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

[peter]

(05-11-2015, 08:40 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I agree that Dr Vratislav Mazák is, by far, the best source for skull size (he said that in his document of 1981), but about weight and length, I think his data is outdated and mixed.

The principal problem is that he don't quoted many of his sources. I don't know if in his book "Der Tiger" he do it, but in the document of 1981, he did not. Other thing is that he mixed captive with wild specimens, which creates confusion about the origin of many of his weights and length. Finally, the modern studies on Bengal and Amur tigers have new figures that most be used instead of those from him.

From my part, in the case of the Amur tiger, the data from the documents of the Siberian Tiger Project, together with the data from The Amur Tiger Programme (summarized in my tables) are the most reliable. On the Bengal tiger side, the data from modern literature most change the ridiculous top figure of 258 kg created by the bad conversion of Mazák for the record of Hewett (570 lb = 259 kg in the best approximation). That is why I think that the sizes quoted by Dr Karanth in 2003-2013, despite the fact that they don't came from the sources that he quotes, are more accurate than those of Mazák.

For the other subspecies, Mazák is among our few sources, but in the case of the Javanese and Balinese tigers, I am completely disagree with him, as the few available specimens suggest larger weights than those "estimated" by him, remember that only 1 weight is known for a Javanese male tiger and there is not a single figure available for the Bali population.

 

Some conclusions on Mazak:

- He's the first who collected reliable information on tigers in a book interesting for the general public, in this way opening a door for many.
- He's the first who tried to get to a kind of overview regarding the general size of different subspecies.

I agree he was not accurate regarding the size of Amur tigers as a result of mixing wild with captive, but his sample was so small he perhaps felt he had no other option. His opinion on the size of Amur tigers was based on information he got from prime (Russian) sources. They said wild male Amur tigers ranged between 170-270 kg. a century ago. Mazak also was the one who found and contacted one of Jankowski's sons and the one who published the photograph of the immense tiger shot in 1943 by Jankowski's sons, thus proving some freaks did get to a great size in the recent past.

I also agree Mazak was a bit tentative regarding the size of Indonesian tigers, but one has to remember there wasn't a lot available back then. My guess is he used skulls to get to an assessment. Java tigers were a bit larger than those on Sumatra and there's no question Bali tigers were smaller than both. He could have started on the size of freak specimens in his book, but a zoologist has to inform the public on the average size of a subspecies. It is a fact Indonesian tigers are smaller than mainland tigers. How much smaller is anybody's guess. 

Maybe the great book of the Sunquist's is more informative, but one has to remember it is based on recent information. In spite of that advantage, they couldn't resist the temptation to quote from Heptner and Sludski. They, like Mazak, referred to Barclay and Baikov and their giant tigers. Mazak was severely critisized for using the information of Baikov and Barclay, but Heptner and Sludskij were not. Neither were the Sunquists (...). Different standards, so it seems. 

Baikov, by the way, wasn't dismissed by all. His 560-pound male shot close to the Korean border still stands. The other large tigers he mentioned, however, were classified as 'unreliable'. I really don't know what to make of it. The only thing I know is information on size in most books is a mess and it won't change until someone is prepared to invest a lot of time.

The first thing we need to do is measure skulls in museums. Large samples. After that, everything considered reliable has to be reviewed. Than new tables have to be made with distinctions between immature, young adult and mature. After a few centuries of science, it shouldn't be a big ask.

I had a go at three subspecies and noticed the range in size in two of the three was remarkable (the Bali sample was too small to get to distinctions). I also noticed significant differences in size between immatures, young adults and mature animals. My guess is I will see a similar result in other subspecies. Same for the other roaring cats. If I use the results of the tables I constructed to get to an assessment on what I read in many books, the conclusion is Mazak, in spite of the problems discussed, is the one who got close. My guess is the reason is he is the only one who tried to get to a new database. Reply