WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
 (07-23-2018, 09:47 AM)Shir Babr Wrote:(07-21-2018, 07:01 PM)Genghis Wrote: Now, lets show you more proof then... SHIR BABR I agree with most of your observations and your English is excellent as well. In my opinion, you should be able to contribute in the quality department. Most unfortunately, you seem to focus on something else. The result is that I have to address situations I want to avoid. This thread is a good one. Genghis saw it and decided to give it a go. His first post was a bit over the top in the video department, but the intention was ok. New posters have to learn how to distinguish between quality from something else. He got the benefit of the doubt, but his post on tigers and bears says he needs more time. This time, the intervention took half a day. Time for a two week break, that is. We'll see. If you see posters overplaying their hand or involved in misinformation, don't respond. The reason is it often will result in animosity. I don't want to invest a lot of time in cleaning the mess. Just contact a mod and the problem will be solved. Invest your time in good information. The ban is lifted. 
Hi, can I add what sources like (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/19188/1/AP-v20n1-51-69.pdf, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erik_Meijaard/publication/236898561_The_Bornean_tiger_speculation_on_its_existence/links/00b7d51a1e7ec3c441000000/The-Bornean-tiger-speculation-on-its-existence.pdf, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018208002113?via%3Dihub) say about the Bornean tiger? Not only is it established that it existed in prehistoric times, but Bornean people believed that it existed as recently as the previous century.
(07-23-2018, 07:33 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: Hi, can I add what sources like (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/19188/1/AP-v20n1-51-69.pdf, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erik_Meijaard/publication/236898561_The_Bornean_tiger_speculation_on_its_existence/links/00b7d51a1e7ec3c441000000/The-Bornean-tiger-speculation-on-its-existence.pdf, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018208002113?via%3Dihub) say about the Bornean tiger? Not only is it established that it existed in prehistoric times, but Bornean people believed that it existed as recently as the previous century. Welcome to the forum BorneanTiger. Provided it's good info, you can post anything you want on wild tigers. I posted the Meijaard publication some time ago though. If you found something else on tigers in Borneo, post it.
ALL
a - Proceedings This thread is about wild tigers. I don't mind a few discussions every now and then, but the goal is to post good information about tigers. A few days ago, two new members got into a heated discussion. It wasn't about tigers and wild boars, but about something else. I decided to intervene. One of the two was adviced to stay clear of the thread for some weeks. The other was adviced to pay more attention to his sources. Life is complicated. The second poster used his initial advantage to overplay his hand, whereas the first was postumely proven right. This meant that another intervention was needed. Shir Babr was rehabilitated, whereas Genghis, after his post on tigers and bears, was informed about the flipside of research with one eye only. Although he misinformed the public in the thread 'Tiger Predation', claiming the dead bear in the picture he added had been taken by a tiger, he still got the benefit of the doubt. Genghis however had a different view on things. His pm, loaded with insult, resulted in a permanent ban. As he no doubt will return in some time, he was adviced to solve a few problems. One of these, something close to what is known as fundamentalism, is typical for quite many posters interested in a specific animal. As it often results in problems, it doesn't seem superfluous to add a few words on fundamentalism. b - Fundamentalism in posters Experience says quite many posters are driven by some kind of preference. There's nothing wrong with preference, provided it is used in the right way. Not easy, but many well-known biologists prove it can be done. The difference between biologists and posters in this respect is that posters often struggle in this department. When severe preference is not addressed, it will result in selection and a distorted view on reality. As the results of distortions often result in counters of other posters, heated debates are always close. Sooner or later, the bad climate will result in destruction. This is why most forums are short-lived. After years of experience, Sanjay and yours truly decided for a different approach. Although we too got our fair share of problems, the result is not that bad. It can be done, that is. In order to get there, clear rules are needed. They also need to be implemented. Posters ignoring forum rules will be banned, that is. Genghis isn't the only poster involved in serious preference. We saw many. In my opinion, quite a few of them could develop into good posters. The problem is they often are not to be adviced. There are different ways to describe 'quality'. One could say that quality is related to education, knowledge and ability in the department of social skills, but our experience says that true interest in the natural world and the intention to overcome problems and cooperate could be as important. The question is why good posters often develop in the department of preference until they reach the level of fundamentalism. Our experience suggests that personality could be important. A famous Dutch football player once said it is difficult to 'convince' good players. They often follow their own ideas and largely ignore those of others, because their ideas produce results. For them. Good players nearly always are outspoken individualists. They can play in a team, but often use the team to show and underline their excellence. In this way, they move up the rankings. This continues until they reach a level where they no longer develop. At the top, you can only develop if you're prepared to ask questions and cooperate. An open mind is of vital importance. More often than not, this is a bridge too far for top players. What seems to be typical for good football players, could hold in other departments of life. All in all, I'd say there is a strong connection between outspoken views and personality. Those who develop in life often seem guided by outspoken views. Many of them do well, but the majority seems unable to develop after reaching the level they had in mind before they started. At that point, their convictions seem to turn against them. If they're unable to adapt, they will disappear sooner or later. At that stage, fundamentalism will get a chance. Those swallowed by fundamentalism often are unable or unwilling to interact. They present theories on a specific subject when offered the opportunity and are prepared to act on their convictions, no matter what. There often is no urge to test their ideas. Falsification is not in their dictionary, but they know how to produce a device that will explode. If confronted with different ideas, they 'demand' undisputed evidence. From others. If these are unable or unwilling to produce, they will be pounded. In the end, the aggressor often is faced with splendid isolation. c - Example Genghis also is a member of Carnivora, where he uses a different name. His trade is tigers and bears. The bottom line of his theory is that tigers dominate bears all the time in all respects, no matter what. When confronted with questions, he refers to research. When a debate is not quite concluded, he at times refers to a poster known for his posts on tigers and bears. That poster also is co-owner of the forum he recently joined. Those opposing Genghis, in order to keep the debate going, often have no option but to question the credibility of that particular poster. In this way, he, directly or indirectly, features in quite a few debates on tigers and bears. One could say this poster, depending on the goal of the user, is either used or misused. As he never featured in person, one also could conclude that those using him in one way or another operate below par. Although Genghis and the one he uses every now and then seem to agree in most respects in the tiger and bear department, there are a few differences. My aim is to get to an accurate description of reality. Not easy, as reality is as complex as it gets. Based on what I have, I'd say there are no fixed rules of conduct between tigers and bears. Animals also can change their behaviour over time. Furthermore, there is individuality. Circumstances no doubt also are important. A 600-pound male brown bear can lose almost a third of his weight during hibernation. This means he, weightwise, would be vulnarable in early spring. A male tiger interested in bears can be injured in a fight with a large bear and decide for smaller bears in the future. All predators are 'thinking animals' able to change their behaviour. Genghis is convinced that an adult male Amur tiger is able to dominate any adult male brown bear. An average adult male brown bear (580 pounds) has about 160 pounds on an average adult male Amur tiger (420 pounds). As both more or less compare in head and body length (measured 'over curves'), this means that adult brown bears are more robust than adult male tigers. It also means they have an advantage in a fight in that they should be able to take more damage. When questioned on his opinion, he referred to reliable information. Reports of experienced Russian biologists strongly suggest that tigers kill more bears than the other way round. In some regions and seasons, bears are an important source of food. Adult bears are also hunted. But it also is a fact that tigers, including adults, have been killed by brown bears. The problem is that specific information about gender, age and circumstances is often lacking. Another problem is that there's not much information about interactions between adult males. For this reason, it isn't possible to apply a general conclusion on tigers and bears in the Russian Far East to a specific group (adult males). Ghengis didn't use this remark to find more information about interactions between adult males of both species, but demanded that the one questioning his opinion delivered undisputed proof. When it wasn't, the climate quickly deteriorated. After a few days only, it resulted in a pm loaded with insult. In this way, the discussion was terminated before it started. I don't think it was about the 'undisputed proof' he wanted. The bad climate was a result of his way of posting and his way of interacting. As this is a result of preference, one could conclude that this was the deciding factor. Severe preference, if not addressed, often results in an attitude typical for those involved in some kind of fundamentalism. d - To conclude This post of course doesn't belong in a thread dedicated to wild tigers. The decision to post it anyhow is a result of the large number of preferenced posters. Genghis isn't the first and he won't be the last. As well-intended advice seldom is taken seriously, it seems more effective to add a post on problems often seen in forums. I will propose to move it to the forum rules section.
GENGHIS (Vegeta San)
The advice was to take a long break and use it to extend your knowledge on tigers and bears. You didn't, meaning you again ignored good advice as well as a permanent ban. This post again has good advice. I hope you will use it this time. Your posts, by the way, will be deleted. This post is the last response to your questions. a - Yuku There was a forum called Animals Versus Animals (AVA). It has many threads in which tigers and bears feature. One of them in particular ('Male brown bears are not out of the predatory reach of tigers if of similar size') is interesting. b - Carnivora This forum has different threads on tigers and bears as well. Most of them are a good read. c - WildFact Same as above. This thread has more info on tigers and bears in the Russian Far East. d - Shaggy God Dedicated to bears. Although a bit selective, it has good information about tigers and bears in the RFE. e - How to approach information on tigers and bears Russian biologists collected a lot of good information. They're the ones with firsthand experience. When you visit forums and start reading, you'll find links to the original source of scans used in posts. Before you read anything, open your mind. Make notes and try to falsify your convictions on tigers and bears. Distinguish between bear species, gender, age and circumstances. Try to find information about Sludskij, Sysoev, Bromley, Rukovsky, Rakov, Abramov and Krechmar (there are many more). Don't go for conclusions and eliminate preference. Also read books written by hunters and naturalists. f - How to post If you go for preference, stay at home. If you decide to go public and decide to join a forum, read the forum rules before you move. Respect them at all times. Accept that animosity is typical for most animal forums. This is the reason biologists only very seldom join a forum. Some posters are better informed than others, but most are kneedeep in preference and all the rest of it. This means you, informationwise, always are on your own. g - How to use information If you select information fitting your convictions, you won't learn anything. If you go for the opposite, you will get to a bit of knowledge, but it will take years. When you think you are informed and join a forum, accept that most posters will go for you with everything they have. It's the old top dog game. Don't bite, as it never produces anything of value. The aim of participating is getting answers to questions. When you're done with forums and reading, visit the Russian Far East. Beautiful place. Talk to people who know. Also talk to trainers and keepers in order to find the differences between captive and wild animals. h - Tigers and bears Amur tigers are very different from other subspecies. They learned to deal with wild boars and bears. And the other way round. Amur brown bears are known for their disposition. Based on what I read, I'd say there are no fixed rules of conduct. In bears and tigers, anything is possible. In average-sized animals (up to 200 kg. or 440 pounds), tigers dominate (2:1). In the heavyweight division, large male bears may have the edge. Half a century ago, Russian biologists thought they won 'on points'. Those interviewed by Vaillant (hunters and biologists) two decades ago agreed. Not saying that large bears always dominate tigers, but they are prepared to confront a male tiger on his kill in times of need. A tiger can hunt again. Why invest energy in a risky fight with a powerful foe with a neck circumference of 3 feet and more? Besides, there are different ways to get to Rome. Male tigers, as Vaillant said, are possessive and vindictive animals. If robbed by a large male bear, chances are there could be repercussions of some kind. My guess is that most male bears would agree. This is why it's difficult to find good information about serious encounters between adult males of both species. Captive Amur tigers and brown bears do not seem very different from their wild relatives. Mortal enemies. They will most definitely go for each other given half a chance. Male Amur tigers are not afraid of large® bears. The outcome of an encounter is anybody's guess. Male brown bears are powerful animals, but they tend to overplay their hand at times. This, however, is also true for tigers, especially young adult males. The tiger featuring in Sysoev's story ('Amba') had the initiative for most of the fight. Every time he attacked, the neck was targeted. When the vertebrae had almost been reached, the bear got his chance and finished the tiger. According to those who hunted them (India), young male tigers often go all-out, whereas a more experienced tiger might have retreated to return later. There's another, more indirect, way to get to a kind of conclusion. Tigers and bears have been neighbours for a very long time. Although tigers hunt bears for food and win most fights at kill-sites, the balance does not seem to have changed over time. One reason is that they do not affect the population. Could be different in wild boars. In the recent past, specialists stayed until all boars had been killed and eaten. Bear tigers do not annihilate their main source of food. One reason is they decided against attacking large bears, as too dangerous. Even at equal chances (1:1), it's too risky. It no doubt happens every now and then, but incidents of this nature seem to be very rare. My guess is these large bears in particular breed. i - To conclude  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (07-25-2018, 09:18 AM)peter Wrote: In the heavyweight division, large male bears may have the edge. Probably not only big male bears but any adult male brown bear. If the adult male tiger Matkasur weighting 200-220 kg from the famous video didn't succeed to overwhelm a smallish female Sloth bear weighting only 90-100 kg (that's the average mass of the female) and actually lost the battle how come a tiger can be stronger than adult male Ussuri brown bear with average weight of 270 kg... ?. That's unthinkable. Its time for us - tiger lovers and lion lovers to open our eyes in the front of the truth and admit that the brown bear is way stronger than any cat. Sadly. Nevertheless the obligatory predators as the big cats somehow are much more charismatic and excite human imagination much more than the omnivorus animals.  (07-25-2018, 07:19 PM)Wolverine Wrote:(07-25-2018, 09:18 AM)peter Wrote: In the heavyweight division, large male bears may have the edge.Its time for us - tiger lovers and lion lovers to open our eyes in the front of the truth and admit that the brown bear is way stronger than any cat. Sadly. Why sadly ? At least, adult brown and polar bears are in "another league" with regard to the big cats. No shame to admit that. We could believe that, at each occasion an adult tiger, being a pure predator, would kill by ambush a same-sized bear, or think that a whole pride of lions could get the better of an adult bear as it was possible in the past during the pleistocene period. If that is any consolation for us... But the wild life isn't a sport tournament within which we could count and recognize the victories of our beloved and favourite animal specy (tiger, lion...) at the expense of other animals. Its absolute beauty is somewhere else. And if we want to be amazed in front of the wild life shows and to protect and serve it (the wild life), how childish and waste of time are these speculations ! 
@Wolverine I thought the tiger did manage to overwhelm the bear with it's power, two things: the bear was tenacious enough to keep fighting since it was protecting it's cub and the tiger was tiring due to heat. The tiger did not lose either , it did not seem to have any worse wounds than the bear and was actually winning the contest, until it just could not finish off the bear and exhausted itself in the heat. Of course, the bear would not let it any closer to itself (and to it's cub) and that is it. The scenario was that the tiger which was in the waterhole saw the bear coming and went for it or the cub then in the end the bear chased it up to the same waterhole where the tiger cooled off. so in a sense the tiger did not have its ground to the bear on the contrary sloth bears which were coming for a drink had to go thirsty. However, the bottom line and the important thing is that sloth bears are known aggressive bears and they have been surviving in tiger territory, they have their own strategy for survival which should not be made a case for Brown bears as they are completely different. For an opinion, I don't think tigers will make such a full body contact fight against a brown bear and might use it's agility instead.
(07-24-2018, 09:30 PM)peter Wrote:(07-23-2018, 07:33 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: Hi, can I add what sources like (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/19188/1/AP-v20n1-51-69.pdf, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erik_Meijaard/publication/236898561_The_Bornean_tiger_speculation_on_its_existence/links/00b7d51a1e7ec3c441000000/The-Bornean-tiger-speculation-on-its-existence.pdf, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018208002113?via%3Dihub) say about the Bornean tiger? Not only is it established that it existed in prehistoric times, but Bornean people believed that it existed as recently as the previous century. Thanks. Introducing the mysterious Bornean tiger or Borneo tiger. Traditionally, 3 subspecies of tigers were recognised for the Sunda Islands of Southeast Asia, the Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatræ), the Balinese tiger (Panthera tigris balica), and the Javan tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica). Of these, only the Sumatran tiger is known to survive (https://web.archive.org/web/201203091255...1-0001.pdf). However, according to people in the Sunda island Borneo, there was another tiger that at least used to inhabit their island as recently as the 20th century (https://news.mongabay.com/2016/11/was-bo...of-tigers/, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bi...-51-69.pdf, https://books.google.com/books?id=XFIbjB...er&f=false). Firstly, here's a look at Borneo. Borneo is rather close to Java and Sumatra, credit: http://mjhuize.blogspot.com/2014/04/expe...sland.html  *This image is copyright of its original author Borneo has a tropical climate similar to those of other Sunda islands, and has almost the same fauna as Sumatra (https://news.mongabay.com/2016/11/was-bo...of-tigers/). Amongst the fauna found here are potential prey of the tiger, such as the bearded pig and muntjac deer (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eri...stence.pdf): Bornean yellow muntjac, credit: http://satwakalimantan.blogspot.com/2015...tjacs.html  *This image is copyright of its original author Bornean jungle, credit: https://exclusives.webjet.com.au/deals/t...h-flights/  *This image is copyright of its original author The Bornean tiger was said to be small like its Sumatran relative (Page 35: https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc...er&f=false), and mostly brown with faint stripes (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eri...stence.pdf). For comparison, a male Sumatran tiger in the jungle of Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, credit: https://www.newscientist.com/article/sum...rongholds/  *This image is copyright of its original author People in Borneo have alleged that the tiger existed in their island not very long ago. When Taufik Wijaya of Mongabay paid a visit to Iber Djamal, a leader of the Dayak Ngaju, an indigenous Bornean folk, particularly in the Indonesian part of Borneo, which is called "Kalimantan" (meaning "Borneo"), he noticed a local kind of machete called the "Mandau", which had fangs on it. According to Djamal, these fangs were from a tiger that was killed by his ancestor, not a leopard or clouded leopard. Photo of Djamal with his Mandau, with the fangs at the bottom, next to his hand, by Jemmie Delvian: https://news.mongabay.com/2016/11/was-bo...of-tigers/  *This image is copyright of its original author It is not just Bornean natives who alleged that there were tigers were in Borneo. Amongst the foreigners who talked about the tiger in Borneo was Douchan Gersi, who claimed to have seen one in South Belayan, East Kalimantan, in 1975, and published 2 photographs to support his statement, apparently including one in Page 87 of this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=wUPvHA...edir_esc=y 
I agree with @Jimmy
In that instance, Matkasur dominated the entire affair. The mother Sloth Bear did manage to survive but not without many deep wounds and she had an offspring to protect, when Matkasur tired out he decided to break it off and suffered little more than a couple of cuts, he controlled her the entire time, made her carry his weight, bit her at will and controlled her position, she was tenacious and kept her vitals away successfully, she lived to fight another day but, Sloths are victims for Tigers, to my knowledge no adult Tiger has been reported to have been killed be a Sloth Bear, but tigers can and will predate on Sloth bears fairly often. That shows that one is a defensive combatant while the other is a predatory combatant. Most decent sized prey species can and will put up successful defense against their Carnivorous counterparts, not all the time but it happens quite often. Warthogs can fight off Lions, boars can fight off Tigers, I've seen badgers and wolverines fight off much larger predators and so on. There is no rule of thumb, a bear that fights off matkasur one day can easily fall to him the next, a bite that was unsuccessful in finding it's mark one time can deliver a killing blow the next.
One day an adult male tiger encounters an adult sloth bear that is more determined to save its life than the tiger to kill it. And the tiger gives up. But the fight/skirmish was witnessed and filmed, and the people will be amazed by the sloth bear's fighting spirit.
An other day, the same adult tiger is really starving... Its path crosses once again the sloth bear's one. But the tiger, much more determined prepares its ambush, waits for the decisive instant to attack and kills the sloth bear in five minutes. Not a single human witness to relate that. The perfect crime will remain unknown of the networks. The circumstances determine the outcome of the fight. A fight between an animal A versus an animal B isn't a boxing match for which the two fighters got prepared to be at the top form at the "T instant". One day even a more or less decided tiger could be ridiculous against a smaller opponent, an other day the same tiger would triumph against the most hardest foe (an adult bear or gaur) he could encounter. There isn't absolute rule "who triumphs against whom ?" in the animal world.  (07-25-2018, 07:19 PM)UWolverine Wrote:(07-25-2018, 09:18 AM)peter Wrote: In the heavyweight division, large male bears may have the edge. @Wolverine I totally agree with you a big male Brown Bear is too much for any Tiger and Lion
My cousin told me about this, the Geneva Natural History Museum has a display of the eight previously recognized subspecies (Bengal, Siberian, Amoy, Bali, Java, Sumatra, Caspian and Corbett); this are the best photos I could find:
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I didn't find info on the particular order of which is who, but is interesting. (07-26-2018, 07:42 AM)Shir Babr Wrote: My cousin told me about this, the Geneva Natural History Museum has a display of the eight previously recognized subspecies (Bengal, Siberian, Amoy, Bali, Java, Sumatra, Caspian and Corbett); this are the best photos I could find: My guess would be (from left to right) bali, sumatra, amoy,siberian, java, bengal and caspian  bengal looks pretty certain though!
(07-25-2018, 07:19 PM)wolverine Wrote:(07-25-2018, 09:18 AM)peter Wrote: In the heavyweight division, large male bears may have the edge. HOW TO GET TO A CONCLUSION ON MALE TIGERS AND BEARS - A Over the years, I found quite a bit of good information on interactions between male tigers and male brown bears in the Russian Far East. In spite of that, I never got to a conclusion that would cover everything I read. One problem is the lack of information on the average size (a), individual variation (b) and the relation between size and age ©. Same for specific circumstances (d). Last but not least, those with experience contradict each other at times (e). In this first post, size and individual variation will be discussed. a - Size and individual variation a1 - Tiger There is recent information on the size of Amur tigers (referring to the WCS-tables published just over a decade ago), but the samples are smallish and, to a degree, unreliable because 'problem animals' and 3-year old tigers were included. A bit strange, as every biologist knows that the differences between age groups in big cats often are pronounced, especially in males. Another problem is that most historical records are considered as unreliable. In spite of that, those involved in an evaluation of historical records published about a decade ago, concluded that male Amur tigers in the recent past (before 1970 or thereabout) were about 10-15% heavier than today. The information I have on captive male Amur tigers says individual variation is pronounced. In wild Amur tigers, on the other hand, individual variation is more limited than in all other tiger subspecies (...). The smallish samples could be a reason, but it can't be excluded that the recent population bottleneck and deteriorating conditions affected the size of wild Amur tigers after, say, 1970. As to contradictions on size. Slaght concluded that male Amur tigers averaged 389 pounds, whereas Miquelle said they averaged 430. Goodrich, when questioned by Guate, said Amur tigers have always been overrated, but Krechmar, on a Russian forum, said he had seen prints of large individuals. So where does that leave us? For now, I use 270 pounds for adult females and 420 for adult males, but it could be that the real averages are different. I'm not sure about the average of captive females, but captive adult males are about 470-490 pounds. I have two reliable reports about (non-obese) females exceeding 440 pounds. When comparing measurements, weights and photographs of wild Amur tigers with those of captive Amur tigers (males), three things stand out: - captive male Amur tigers nearly always are longer and taller than wild male Amur tigers; - captive male Amur tigers show much more individual variation than wild male Amur tigers, and - wild male Amur tigers (seem to) have, relatively, larger skulls. This regarding length and weight. In the skull department, things are not much different. As a result of the lack of reliable information, V. Mazak's averages (published in the third edition of his book 'Der Tiger' in 1983) can still be found in many publications. In the scan below, you'll find measurements of (wild and captive) male Amur tiger skulls in the table on the far right. Notice that the sample size is limited. Same, by the way, for Panthera tigris virgata:  *This image is copyright of its original author The longest skull V. Mazak saw belonged to a wild male Amur tiger shot in northeastern China. The greatest total length of that skull was 383 mm. Not so long ago, however, poster Betty posted a (scan of a) photograph of a skull of a 4-year old captive male Amur tiger with a greatest length of at least 420 mm. (...). Here's the owner of the skull. At 4 years of age, he was 336,5 cm. in total length (head and body 240 cm. and tail 96,5 cm.). Tigress 'Hanya' also is a large animal:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's a photograph of his skull:  *This image is copyright of its original author The tiger, from Howlett (UK), was just 4 years of age when he was shot. He still had some growing to do, that is. Based on the scale in the photograph, the greatest total length of the skull was about 431 mm. For zygomatic width and rostrum width, I got to 284 mm. and about 122 mm. respectively. Warsaw has serious doubts about measurements based on skull photographs with scales. I understand, but one has to distinguish between photographs taken by amateurs and photographs taken by professionals. The photographs in the article about the Koln zoo tiger were taken by a professional. This means that the measurements I found using the scale in the photograph should be quite close to the real measurements. In order to illustrate his point on photographs, scales and measurements, Warsaw added two photographs of skulls of (wild?) young adult male bears (Ursus arctos lasiotus). In the first photograph, using the scale, the greatest total skull length seems to be close to 450 mm. In reality, it was 415 mm. In the second photograph, using the scale in the photograph, the greatest total skull length seems to be close to 465 mm. In reality, it was 430 mm.:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Using the scale in the photograph, the tiger skull has a greatest total length of 431 mm. (estimated). In this respect, it roughly compared to the two bear skulls above. The information on the bear skulls (referring to the difference between the optical illusion created by the photograph and the real length) suggest that about 35 mm. has to be deducted from an estimate based on the scale. However. The photographs of the bear skulls, most probably, were not taken by a pro. The photograph of the tiger skull was. For this reason, the difference between illusion and reality will be more limited. A few days after the photograph was posted, Betty posted another photograph of a male Amur tiger skull. That photograph also has a scale:  *This image is copyright of its original author I used the scale to estimate to greatest total length, the zygomatic width and the rostrum width. The results were not very different from the real measurements (the skull was measured). Poster Betty got to a similar conclusion. As the photograph of the skull of the male Amur tiger from the Koln zoo compares to the photograph of the old male Amur tiger from the Hamamatsu zoo (both protographs were taken by professionals), it is likely they also compare in the department of estimates based on the scale in the photograph. I'm not saying the greatest total length of the Koln zoo tiger really is 431 mm., but the difference between the estimate and the real length most probably is limited. Less than 35 mm., to be more specific. When comparing the skull of the young adult captive male Amur tiger from the Koln zoo with those of the two male brown bears (also young adults), a few things stand out: - the 'snout' in the bear skulls is much longer; - the tiger skull is wider as well as more robust at the arches; - the rostrum of the tiger is wider and more robust; - the sagittal crest of the tiger is larger and more robust, and - the os frontalis in both bear skulls is wider and more robust. The teeth of the captive male Amur tiger are not seen in the photograph above, but the article has another photograph showing the teeth: they are very large. In the teeth department, male brown bears do not compare to male Amur tigers. The anterior part of the captive male Amur tiger skull seems more robust and heavier. In both bear skulls, on the other hand, the posterior part of the skull seems more robust. a2 - Brown bear In Amur brown bears (Ursus arctos lasiotus), the situation (datawise) isn't very different. Based on what was published, most assume that adult male bears, about as long as male Amur tigers (195-196 cm. in head and body measured 'over curves'), average about 580 pounds (Kucherenko). The average of females was impressive as well, but it later was decreased to 310-330 pounds by a poster with access to good information. I only have one weight of a large captive male from the San Diego zoo. Male 'Blackie' was 396 kg. (874 pounds):  *This image is copyright of its original author There is a bit more on individual variation. An average female could be 320 pounds, but females twice that weight have been shot in northeastern China more than once. It's quite likely that males are not much different in this respect. This means that the heaviest most probably exceed 1 000 pounds. According to G. Baryshnikov, the greatest total skull length of an average male bear in that part of Russia is about 407-408 mm. (zygomatic width just over 240 mm.), but Wiki says it's just over 380 mm. (zygomatic width about 230 mm.). Here's the Baryshnikov table:  *This image is copyright of its original author Individual variation in Amur brown bears is pronounced. In one direction? No, both ways. Here's a table posted by Warsaw a long time ago. It has information on the size of adult male brown bears in northeastern Siberia. I know they're different from Ursus arctos lasiotus (a bit longer, but not as heavy), but it shows the significant amount of individual variation:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's a table that has weights of two male brown bears of the lasiotus type. Not even close to 580 pounds, but one of the two was a young adult male. Notice that both were weighed in late autumn, when brown bears peak:  *This image is copyright of its original author a3 - Conclusions Male Amur tigers average 420 pounds and 195 cm. in head and body length (measured 'over curves'). Male brown bears, with a similar head and body length, average 580 pounds. Solid info? I don't know. Krechmar said there isn't much to choose between most males of both species. The department of exceptional individuals, however, only has bears. Is an average male Amur tiger inferior to an average male brown bear of the lasiotus type? In head and body length, male tigers and male brown bears are about similar. Bears, however, are taller and more robust (heavier). Here's a drawing of the skeleton of a brown bear of the lasiotus type:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's a drawing of the skeleton of an Amur tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's a photograph of the skeleton of a (captive) 600-pound male Amur tiger (Taxidermy.Net Forum):  *This image is copyright of its original author I've seen skeletons of both species next to each other. There's no question that skeletons of male brown bears are more robust than those of adult male Amur tigers. In the skull department, things are a bit different. Bears have a slightly longer and heavier skull, but skulls of male Amur tigers are not much shorter. They also have wider arches and larger canines. All in all, I'd say the differences between male tigers and male brown bears in the Russian Far East are quite limited. It also depends on the season. Bears are taller as well as significantly heavier in summer and autumn, but they lose up to 30% of their weight during hibernation. In early spring, they most probably are not heavier than an average male tiger. The strange thing is that tigers hunt bears in summer and autumn, when brown bears, weightwise, are at their peak. Fights between male tigers and male brown bears, however, seem to occur most often in winter and early spring. Non-hibernating brown bears ('Shatuns') often are desperate animals, prepared to attack anything. In early spring, most male bears are not much heavier than an average-sized male tiger. a4 - Predation on male brown bears - speculative remarks Are adult male brown bears in the Russian Far East out of the predatory reach of adult male Amur tigers? Weightwise, the answer is no. Some male brown bears are well below average. Also remember that male bears can lose up to 30% of their weight during hibernation. If they really average about 580 pounds in fall (assumption) and lose 30% in winter, the conclusion is that an average male bear is not heavier than an average male tiger in early spring. Does that mean that experienced male tigers are able to take an average male brown bear in spring or summer? Biologists never found any proof, but weightwise it can't be excluded. In my opinion, one has to distinguish between a hunt and a fight. Tigers prefer bears they can quickly kill with a bite to the skull. In a mail to a poster of AVA, Linda Kerley said that adult brown bears up to the size of the largest female are hunted. Two large females killed by male tigers were estimated at 150-200 kg. (331-442 pounds). My guess is that male brown bears are not, or only very seldom, hunted. Adult male brown bears are known for their disposition. In this respect, they definitely compare to male Amur tigers. This, however, doesn't mean that Amur tigers will never try. Adult male tigers have been killed by other male tigers in the Russian Far East. They can kill each other in a fight, but also ambush each other at times. Male tiger 'Uporny' was ambushed and killed by another male tiger in mid-winter (February). There were no signs of a fight. If a male tiger can kill another male tiger in an ambush, it's likely that a male bear similar in size to tiger 'Uporny' also can be ambushed. There is a difference between a hunt and a fight. According to those interviewed by Vaillant, male Amur tigers are prepared to fight a bear of similar size. If the tiger is victorious, however, the bear isn't always eaten. A hunt is about food. A fight is about something else. According to Russian biologists, a male brown bear victorious in a fight with a male Amur tiger always consumes his opponent. Wild Amur tigers seem to be quite uniform in size. In wild male brown bears, however, individual variation is pronounced. Some male bears are well below average, whereas others are very large. Based on what I saw and heard from trainers, I'd say that size often affects the outcome of interactions between adult males of different species. My guess is that many contradictions in the department of tigers and bears could be a result of the significant amount of individual variation in male brown bears. Variation is also seen in individuals (as a result of hibernation, nearly all brown bears in the Russian Far East are subject to outspoken fluctuations in weight). There could be other reasons. in 2015, 'A comparison of food habits and prey preference of Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica, Temminck 1884) at three sites in the Russian Far East' was published. Researchers said that bears constituted " ... a relatively large portion of tiger diet, particularly during the snow-free period ... " (pp. 12). That conclusion ran counter to previous assertions that " ... the risk of injury was too high for tigers to regurlarly predate bears ... " (pp. 12). Bearpredationwise, the differences between the three sites were quite striking. One wonders why that is. Here's a few ideas. - Maybe tigers in the southwestern part of Primorye are a bit larger than those in the north? Manchuria was known for the size of its tigers in the recent past. - Maybe brown bears in the southwestern part of Primorye are a bit smaller than those in the north? - Maybe there is a 'bear culture' in the southwestern part of Primorye. If tigers hunt bears that often, chances are tiger cubs learn about bears at an early age. - Maybe the vegetation in Manchuria and the southwestern part of Primorye is more dense than in the north. If so, the cover would offer tigers more opportunities to hunt bears, especially in summer. - Maybe the southwestern part of Primorye is a hotspot for female brown bears with cubs in spring and summer? - Maybe posters (and researchers) are a bit naive on tigers and bears in the Russian Far East. In his book published in 1993, V. Jankowski wrote the very large tiger shot in the summer of 1943 near the Sungari river had feasted on a bear of which only the head and part of a leg were found. Jankowski, as Warsaw said, didn't say anything about a fight and the size of the bear in his book. In his letter to V. Mazak, however, he wrote that the tiger had killed a very large old male brown bear a few days before he was shot. Why the difference between the letter and the book? Maybe he regarded V. Mazak as a layman on bears and tigers in the Russian Far East. Maybe Jankowski, for this reason, decided to add a few details on the bear? I don't know, but his book suggests (the bear doesn't feature in his story on the Sungari river tiger) that Jankowski wasn't surprised at what he found. This should tell you something about his view on tigers and brown bears, as he was very experienced. As to the size of the bear killed by the Sungari river tiger. According to Baikov, large tigers are able to ambush bears almost their own size. This remark was confirmed by recent observations of male tigers occasionally hunting large female brown bears (estimated at 331-442 pounds). Assuming that male Amur tigers were heavier in this day (460-480 pounds), bears of 400-450 pounds could have been included occasionally. It's likely that an experienced male tiger of exceptional size like the Sungari river tiger could have ambushed a 'large' brown bear. If he really was somewhere between 660 and 770 pounds (after consuming the brown bear), an average-sized male brown bear (580 pounds) would have been within reach. According to Bromlej, tigers are able to ambush a heavier bear. What I'm saying is nothing can be excluded. This regarding most male tigers and male bears. Large male bears, however, are another story. According to Pikunov, large male brown bears definitely are not on the menu. All of those in the know (referring to Russian biologists) agreed. Vaillant, much later, confirmed: "... the only force a male (Amur tiger) will typically submit to is a stronger tiger or, occasionally, a large brown bear ... " ('The Tiger', 2010, pp. 140). The answer to the question as to what a 'large' male is, is difficult to answer. Assuming an average male is 580 pounds (Kucherenko), any bear over 600 pounds is large. A few months ago, photographs of a male bear of at least 800 pounds were published on the internet (see below). Although one wouldn't fancy the chances of a male tiger in a fight with a 'large' male brown bear, young adult male tigers in particular apparently are not afraid to fight them. I thought it was Rukovsky who found the remains of a male tiger killed by a 'very large' male brown bear. In spite of the difference in size, the fight had been prolonged. The skull indicated that the tiger had been a young adult (about about 4 years of age). a5 - Brown bear density and vegetation in the Russian Far East In order to be able to get to an opinion on some of the ideas discussed above, I decided to add a bit of information on brown bear density and vegetation. The info on the bear density is old, but the map on vegetation is quite recent. - Brown bear distribution and density:  *This image is copyright of its original author Although the number of bears has diminished in the last decade (as a result of hunting), Primorye still has many thousands of bears. In the southwestern part, the density is lower than in the east and north. The 'bear culture' in the southwestern part, if there is one, is therefore not a result of a high bear density. This means that other factor have to be considered. - Vegetation:  *This image is copyright of its original author The map says that a large part of the southwest is covered with broad-leaved Far East forest. In the northern and eastern part of Primorye, however, mountain taiga is common. It's very likely that broad-leaved forests offer a professional hunter more cover. My guess is that broad-leaved forests, foodwise, would be more interesting for bears as well. a6 - Photographs Brown bear (Ursus arctos lasiotus) An Amur brown bear is also known as a 'horse bear' because of its long limbs. They're taller at the shoulder than a wild male Amur tiger. Here's an average-sized wild male. Watch the length of the skull and the legs:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's a large and very heavy wild male bear. Based on the size of the tigress in the next photograph, he could have been about 800 pounds:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's the tigress he extorted:  *This image is copyright of its original author Warsaw said the male brown bear was large, but old. He added this picture of a large male bear in his prime:  *This image is copyright of its original author Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) Small male killed in a fight with another tiger. Most posters thought it wasn't an adult male:  *This image is copyright of its original author Wild male tiger of about average size. This tiger died as a result of a disease. Just before he perished, he fought and killed a large wild boar:  *This image is copyright of its original author Large-skulled wild male tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author Very large male tiger. In his letter to V. Mazak, V. Jankowski said this tiger, shot near the Sungari river in 1943 in northeastern China, was at least 300 kg. In his book, he said it was 350 kg. (771 pounds). That was after he had consumed a brown bear, of which only the skull and part of a leg remained. Again notice the size of the skull:  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
.jpg/440px-Tiger_and_bear%2C_Arsenev_Regional_History_Museum_(Vladivostok%2C_2004).jpg)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| Spalea, 104 Guest(s) |