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

[peter]

WARSAW II

Thanks for the response. Although you changed animosity for new information, which resulted in extra points, I still didn't see any scans. As I'm not able to read the part on the Sungari river tiger completely, it's impossible to get to an opinion. 

Assuming you are unable to scan, I'll ask one of our members to find the book and scan the pages that matter. I'll also ask them to translate the pages for those unable to use the translator. 

The link you posted, by the way, didn't work. Same for the links to your posts in Carnivora. Could have been a result of the recent changes made in Carnivora. Anyhow.

In your post, you added new information. I'm referring to the weight and the skull of the tiger. You also repeated that Jankowski didn't write anything about a struggle between the tiger and the bear he consumed. In this post, I'll address some of the points you raised. 

g - The length of the skin of the Sungari river tiger

In his book 'Der Tiger' (third edition, 1983), V. Mazak, referring to the letter of W.J. Jankowski of 8.5.1970, wrote the tiger was 11.6 in total length measured 'over curves'. In his book published in 1993, W.J. Jankowski apparently wrote the skin of the tiger, and not the tiger, was 11.6. In your post, you added the tiger was skinned before he was cut to pieces.

Plausible, but unlikely for a number of reasons.

g1 - I talked to people who hunted tigers for many years. They really knew about tigers. Although some of them had a skin or a skull, they dind't really care about these things. They cared about something else. Some had photographs and notes, but most had memories. All of them were accurate observers, not crappers. Meaning they didn't measure skins, but tigers. Also meaning they were accurate. One thing they really disliked was bragging. The ones I saw all measured tigers 'over curves'. The reason is it is very difficult to transport a large animal like a tiger to a completely flat piece of ground. Takes too much time and too many assistents. 

The Jankowskis were true hunters who knew about Amur tigers. If W.J. Jankowski said the Sungari river tiger was one of a kind, his word is good enough for me. It could be he took the skin and the skull because of the immense size of the tiger and it could be he measured the skin, but it's unlikely he would have used that measurement to describe the size of the tiger. A photograph would be much more convincing. And that's what he did. 

g2 - An average adult male Amur tiger today is 294 cm. (about 9.8) in total length measured 'over curves'. This means the skin, depending on the method used, could range between 10.6-12.0, maybe a bit more. If the skin of the Sungari River tiger really was 11.6, the tiger most probably was average in length. In his letters to V. Mazak, however, W.J. Jankowski wrote the tiger was something special. Based on the weight, he was. It could be that a male Amur tiger 50-70% heavier than an average male tiger is average in length, but it is unlikely. If we add the photograph, I would change that to very unlikely.

This photograph below was posted by 'Betty'. The length of head and body was 300 cm. (9.10). Although it was stretched, it doesn't look like the skin of a snake. I can still see a tiger. Not very different from skins of other tigers I saw, but longer. The owner of the skin most probably was an Indochinese tiger (P. tigris corbetti). A large male might get to 9.10 in total length 'between pegs', but a tiger of that size in that region would be exceptional.

The longest shot in Malaysia (Perak) was 9.8 in total length 'between pegs'. Tigers in Vietnam (Annam) could have been longer (the longest shot by W. Bazé was 11.1 in total length measured 'over curves' and 260 kg. or 575 pounds), but tigers in Vietnam are all but gone:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The skin left in the photograph below, much larger than the other skins, was over 13 feet in length and very wide. The owner, shot in Assam between 1853-1869, was 10.1, most probably measured 'between pegs'. The other skins seem to range between 10.6 and 12.0: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

   

According to Miquelle, an average male Amur tiger is 430 pounds. In his letters to V. Mazak, W.J. Jankowski wrote the tiger was exceptional, not less than 300 kg. (662 pounds). In his book published in 1993, he apparently wrote the tiger was 350 kg. (772 pounds). The photograph published by V. Mazak doesn't show a mountain of fat, but a very robust tiger with a very large skull. 

In captive tigers, there's often no connection between size (length) and weight. In wild tigers, at the level of averages, there is. In India, longer tigers are heavier than shorter tigers. Same for wild Sumatran tigers. This means it's very likely that the Sungari river tiger was both long and robust.

All in all, I'd say that the skin of the Sungari river tiger wasn't 11.6, but well over that mark. It was very likely longer than the skin of the Assam tiger above. That tiger was 10.1 in total length 'between pegs'. If the Sungari river tiger was 11.6 in total length measured 'over curves', he was at least 10.8 'between pegs', maybe even 10.10 or slightly over. Quite a bit longer than the Assam tiger with a skin of more than 13 feet.

h - The tiger and the bear

In his letter of 8.5.1970 to V. Mazak, W.J. Jankowski wrote that the Sungari river tiger has killed and eaten a very large male brown bear a few days before he was shot. In his book published in 1993, W.J. Jankowski confirmed that the tiger had eaten a brown bear. He found the head and a paw, but no signs of a struggle. You suggested there had been no struggle. Maybe the bear had died as a result of a disease, a fight or old age and maybe the tiger had found the bear.

The question is who is right, Mazak or Jankowski. In your posts, you wrote that Jankowski's book is the primary source. True and not true. Mazak wrote he quoted from Jankowski's letter of 8.5.1970. The letter, therefore, is the primary source and it was written by W.J. Jankowski. Before the third edition of Mazak's book was published, Jankowski must have agreed with the content.

V. Mazak's book was published in 1983. Jankowski's book was published in 1993. Mazak's book is about tigers only. In Jankowski's book, many animals feature. Could it be that Jankowski, for this reason, decided to refrain from details about the bear and the tiger? Could it be he forgot about the details as a result of age (he was 82 when the book was published)?

So what is known about Amur tigers and bears? 

- A decade ago, biologists thought that only adult male tigers hunt bears. Based on what he saw in the snow, Goodrich concluded that these specialists usually had a hundred pounds or so on the bears they targeted. All bears that were attacked were killed. In the years that followed, however, I found many reports about tigresses also hunting bears and male tiger 'Boris', after he had been released, twice killed a bear near his kill. At least one of them was 3-4 years of age. Tiger Boris was 2-3 years of age. This to say that biologists had to refine their conclusion on tigers and bears.

- In 2015, a study on food habits of Amur tigers was published. One conclusion was that tigers hunt bears more often than was assumed. In some seasons in some regions, bears almost topped the list. Another conclusion was that the bears hunted could have been larger (heavier) than was assumed. Biologists assumed that bears were too dangerous to hunt, but Miquelle said they could have been wrong. Another refinement.

- Some Russian biologists reported about male brown bears killed by tigers in the past, but biologists today never found proof. My guess is they will.

- According to Baikov, tigers attack bears of almost their own size. Let's assume he was right. In his day (a little over a century ago), Amur tigresses averaged 135-140 kg. (298-310 pounds), whereas male tigers averaged 460-480 pounds (208,66-217,73 kg.). I have no information about the weight of an average brown bear a century ago, but today females average 140-150 kg. (310-332 pounds), as opposed to 260-270 kg. (575-597 pounds) for males. Let's assume they were about similar a century ago. If we add the information of Goodrich (specialists have about 100 pounds on the bears they target), the conclusion is that Amur tigers hunted bears up to the size of adult females, maybe immature males.

Today, Amur tigers show little individual variation. To date, exceptional individuals have not been seen. The heaviest males captured ranged between 200-210 kg. (442-462 pounds). A century ago, however, males averaged 460-480 pounds. A century ago, some individuals well exceeded that mark. Although all reports about tigers well exceeding 650 pounds were dismissed, the Sungari river tiger proves that some males were very large. If the Sungari river tiger hunted bears as well, chances are he would have been able to hunt bears up to the size of an average male. In some circumstances, he might have been able to hunt a heavier male. If the Tatibe river tigress was able to kill a heavier bear, a male tiger also should be capable of that feat. 

What I'm saying is that it can't be excluded that a very large male Amur tiger exceeding, say, 700 pounds, could have been able to hunt a male brown bear of near-similar size. A century ago, tigers of that size have been shot. There were there, that is.   

- Would a hunt have resulted in a struggle? Depends. The photograph of the Sungari river tiger shows he was shot in what must have been a dense forest with a lot of undergrowth. Jankowski found the remains of the bear in that forest. If the tiger had killed the bear, chances are it would have been an ambush. If the tiger had been experienced, he could have targeted the part just below the skull. If so, the grip would have resulted in instant death. There could have been a struggle, but that was a few days before the tiger was shot. Maybe the vegetation had recovered. It was, after all, mid summer. And maybe there had been no struggle.

You read this thread and I assume you read many other threads. It's also clear you read articles and studies. You know about tigers, that is. This means you also know that tigers in southern India hunt gaurs. In northern India and Assam, some male tigers hunt rhinos and elephants. You most probably saw the video of a well-known male in southern India and the female gaur. The tiger got a good grip right away and killed her in minutes. There was no struggle.

If a large tiger targets an agile and powerful animal like an adult male boar or a bear, chances are they would be a struggle. Tigers enter fights with dangerous animals at times, but that doesn't mean they always do. Tigers are ambush hunters. If an ambush succeeds, it would be over in seconds.

- I assume you read the story about male tiger 'Uporny' some time ago. When still immature, he hunted the occasional dog near villages. Uporny was arrested and jailed. After rehabilitation, he was set free in a different region. After his release, he avoided anything related to humans. One day, in mid winter, his collar said something had happened. When they found him, they initially thought he had been killed by a bear. I got to a different conclusion. A few weeks later, they concluded he had been killed by another tiger, also 'quite large':

*This image is copyright of its original author

   

Here's the full tekst (in Russian):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Uporny was 4-5 years of age when he was killed close to his boar in winter. Amur tigers thrive in winter. My guess is that Uporny was at least 375 pounds, but he could have been average (430 pounds). A big male close to his prime, he was, but they didn't find signs of a struggle. This means he had been ambushed and killed in seconds. As his boar was still there when they found Uporny more or less intact, it wasn't about food. Could have been about illegal hunting, but Amur tigers mate in winter.     

Wolverine recently posted a short video in the thread 'Amur tigers'. It shows the place where they found Uporny. No struggle, no nothing. I'm not saying that a tiger can ambush an adult male brown bear and finish him in seconds, but it can't be excluded. If the tiger was exceptional in size, like the Sungari river tiger, chances are he would have been able to target an adult male brown bear. 

- Maybe Jankowski wrote the male bear was 'very large', because he had never seen a male bear killed by a tiger. I don't know, but I do know that there's no love lost between captive Amur tigers and captive brown bears. We also have to remember that tigers eat what they kill. I remember a report about a male tiger eating a large male bear killed by another bear, but tables in studies say tigers rarely eat carrion in normal conditions.     

- You could be right. Maybe the male bear died as a result of a disease or old age, but excluding a realistic option out of hand isn't going to help either. I'm not saying that adult male brown bears are in reach of adult male Amur tigers, but what do we really know? Based on what I read and saw myself (captive animals), I'd say that Kerley (anything is possible between tigers and bears) could be close. Reply