length of the skin. He added that he found nothing about the bear allegedly killed by the tiger.

Some posters informed me about the post of Warsaw and asked for my opinion. All I can say is that V. Mazak, regarding the Sungari river tiger, referred to J.M. Jankowski's letters. He also published a photograph of the tiger in his book: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

   
Watch the part at the right bottom. It says: photograph taken by W.J. Jankowski. This is the same W.J. Jankowski who featured in Mazak's book. The reason he featured? He and V. Mazak corresponded. Mazak, that is to say, got letters from W.J. Jankowski. Not one letter, but letters. Watch the s at the end of letter. 

Mazak was much impressed by the information provided by W.J. Jankowski. On page 185, he wrote he considered him as an authority on Amur tigers. At page 186, Mazak said that W.J. Jankowski, more than once, wrote that the Sungari river tiger was the largest Amur tiger he, his brothers and his father, ever saw. On page 189, quoting from the same letter of W.J. Jankowski of May 8, 1970, Mazak added that they had to cut the tiger in 9 pieces to get him out of the forest. As each of the 9 men carried a piece of 30-40 kg., W.J. Jankowski thought the tiger was not less than 300 kg. The additional information about the very large male brown bear killed by the tiger is in the same letter.

c - Jankowski's book

W.J. Jankowski's published a book not so long ago. Warsaw (Carnivora Forum) apparently read the part on the Sungari river tiger. According to him, Jankowski said the tiger wasn't 11.6 in total length. The skin was 11.6. Warsaw also didn't find anything about the bear. What to say?

I didn't read the book. As far as I know, it wasn't translated. That leaves speculation.

The tiger was shot in 1943, when W.J. Jankowski was a young man. In 1970, 27 years later, Jankowski and Mazak corresponded. In his letters, Jankowski informed Mazak about the largest tiger he, his father and his brothers had ever shot. He sent him a photograph and added the tiger had killed a very large male brown bear. Mazak published the photograph and added it had been taken by W.J. Jankowski (see above). The information on the bear was added. Almost 70 years after the tiger was shot, Jankowski contradicted Mazak on the size of the tiger. There's no information about the bear in his book. What's going on?

Based on what we have, there are four possibilities:

a - Jankowski misinformed Mazak in 1970. As a result, Mazak misinformed the public.
b - There was a misunderstanding, which resulted in misinformation. 
c - Mazak deliberately misinformed the public.
d - Jankowski deliberately misinformed the public.

Ad a - Unlikely. In the third edition of his book, on page 183, Mazak admitted that he had been misled by hunters on the size of Amur tigers in the past. For this reason, he decided to use records of tigers measured 'between pegs' only. He also decided to measure (captive) Amur tigers himself. As a result, Mazak was well informed about the size of Amur tigers. He knew that very large males could get to 10.6 or thereabout in total length 'between pegs'. The photograph he got, made by Jankowski himself, shows a very large wild male Amur tiger, similar in size to the Duisburg Zoo tiger. Measured 'over curves', the Sungari River tiger was 11.6. Measured 'between pegs', the tiger could have been 10.10 or thereabout. He was a bit longer than the Duisburg Zoo tiger (10.6 'between pegs') and the Prague Zoo tiger (similar in size), that is. Jankowski told him that the tiger was by far the largest he, his father and his brothers had ever seen. Dunbar Brander also thought that exceptional male tigers could get to 11 feet in total length 'between pegs'. As to Jankowski. The last thing a hunter wants, is a quick dismissal.

Ad b - Unlikely. Mazak corresponded with more than one hunter, naturalist and biologist. He was able in Russian.

Ad c - Unlikely. Mazak knew that he had been misled by hunters about the size of Amur tigers. As a result, he lost credit. This is why he decided to measure tigers himself. It's true he mixed weights of captive and wild Amur tigers in the third edition of his book, but a lack of accuracy as a result of a lack of records is different from deliberate misinformation. It's also true he was fascinated by the animals he studied, but one needs a strong drive in order to be able to write a book. Based on what I have, I'd say that his conclusions on the size of tigers have been correct. If anything, he was a bit too conservative. 

Ad d - Likely. Jankowski wrote his book more than 70 years after the event, when he was an old man. Maybe he sent everything he had on the Sungari river tiger to Mazak in 1970. Maybe the trusted memory had deserted him to a degree. Maybe the focus in his book was not on the tiger, but on something else.      

As to V. Mazak. 

I never met him (he died well before his time), but I met a man he considered as a friend: Dr. P. van Bree (see pp. 217). In his experience, V. Mazak was very able, interested, accurate, productive and honest. Mazak admitted he had been misled by hunters. It no doubt resulted in loss of face. How many of his peers would compare in this department?    

V. Mazak, as far as I know, never saw a wild tiger. In spite of that, he wrote a book that compared to books written by those who had firsthand experience in all respects. Outstanding for sure. Reply