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

[peter]

(09-23-2016, 08:04 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: A few words:

1. @altaican, welcome to the forum. Great found about the man-eater tiger.

2. @tigerluver, excellent document, I am going to read it right now. It seems very interesting.

3. @peter, like always I support your posts, they are full of truth. However, I still support my point on Dr Sunquist, as I believe, based in his description to me, that his tigers were accurately measured, and taking in count that he don't stretched, nor pressed the tape on his measurements, we can state that the Nepalese tiger measurements are just like the measurements between pegs of any other tiger. The estimation of Kitchener and Yamaguchi, on the Nepalese tiger weights, and particularly the Sauraha male, are ridiculous and without any base, as they ignore the data of Dr Sunquist, Dr Smith and Dr Dinerstein, which actually weighed those tigers and knew the actual food intake and physical condition of each tiger.

4. On this new man-eater tiger, it is the same that the one posted by @sanjay, check the stripes of the right side. A "total" length of 9 ft (274 cm) seems an estimation, but is not out of the possibility, specially if the animal had a short tail. Now, the weight of 300 kg is certainly a misquote or a mistake, that tiger do not weight that. However, the weight of 235 kg seems way more reliable for such an specimen, and should be the real one. We need more verification of it, before to add it to my list, which now summarize 16 males and 28 females from the Indian subcontinent (India and Nepal), only from modern records.

Agreed on all points, Guate. In this post, a bit more on methods to conclude the debate we started half a year ago.


1 - THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE METHOD USED BY SUNQUIST AND A MEASUREMENT TAKEN 'BETWEEN PEGS'

As to Sunquist and his mails on the method he used in Nepal. It's true he was clear in his mails. It's also true the result of a measurement taken in the way he described would be very close to the result of a measurement taken 'between pegs'. I deducted a few inches, because I used his method and the method described in my post myself on a large captive male Amur tiger. This tiger was 298 cm. in total length 'between pegs' and 2-3 inches longer when I used the method described by Sunquist.

The conclusion is there is a slight difference between both methods. Measuring a big cat in a straight line with the tape touching (or pressed to) the body at some places (method a) is different from measuring the distance between the markers in a straight line when the cat is removed (method b). The difference between both methods is a result of angles. The moment they are added (like when you press the tape to the body at some places), straight lines start to increase in length. For this reason, method a will produce more inches than method b.

The difference between both methods was 2-3 inches in the tiger mentioned above. I used 3-4 inches in my posts in order to prevent a debate, but would agree the real difference is somewhat less. Based on this test, I'd say the Sauraha tiger most probably was very close to ten feet straight.


2 - THE METHOD USED TO MEASURE TIGERS IN RUSSIA (Miquelle), INDIA (U. Karanth) AND NEPAL (Sunquist) 

- The problem with the method used today is that some applied it in the way Hewett did, whereas others, like Sunquist, did not. One could say Miquelle and his team measured tigers 'over curves', whereas Sunquist and his team measured tigers 'between pegs'. Almost 'between pegs'. This means a 9.8 male tiger measured by Miquelle in Russia would be shorter than a 9.8 male tiger measured by Sunquist in Nepal. But how much shorter? Nobody knows. The result is confusion. One point deducted.  

- Karanth wrote biologists today all use the same method (...). This means tigers in Nepal (Sunquist), India (Karanth) and Russia (Miquelle), at least in theory, should be measured in the same way. We, however, just established (see above) they were not. At least, not in Nepal (Sunquist) and Russia (Miquelle). More confusion and another point deducted.

- As to Karanth. The question is in what way he applied the 'standard' method. Karanth wrote he measured tigers 'over curves', but did he? Sunquist was in southwestern India when tigers were measured. Did he see anything strange? The answer is no he didn't. Are we to conclude tigers in southwestern India were measured in the same way as in Nepal then? Yes, says Sunquist in an indirect way. No, wrote Karanth in his book. So what should we conclude? I don't know. The result is more confusion and another point deducted.

- Another question is how long tigers in India, Nepal and Russia are when they would have been measured 'between pegs'. The answer is we don't know. Based on what I read, Nepal tigers could be a bit longer than those in India and Russia, but this only an assumption. Another point gone.

- As to sample size, selection and weight. One is that all samples were too small to get to a conclusion. Two is the Nepal sample had at least one male that wasn't fully adult. The Amur sample had more than one. Three is questions about weight were not answered. Miquelle said wild male Amur tigers averaged 430 pounds, but the WCS-table said well below 400 would be closer to the mark. Four is we don't know if the tigers weighed in Russia were adjusted. I'm not sure, but my guess is Amur tigers were not. Nepal tigers were. Sunquist wrote they averaged 520 pounds unadjusted and 488 adjusted. But Kitchener and Yamaguchi didn't believe one word of it. The male Nagarahole tigers also were severely adjusted. Cooch Behar and Assam male tigers described as 'gorged' were just over 60 pounds heavier than similar-sized male tigers that were not, but Nagarahole male tigers apparently were not. We also don't know if they really were gorged or not. Same for Nepal tigers. I really don't know what to make of it. Two more points gone, as they had plenty of time to do it right.     

- To conclude. Most of those interested in big cat morphology got involved in severe debates after peer-reviewed with measurements were published. The reason is unclear information. Preference had nothing to do with it, that is.

- Some years ago, Slaught had a go at historical records of wild Amur tigers. Only very few of them survived the test. The information published by his peers wasn't included. A pity.       


3 - INFORMATION ABOUT THE SIZE OF WILD TIGERS  

Every now and then, one reads a report that has a bit of information about the length or weight of a wild tiger. A closer investigation nearly always results in confusion. At times, the weight was estimated. Sometimes the tiger was weighed, but adjusted later and sometimes it was not. One also reads reports about a 9 foot tiger well exceeding 500 or 600 pounds, only to find out later it wasn't 9 feet. Or 500 pounds. 

To keep it short. Very often, I don't know what to make of it. This is the reason I decided to call it a day many years ago. The only thing I know is wild male tigers in Nepal and northern and southwestern India are large animals, possibly a bit heavier than a century ago. Wild male Amur tigers seem to be smaller than a century ago, but experienced Russian tiger biologists suggested large individuals are still there. According to them, they are as large as the largest back then (550-650 pounds).  

Another thing I know is the differences between age-classes are pronounced. They were in leopards (referring to the table about leopards in a region in South Africa) and my guess is it isn't any different in lions, tigers and jaguars. Skulls from two tiger subspecies showed remarkable differences between young adults, mature animals and old animals.                        


4 - THE ADVANTAGE OF MEASUREMENTS TAKEN 'BETWEEN PEGS'

It takes a lot of skill to measure a big cat 'over curves'. This means that those using this method are bound to do it in slightly different ways. Even if only one is measuring a cat in this way more than once, the outcome is different every time. I know, because I tried.

If a big cat is measured 'between pegs' by different people, the results, however, are very similar time and again. The reason is this method is easy to understand and easy to apply. Furthermore, the result reflects the true length of a cat. Another advantage is the results of measurements taken in this way can be compared.   

Some prefer curve measurements over straight line measurements. The reason is they think the last method doesn't do justice to the real size of a big cat. I disagree. If you measure head and body length and total length and add head length, head width, rostrum width, upper canine length, neck girth, chest girth, upper arm girth, lower arm girth, pad width and the girth of the upper part of the hindleg, a very clear picture will emerge. After the measurements have been taken, the cat has to be weighed with reliable (tested) scales. 


5 - KITCHENER AND YAMAGUCHI     

I rewrote part of my last long post. The criticism on Kitchener and Yamaguchi regarding the way they sidelined the weight of the Sauraha tiger is justified, but once will do. Furthermore, Kitchener kindly allowed Tigerluver to post the link to the new (and very interesting) article.

As to the size of lions and tigers. I agree lions are a bit larger at the level of species. Tigers, however, show more variation at the level of subspecies. What we have (reliable averages based on decent samples) says Himalayan tigers are the largest wild big cats today.      

Although I agree there is not enough information on the size of lions to get to firm statements, I doubt if lions in hotspots would produce averages comparable to those in northern India and Nepal. Ngorogoro lions could outweigh tigers in some parts of India, but Assam and Kazirangha tigers seem to be as big, if not more so, and those in northern India and Nepal are unsurpassed. As to length. Male lions in Kruger, Kalahari and Etosha could average 8.10-9.2 in total length in a straight line, whereas tigers in most parts of India could average 9.0-9.4. Male tigers in northern India and Nepal are a bit longer. In freak animals, the difference is more outspoken. The longest male lions max out at 9.9-10.0, possibly a bit more, whereas the longest Indian tigers reached 10.5-10.7. The Sungari River tiger (shot in Manchuria and 11.6 'over curves') could have been 10.10 in total length in a straight line.

In captive big cats, the differences are more limited. The longest (captive) male lion measured by Dr. P. van Bree was 216 cm. in head and body and just over 300 cm. in total length (weight 280 kg.). I have more records of captive male lions exceeding 200 cm. in head and body length.          

Wild lions don't show pronounced regional differences in size. Large individuals can be found everywhere. This observation is confirmed in skulls. The longest skull I measured (408,00 mm. in greatest total length) belonged to a lion captured in what's now Ethiopia a century ago. The biggest skull I saw, however, belonged to a lion shot in Congo before the last war. A well-informed biologist from Belgium told Congo lions were anything but small in those days. Reply