Indo-Chinese and Malayan tigers

[peter]

Richardrli\ dateline='\'1422887799' Wrote: Just two questions: 

1. Where was the northern range limit for the Indochinese tiger? I was under the impression that it stretches into southern China, so could the Sheung Shui tiger shot in 1915 in Hong Kong be corbetti instead of amoyensis ?

2. Are the tigers of Burma (Myanmar) all Indochinese or mostly Indochinese but with Bengals in the western part bordering India? 

Apologies for a very late reply. If it happens again, try the extinction thread. That is the place I visit most. 

BURMA

As for the second question. To my knowledge, it has never been answered in a satisfactory way. One reads a few lines here and there, but I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed document. Here's what I know.

Over the years, I found many records I consider reliable. I noticed Assam shows more variation than all other regions in India. Just south of the Himalayas, tigers quite often reach a large size, but further south and east males seldom exceed 9 feet 'between pegs'. There is a letter in the JBNHS about the length of tigers in the Naga Hills. The average length of 18 males was 8.7 and females averaged 7.9. Only one male exceeded 9 feet. Two males in good condition were 330 and 344 lbs. There are more letters in the JBNHS about Assam tigers and all roughly underline the impression I have: quite big just south of the Himalayas and much smaller in the south-east. Same for the books I read.

In the day of the British Rai, Burma was largely covered with dense evergreen forest. Tigers were not often hunted. Two of those who did (Burgess and Thom) wrote about their experiences. Thom's longest taped 9.4 and 9.0 'between pegs'. One other was 10.4, but I think that one was measured 'over curves'. He thought the 9.4 tiger was as heavy and robust as they come and he had seen lots of tigers in India. Burgess only shot 13 tigers in Burma. Three of those taped 9.8, 9.4 and 9.0 'between pegs'. Peacock, quoted by Pocock (1939), underlined the findings of Burgess and Thom and he wasn't the only one. All in all, I'd say tigers in northern Burma were a bit larger than those in south-east Assam. The photographs I saw showed Burma tigers were different from those shot in India. Somewhat darker, a different stripe pattern and more pronounced colours. I also noticed many skulls were more rounded.    

A year ago or so, there was a documentary on Myanmar on the BBC. The tigers I saw were very close to those I saw on the photographs published a long time ago. I think there is a difference between Assam, the Naga Hills and northern Burma. The Naga Hills could be a divide. Same for the other ranges in that region.  

After Mazak's proposal was accepted in 1968, all tigers in south-east Asia were quickly moved to Panthera tigris corbetti. I have strong doubts about the validity of corbetti. My guess is he is used to cover a lack of knowledge. South-east Asia is too large amd has too much geographical variation  for one subspecies only. Everything I know points towards different regional types. Tigers probably have a common ancestor, but he disappeared a long time ago and 73 000 years is a long time to develop. Long enough to get to different local types. 

CHINA

Just before Brandt's book was published in 1856, tigers still were common in many parts of China. Those in the north-west could have belonged to P.t. virgata. In central and northern China, man-eaters were so common that travellers were adviced to sleep in the cities. In that part of China, tigers could have belonged to P.t. styani. In the north-east, P.t. altaica was common. Near the great rivers in the centre, P.t. amoyensis was anything but shy. Then there were the Amoy tigers, also belonging to P.t. amoyensis, but distinctly different. Based on what I read, tigers in south-east China, from Amoy to northern Indochina, could have been very similar to those who reached Singapore at times. In my opinion, all belonged to P.t. corbetti. The tigers in south-east Tibet again were different. They had to be if you have a look at the map. Could have been P.t. styani. I read many rumours on P.t. tigris in the south-west of China. Many apparently were no different from Sunderban tigers today and it could be some just followed the great rivers to the south.

My guess is Amoy tigers and Indochina tigers were one and the same. If we would have been able to take a closer look, differences no doubt would have been seen, but that chance has been lost.

My guess is all mainland subspecies were present in China in 1800. The devastation between 1850-1950 must have been immense. Today, apart from a few tigers in the north-east, there's nothing left. Nothing at all. Hard to believe, but there you have it.        

When Tigerluver posted the article on Javan and Bali tigers in the extinction thread (referring to Xue et al, 2015), I decided for a few posts on P.t. corbetti. You are invited to participate. Reply