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)
|
 (10-12-2022, 02:28 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Giant Amur tiger from the Harbin breeding center. GRIZZLY Sorry about the (very) late reply. I was busy. a - About the captive 442,4 kg Amur tiger The tiger was discussed in post 2,578 (paragraph VI-2f) and in post 2,579 (paragraphs VII-5 and VII-7). Although mentioned in the table (VII-7, tiger 82), the tiger was left out of the equasion (referring to the table with averages). The reason is the tiger was no less than 122,4 kg (272 pounds) heavier than the second heaviest male. The table, in fact, shows two males were tied for second. At 320 kg (707 pounds) each, they would still need an additional adult wild Amur tigress of average size in order to get even close to the 442,4 kg giant (...). I immediately admit the decision to leave the 442,4 kg giant out of the table with averages was arbitrary. That, however, doesn't mean I doubt the weight of the tiger. I know he was weighed, but at his size one wants to know a bit more. With 'a bit more', I mean body measurements (total length, head-, neck-, chest- and waist circumference, upper- and fore-arm, heel width), skull measurements and a few photographs showing the tiger close to another large male. b - Personal experience A few decades ago, I had the opportunity to measure and weigh 3 adult male Amur tigers and 3 adult male lions. The Amur tigers were 279, 287 and 298,5 cm in total length measured in a straight line. The longest of these 3 was 185,5 kg. The others were a bit heavier. One of them, 'Amur', was 211 kg when he was moved to a safari park a few years later. The tigers were part of a French curcus. The act had 8 Amur tigers (4 males and 4 females). During a show, one of the males killed his trainer. The tiger was shot. After the accident, nobody was willing to work with them anymore. Their cage wagon was set apart and the tigers were all but completely neglected for a period of about 7 weeks. I measured them just after they had arrived in the Netherlands, when they were severely weakened by the ordeal. In spite of that, the males were still impressive. Compared to the male lions I measured that same day, they were longer, taller and more muscular (referring to the limbs and shoulders in particular). The lions, by the way, were as impressive. Although usually (quite) a bit shorter than captive male Amur tigers, captive male lions often have larger chests and bigger heads. These large chests, however, do not seem to result in more weight. The correlation between chest circumference and weight seems to be different in captive male lions and tigers. One could say captive male lions have relatively large chests for their weight and be close. I can't tell you a lot about the weights of the 3 male Amur tigers and the 3 male lions. The reason is the first male tiger woke up when we put him on the scale out in the open (...). We were able to bring him back to the cage, but decided agains weighing the others (too risky). We did, however, move all of them to and from the cages on the same stretcher and thought they they more or less compared. The heaviest could have been the male that was weighed at Schiphol Airport a few years later. The point I want to make is an adult male lion or tiger ranging between, say, 380-470 pounds (172,36-213,19 kg) is an impressive animal by any standard. Heavier animals are not uncommon, but a non-obese captive big cat exceeding 600 pounds (272,16 kg) is exceptional. Both lions and tigers are able to get to that weight, but male tigers of large subspecies, and Amur tigers in particular, do it more often. Our member 'Betty' has good contacts in China as well as an extended database. About a year ago, she told me at least 3 males in Chinese facilities exceed 400 kg. Not one of them is obese. These males are kept for breeding purposes. I take Betty very serious, but would appreciate a bit more than just a report. c - Photographs of large captive Amur tigers This paragraph has 10 photographs of large Amur tigers. The aim is to show you how a large tiger compares to a human. With 'large', I mean tigers (referring to tigers c4, c6, c7, c8 and c10) ranging between 260-300 kg (596-663 pounds). This is needed in order to get to a mental image of a tiger considerably heavier. Remember reports about captive Amur tigers reaching or even exceeding 400 kg (883 pounds) are not a result of hearsay. These tigers are very real. I have no information about the other 5 tigers (c1, c2, c3, c5 and c9), but my guess is they more or less compare with the others. Remember a tiger approaching 300 kg is able to reach 8-9 feet while standing on his hind legs. One has to get close to really appreciate the size of a large tiger. c1 - This photograph was posted in the days of AVA. The legs in particular are striking:  *This image is copyright of its original author c2 - This photograph was also posted in the days of AVA. Watch the width of the skull and the rostrum:  *This image is copyright of its original author c3 - Another large male Amur tiger with a large and robust head:  *This image is copyright of its original author c4 - This is tiger 'Amur' from the Duisburg Zoo (Germany). According to V. Mazak (1983, pp. 180, 186-187), this tiger was born in the Rotterdam Zoo ('Blijdorp') in 1965. His parents were captured in Russia (Ussuri region). At age 5,5, he was 110 cm at the shoulders (standing). The other measurements (head length 50 cm, total length 320 cm 'between pegs' and upper canines 9 cm) show it was a very large animal. In his prime, 'Amur' was estimated at 280-300 kg (618-663 pounds):  *This image is copyright of its original author c5 - A typical male Amur tiger, but longer, taller and more robust:  *This image is copyright of its original author c6 - This, I think, is 'Gamin'. If not, it's 'Junior'. They were mentioned in the table in post 2,579 (paragraph VII.7). Both stood 110-112 cm at the shoulder and both were 276-277 kg (609-611 pounds) in their prime. About as tall and heavy as the Duisburg Zoo tiger (see c4):  *This image is copyright of its original author c7 - This is 'Jelzin' just before he was transported to Braunschweig (Germany). The one who sedated and transported the tiger (standing in front of the cage, I think) said he was 270 kg (596 pounds) at age 2,5 (...). As a result of his age, tiger 'Jelzin' wasn't as robust as some of the other males in this paragraph, but he was long and in tigers length often equals weight. In wild Indian tigers, about a century ago, every inch in (total) length resulted in 7 additional pounds. It's quite likely 'Jelzin' would have been (significantly) heavier at age 4 or 5. In captivity (referring to recent information collected in Chinese facilities), male Amur tigers, weightwise, peak at that age. Although their neck-, and, most probably, their skull circumference continues to increase, they start to lose weight after reaching 6-7 years of age. Judging from the photographs, videos and documentaries I saw, wild Amur tigers, although most probably a bit shorter than their captive relatives, seem more robust, especially in the upper body. Their head seems to be relatively larger as well. The main reason why captive male Amur tigers lose weight when they reach adulthood is they do not have the opportunity to hunt and develop their muscles, bones and mind. There's no need for a large body and a truly adult soul, that is. But the blueprint is still there and it shows in adolescents and young adults in particular. Today, mainly as a result of smallish reserves and severe competition (referring to India), wild males with a territory only seldom reach 12 years of age, but a century ago, when one could still walk for weeks in pristine forests without seeing a soul (in southern India in particular), tigers had much more space and more opportunities to learn, to adapt and to grow old. I read many stories about tigers well exceeding 15 years of age. When shot, most of them were in excellent condition. The Pipal Pani Tiger ('Man-eaters of Kumaon', Jim Corbett) is an example, but there are more stories about old tigers shot in India (and Russia) a century ago. Anyhow. Watch and admire the blueprint of a true apex predator at age 2,5:  *This image is copyright of its original author c8 - In his best years, tiger 'Igor' (Odense Zoo, Denmark) was tall and bulky. As can be seen below, he also had a large and robust head. After he reached 10 years of age, he started struggling with his health. When treated for tooth problems, 'Igor' was weighed. It was the only time he was weighed. Although he had lost quite a bit of weight by then, he still tipped the scale at 230 kg. His weight in his prime is anybody's guess, but the photographs I have suggest he could have compared to the tigers mentioned above:  *This image is copyright of its original author c9 - This photograph could have been posted by our member 'Amnon'. Some years ago, he visited quite a few zoos and facilities in the Czech republic and Slovakia and often posted about his trips. In his opinion, Amur tigers in Slovak facilities were larger. This could have been one of them:  *This image is copyright of its original author c10 - This is 'Altai' of the Köln Zoo (Germany). He could (not sure) have been related to 'Gamin' (see c6), whereas tigress 'Hanya', a few years older, was from a French zoo. The tigress was large, but 'Altai', in spite of his age, was exceptional. In 2012, 'Altai' killed his keeper. He was shot by the director of the zoo and later featured in a paper. He's one of the few captive male Amur tigers that was measured. His total length was 336.5 cm (HB 240, tail 96,5) and the photographs of his skull suggest the greatest total length could have been over 430 mm. Even allowing for the distortion as a result of the angle, chances are his skull would still top the lists. Unfortunately, he wasn't weighed. Those who saw him thought he could have ranged between 250-280 kg. When he was shot, 'Altai' was a young adult. He still had a bit of growing ahead of him, that is. This is confirmed by the skull measurements. At about 430 mm in greatest total length, the zygomatic width was 280 mm. At that length, it should have been closer to 300 mm. The zygomatic width of the skull of an old male that lived in a Japanse zoo, for comparison, was 284 mm, but his skull was about 50 mm shorter (zygomatic width is related to age). As can be seen on the photograph below, 'Altai', at 3-4 years of age only, was a large and robust animal. The skull in particular is striking:  *This image is copyright of its original author 4 - Conclusions A year ago, in this thread (post 2,579), I posted a number of tables with information about the size of captive Amur tigers. It took me a long time to get to a result, because a lot of information posted on the internet is unreliable. The information I selected suggests captive male Amur tigers (referring to Amur tigers kept in zoos and facilities in Japan, China, Russia, Europe, the USA and South Africa) average 303,1 cm (just over 9.11) in total length measured 'between pegs' (range 279,0-336,5/n=14) and 224,2 kg (range 142,9-320/n=61), whereas females average 255,6 cm (range 223,0-276,5/n=7) and 138,1 kg (range 102,5-178,0/n=27). The average weight of males is based on a large sample (n=61). Remember almost a third of the males used for sample was well below 200 kg (442 pounds). The sample also included quite a few males past their prime. If the table would have been based on males in their prime only, the average weight would have been well over 224,2 kg (495 pounds). Most of those in the know (trainers, keepers, zoo directors and biologists) think an average captive male Amur tiger is 240-260 kg (540-575 pounds) in his best years. Males exceeding 600 pounds (272,16 kg) are uncommon, but every now and then a male exceeds that mark. Remember I'm referring to tigers in good shape, not obese tigers. Also remember only few adult male Amur tigers are ever weighed in their prime. Based on the tables in post 2,579, one could conclude the 'normal' maxima of captive male Amur tigers are 305-320 cm in total length measured 'between pegs', 104-106 cm at the shoulder and 270-290 kg. Exceptional males can reach 336,5 cm, 110-112 cm at the shoulder and 300-320 kg. At that size, the head length can be 50 cm (referring to tigers 10 and 49 in the table in post 2,579). The average greatest total skull length of captive male Amur tigers (referring to the tables in post 2,579) is 357,5 mm (range 332,5-380,0/n=16), but my guess is V. Mazak, who wrote male Amur tigers average 367,10 mm in greatest total length ('Der Tiger', 1983, pp. 191), could be right. The only big cat exceeding this average is the Kruger lion. In 'Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity', 2009, Table 4.1), Yamaguchi, one of the four authors, says males average 380 mm (n=15), whereas Indian male tigers average 351 mm (n=37). The problem with most averages is they're based on smallish samples used time and again. I've visited many natural history museums and also saw a lot of skulls in private collections. In spite of that, it took me a long time to find even 10 skulls of captive adult male Amur tigers. Skulls of wild Amur tigers are even more elusive. You can find a few measurements of skulls of wild Amur tigers in V. Mazak's 'Notes on the Siberian long-haired tiger (Panthera tigris altaica, Temminck, 1844)', that was published in 1967 (pp. 554-559), in 'On the sexual dimorphism in the skull of the tiger (Panthera tigris)', J.H. Mazak, 2004 and in a few other books and publications, but that's it. What is needed, is a book that has detailed information (including photographs) about skulls of wild and captive big cats. I'm not referring to a book that offers information at the level of averages only, but to a book in which every skull is discussed. It's the only way to find, and explain, the differences between species and subspecies. It's also the most effective way to describe the differences between male and female skulls and the effects of age and captivity. The question, regarding skulls of captive big cats, is if there is a difference between head length and greatest skull length. This is needed in order to get to guesstimates. The answer is we don't know. One thing we know is there is a lot of individual variation. A few examples. The greatest total skull length (GTL) of 'Amur' (Prague zoo), who died at age 11,5, is 371 mm. The head length of this tiger was 45 cm. The head length of his son 'Benjamin' was 42 cm. The greatest total skull length of this male, however, is 377 mm. The head length of the Duisburg zoo tiger was 50 cm. Can we use the info about 'Amur' and his son 'Benjamin' to get to a few deductions? I don't know. It's likely the skull of the Duisburg zoo tiger is over 400 mm in greatest total length, but this is an assumption only. We also don't know if there are differences in this respect (head length and greatest total skull length) between wild and captive big cats. We do know the longest skull V. Mazak ('Der Tiger', 1983, pp. 191-193) measured was 383 mm (CBL 342 mm/ZW 268 mm). The skull was from an old male from Heilongjiang (northeastern China). Another skull, measured by Baikov and also from that region, allegedly was 16 inches in total length (406,40 mm). V. Mazak (1983, pp 193-194) thought the photograph was real. He added skulls of this size have to be expected when tigers reach an exceptional size. And what about the skulls of the tigers shot over a century ago in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his guests? Some of them ranged between 15 and 16 inches (381,0-406,4 mm). The answer, again, is we don't know. I do know there's usually a difference between a measurement taken by a hunter (or naturalist) and a measurement taken by a biologist or someone who measured a lot of big cat skulls. In a large skull, the difference can be as much as 6-7 mm (referring to my experience). My guess (referring to skulls of tigers shot in what used to be British India) is we'll never know. I do know hunters like memories. Most exceptional skull are in private collections and most owners avoid publicity. Are skulls of lions, as many think, really longer than skulls of large wild tigers in Russia, northeastern China, Nepal, northern India and, in particular, northeastern India? Based on what I read, heard and saw, I'd say the answer is affirmative. Time and again, I noticed it's easier to find a 14-inch lion skull than a 14-inch tiger skull. At the level of individual skulls, however, things are more complicated. Skulls of large male tigers, lengthwise, (almost) compare to skulls of large male lions and my guess, for now, is wild tigers of large subspecies could have (relatively) wider (referring to the arches and the rostrum), and perhaps, heavier skulls. In order to get to a solid conclusion, we need detailed information about skulls of wild tigers in particular. The problem is only few skulls were measured a century ago. In this respect, unfortunately, the situation didn't change a lot in the last century. Returning to captive Amur tigers. There is, like I said, reliable information about Amur tigers well exceeding 320 kg (up to 442,4 kg) in Chinese facilities. The problem is the details needed to get to a conclusion (body and skull measurements as well as photographs) are not available. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 38 Guest(s) |