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

[BorneanTiger]

(09-18-2019, 06:57 PM)peter Wrote: ON MR. LIMOUZIN'S SKULL AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SKULLS OF DIFFERENT BIG CAT SPECIES - I

a - Introduction

Some weeks ago, in the thread 'Size Comparisons', member 'Luipaard' posted information about a debate on a skull of a big cat shot in India in the early twenties of the last century. The debate in The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS) attracted some attention.

A Mr. Limouzin, who shot the big cat, thought the skull belonged to a very large male leopard. He was supported by Mr. Prater, an authority on big cats and skulls. The editors of the JBNHS published a photograph taken by Mr. Prater. It showed the skull of the big cat shot by Mr. Limouzin next to the skulls of a male leopard, a male Indian lion and a male Indian tiger. 

R.I. Pocock, of the British Museum, saw the photograph and quickly concluded it was a tiger skull. Mr. Limouzin and Mr. Prater disagreed. Pocock offered to examine the skull himself. Mr. Limouzin accepted the offer. When he returned to England in 1929, Pocock got the skull. He concluded it was the skull of a young adult tigress. The letter he wrote after examining the skull was published in the JBNHS. Not much later, Mr. Prater responded. In his letter, he explained why he got to his, incorrect, conclusion.  

b - On communication, misunderstandings and errors

A century ago, letters were often used to communicate. It took time to write a long letter, especially if accuracy was needed and drawings and photographs were included. It also took time to deliver a letter. Or a skull, for that matter. Furthermore, magazins were published only once a month. More often, it was less frequent. For this reason, it often took months, if not years, to conclude a discussion. Same for the discussion on Mr. Limouzin's skull.

A century ago, some of those who read the information on Mr. Limouzin's skull in the JBNHS no doubt concluded it belonged to a leopard. One reason was they only read the JBNHS for a few months of years, meaning they missed the letter of Mr. Pocock published in 1929. Another was Mr. Prater was considered as an undisputed authority on big cats and skulls. 

Today, as a result of the internet, communication is more or less instant. If you want to find information on a topic, you can find it in a day or less. That, however, doesn't mean you can get to conclusions in a day. In order to get to a conclusion, overview is needed. This means you have to read everything available. As authorities lost quite a bit of weight over the years, it also means you, conclusionwise, are more or less on your own. In most cases, this means you have to be well-informed.

To be well-informed isn't easy. One reason is it takes time to find good information. Another is one has to read. All of it. What I'm saying is it took time to get to an educated opinion a century ago. Today, the situation in this department are not that different. 

Member 'Luipaard' knew about Mr. Limouzin's skull, but didn't know about Pocock's letter published in the JBNHS. Same for the one who informed him. A pity, as he is considered an authority by those interested in leopoard skulls. The result is both thought Mr. Limouzin's skull was a leopard skull.

Obviously, if the big cat was a black tigress, then it's easy to see why Mr Limouzin and another person mistook it for a large leopard, either when it was alive, or when its skin was still present post-mortem, before it could totally disappear as the carcass decomposed, because melanism would be more common in leopards than tigers, and so if you see a black tigress in a glimpse or from a distance, then you might get the impression that it's a large black leopard. It was only after Pocock did an analysis of the skull, by which time the fur would have gone, that it was suspected to be a tigress rather than a leopard.

As mentioned by @Luipaard, Mr Limouzin did manage to see the skin:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply