The Java Tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica)

[epaiva]

(02-11-2019, 09:31 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(01-20-2019, 10:05 AM)Richardrli Wrote: Is there agreement now on whether the Javan tiger was larger than the Sumatran tiger?

My conclustion, based in the skulls measured by Mazák is that Javan tigers are the largest of the Sunda tigers but by a very small margin, with a maximum greatest skull length of 349 mm for Java and 345 mm for Sumatra. The average of Javanese males is 326.3 mm in GSL and for Sumatra is 314.8 mm. Check this comparative image that I made some time ago:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now, regarding measurements and weights, we seriously lack information in the Java/Bali side while there is somewhat more in Sumatra. We nly know two weights for male tigers in Java (141 kg wild and 110 kg captive) and one captive female (95 kg) and that is all. For Sumatra we have more like the previous image shows. The thing is that the information that we have suggest that Java tigers were at top, but Sumatran were very close. In fact, I follow the idea that probably the Javanese tiger was as large as the South China tigers, with weight of about c.166 kg (using wild and captive speciemens) and the picture of the large male hunted by Mr Karno (posted by @"Pathio") suggest that I am correct. However there is a record of a Sumatran male tiger that weighed 185 kg quoted in two sources which suggest that Sunda tigers were bigger than what we think.

In 1987 Dr Helmut Hemmer stated that Sunda tigers were "bigger" than mainland tigresses but weighed much less, which meaned that they were less robust. However he based his information in the data of Mazák, which now we know that was incomplete (in relation with the fact that he used only two weights and the information suggest that the specimen of 141 kg with a skull of 331 mm was probably just slightly bigger than the average and not represent a record specimen). So if a tigress with a skull of less than 320 kg can weight over 160 kg, why a full grow male can not weight over that figure? It seems that our modern idea that Sunda tigers were dwarfs is completelly incorrect, and as I have showed, the Bali tiger was not the littly kitty from the small island, but it had a decent size, at least as large as the Pantanal jaguars which had an average of c.100 kg and a maximum of 148 kg empty. I think that this Bali tiger is close to that weight too:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This image that I made, regarding the greatest length of the skulls, is very interesting and can help you to draw conclutions too:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Please take in count that this comparison excludes the female specimen with a skull of 255 mm because it was a subadult specimen, I don't know why Dr Yamaguchi included in his analysis when Mazák clearly stated that it was a subadult.

Just like a side note, and like an interesting fact, the smallest skull from an "adult" specimen measured by Mazák was a Caspian female with a greatest skull length of only 255.5 mm.

I think that my conclusions regarding your question, and to complement those from @peter, are:

1 - Javanese tigers had slighly longer skulls than the Sumatran tigers.
2 - In the wild, tigresses from Sumatra are longer in extreme values but smaller in averages, but again, this differences are small.
3 - Java tiger was as big as the South China tiger, based in the size of the skulls and the picutures available.
4 - If weight is somehow related with the size of the skull, the Java tigers were probably heavier with maximum weights calculated between 160-170 kg (using wild and captive tigers).

@GuateGojira
Thanks a lot for your valuable information Reply